[Discussion] Roleplay/Newspaper Amendment

My two cents worth on an elected or appointed editor:

Elected gets my vote. The newspaper should be independent of the government. If anyone who believes the editor is unconstitutionally exceeding their authority can file suit against the editor.

I agree. Things along the lines of no recruiting spam would be good.

However, once again. If you come up with the "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television," because we are dealing with humans, it is inevitable that list will grow based on fictitious politically correct grounds and butthurt. That is a really bad precedent to set.

The other problem is that vague undefined terms like "respectful," "hurtful" and "hate speech" are going to lead to problems like the one that lead to this court case.

So there is a fine line in there that is going to be difficult to find.

Perhaps something along the lines of free speech shall carry extreme weight when making subjective decisions about content.

 

I think having one of the maps editable by anybody is a bad idea, unless I misread the post saying that would be the case.

 

All land exchanges would have to be agreed upon by all parties involved. If someone changes the map without such agreements, then the map will just be reverted back prior to the change.

 

Maybe would should just take a vote on whether or not to have a CE elected or not...

 

We are actually discussing the merits of having an editor for the regional paper and if so, how to select one and what the duties will be.

 

So where do we all stand currently? CP and myself are in favor of a democratic system, whereas drasnia, acario, and Quebec are for an appointment. Army's on the other hand armus seems to be more undecided. Is this accurate? Am I missing anybody or misinterpreting anything?

Assuming that I am correct, what are your main reasons for disagreeing with electing a CE? Why should myself and CP be in favor of appointing the position?

It is my firm belief that the best chance we have at a competent, unilaterally fair CE is by allowing the legislature to choose the best man for the job and then hold that person accountable.

 

Afforess summed up everything quite nicely. My biggest concern about an elected CE is the potential for a conflict of interest. In the newspaper, there are articles about an ongoing conflict between FASTERCAT and Armus. If one of them, or one of their allies, ends up with the position then they could easily use their position for the purposes of bullying and intimidating while editing and censoring articles that aren't favorable to them. They could also create rules that would make it easier for themselves. It would create an unfair advantage and that's why I'm against having the CE elected. It has a strong potential for the CE to become biased and corrupt. Not saying that either of those two would become corrupt and biased, but it's an example of what could happen with an elected CE.

The only way I could support an elected CE is if there are firm rules in place that states that those who are actively engaged in roleplay and their supporters can't run for the position.

The only way for us to have a fair and unbiased CE is for the delegate to choose from a pool of qualified candidates or if the delegate appoints a new CE every 90 days.

 

I hadn't considered some of the things Afforess mentioned. After some carful consideration, I've decided an appointed CE would probably be for the best.

 

Whether we end up with an elected or appointed CE, hopefully appointed, one requirement is that they should be an active player. Someone who can reliably be counted on to check the newspaper at least once a day. Nobody likes waiting for a long period of time for their article to be submitted and having an inactive newspaper because of an inactive editor isn't good for anyone.

 

While I do see the merits to your suggestion and agree that it would help in eliminating bias, having multiple elections would be a hassle and we'd need to make sure that we would have a fair representation. This would be one person who was friendly to FC and another was friendly to Armus as they're major contributors to the newspaper.

This is why I believe that the best course of action would be for the delegate to appoint an editor. Perhaps qualified candidates could announce their candidacy to the delegate and the delegate chooses the best one or two for the editor position. The delegate could set up a questionnaire for them to fill out. Questions could include:

Their roleplay experience
Who their allies and friends are in the region (to make sure there's no potential for bias)
How active they are

And of course other questions that the delegate sees fit. This system would still allow the people to submit their candidacy, but ultimately it's the delegate who chooses.

 

As long as the one editor can review and post the articles at least once a day (though I would like the minimum to be twice a day), then it might be best to keep it as a single editor. ...you could make nation editor and he can select nations to be in sub-offices under him. This would lessen the burden on the Legislature and give the CE more flexibility to the position.

 

I'm thinking that the best will be if we appoint 5 editors to the regional newspaper. It's easy to control this small group of people and plus extra hands and eyes are always needed, if something wrong with articles or if someone is upsent at the moment. And, like Drasnia said before, who will edit comments, suggestions and contentions? That's why it will be better with 5 editors than with only one, who can make a lot of mistakes.

 

After reading Afforess' post, I am now swayed to change my position. It is clear an appointed editor is the wiser choice.

With that said, the latest court case came to pass partly because of a self appointed committee. I would be disinclined to support committee rule over a public asset like the paper. We've already seen that method fail.

I think it is important that one, and only one person is responsible for content in the regional Newspaper. Perhaps that editor may be allowed to appoint a single assistant editor. After all, everyone needs a day off once in a while.

However the editor must be solely responsible for everything that makes print. As in the real world, if the underling screws up and something bad or unconstitutional makes ink, the editor is the one that takes the fall. This will encourage the editor to put a great deal of thought into choosing an assistant. It will also stop a great deal of finger pointing and excuse making.

 

I believe that this legislation is looking quite sparse in aspects. Are we splitting up the legislation into two or three smaller pieces? This current legislation only contains the discussion we had about the appointment of a CE and neglects the discussion on say the restrictions to office powers and maybe map guidelines.

A restrictions section would be good and should have things like:
1) Follow NS RP rules
2) Extension of respectfully clause of CP constitution to the paper
3) No manipulating or controlling other nations than your own

Of course this could be separate piece... and I still do not know how much the map should be involved in these discussions.

 

I am fairly new here, so please take my comments in that light. I have published sort of a 'broadsheet' keeping track of my nation's activities, largely so I have a running history of my storyline...which on many occasions has 'intersected' activities of other NS nations. For anyone interested, it is found at :

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=306737

Insofar as the current proposal here...I would strongly recommend a board of editors: one for news, one for sports, several for "opinion," etc, as in any other newspaper. Yes, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible overall, but it seems like quite a burden to ask one person to be responsible for content on a constant basis without a support structure...chances are, that person will grow tired and content will suffer, regardless of how good or well-intentioned that person is.

While strongly agreeing with the general dictates against God-modding, I am less comfortable with prohibitions against 'propaganda.' It is VERY hard in the modern world to identify where news ends and propaganda begins (and if MSNBC, Fox, and CNN are any indication, it's ALL Propaganda. My .02) .... but that's also why "opinion" columns, or competing news reporters, could actually present a single event from two perspectives and increase drama - and flexibility - in developing the story lines. And, it is a built-in check against god-modding.

 

That vague wording is going to lead to more court cases. There is no right to never having your feelings hurt. With the politically correct sludge bogging down the free exchange of ideas these days, one man's valid point is often another man's lack of respect. Those claims of lack of respect, hate speech, hurtful, demeaning, politically incorrect, etc. has become a debating tool designed to shut down the opposition.

There should be some guidelines about commercial spam, after all we are not setting up a recruiting paper for other nations. But free speech must always be the guiding factor when making editorial decisions.

 

From the Supreme Court ruling:

"The court finds the regional newspaper, the Capitalist Paradise Free Press, an extension of the regional government (due to its privileged position on the regional page); and as such constitutional rulings concerning the Regional Message Board and the external forums must apply, in particular the ability to post freely within the law set by the regional constitution."

I took this to mean that the respectfully clause should be extended to the paper. If the SC is going to rule on cases as such then I would like to the clause expressly written into the legislation.