[Discussion] Roleplay/Newspaper Amendment

It looks as if we're now all in agreement that an editor appointed by the delegate is the best course of action. Now the question is how many editors do we appoint? I would recommend one Chief Editor and two sub-editors who can help fill in for the CE when he/she isn't around. That way the newspaper can still keep going without everyone waiting for days for an article to be posted.

All three positions should be appointed by the delegate and find the candidate who can firmly say that they will not be involved in any conflict of interest or bias.

I fully agree, Acario. We can't pick and choose which rules in the constitution to follow simply because some people don't like them. The respectful posting clause should remain.

Even the most inexperienced roleplayer can agree that godmoding should never be allowed or tolerated.

 

Exactly. We are on the same page. Some self appointed authorities got all riled up and decided to act as the Politically Correct Inquisition over certain word choices. Clearly the people who were making the call at the time felt those words were not respectful. As such they removed them from the article.

The author of the article did not feel the terms were disrespectful. He made that case to the court on free speech grounds.

The court found the deleted words respectful, in current use and a matter of free speech. While some may take offense to the words, the court found the matter of free speech outweighs the argument for censorship.

It all comes down to something very simple. There are individuals and groups out there that want everybody and everything around them well padded and sugar coated. Some of those want the rest of the world to use particular words and phrases for their groups and/or pet causes. They will try to force the matter if need be. For instance, if someone uses the word "black" rather than "African American" the lack of respect flag can be thrown and a demand made that the court declare the word "black" disrespectful. Another obvious case that many of the old timers can remember, back when this region used to discuss real world politics I can think of numerous instances on both sides of the fence lacking a certain amount of respect.

As long as something as subjective as that term remains part of the constitution, the court will get work from time to time. There is enormous potential to abuse the regional court system using it as a salve for even the slightest case of Butthurt(tm).

I see no reason to add another instance of that phrase to the constitution, It lacks the definition required to be enforceable. Better that respectful be replaced with the phrase, "You have no right not to get your feelings hurt."

 

I disagree. Committee rule is what led to this mess. I see no reason to have more then one editor and an assistant that answers to that editor.

However, if there is going to be any assistants, those assistants must answer to and serve at the pleasure of the editor. The editor alone must report to the delegate and that editor must be responsible for every word that makes print, or does not make print as the case may be, regardless of which one of the staff made the call.

I would oppose anything that allowed for responsibility to be ducked. As with any successful enterprise, the chain of command and responsibility must be clear and not easily circumvented.

Ok. Then do us one simple favor. Define "respectful" in simple, enforceable, non-subjective black and white terms.

Which is why the court tossed out the decision and the self appointed editorial board.

 

The reason why I suggested the sub-editors or Assistants to the Chief Editor (ACE) if you want to be fancy is so that we have more active editors. The CE can't be active all the time and there could be days or weeks when the CE isn't available. In that case the ACE(s) would step in until the CE can make a full return. This assures everyone contributing to the newspaper that they won't be waiting for days or weeks on end for their article to be submitted.

Like the CE, the ACE(s) would be appointed by the delegate and would have to make a pledge never to abuse their authority.

If everyone agrees that having the ACE is a bad idea then I would accept having the delegate fill in as a temporary editor during prolonged absences by the CE.

Simple. Don't be an asshole to another player, don't break NS and Capitalist Paradise rules, and don't godmode.

 

That sounds like a better option to me.

You're going to have to do better then that.

Define being "an asshole to another player." Then show us how it to apply that definition within the frame work of our regional role play newspaper which is roughly 50% geared toward someone rattling a saber at someone else.

I'm still not seeing how this is not purely subjective in nature.

 

The issue is that the Supreme Court ruled saying that the respectfully clause should be extended to the regional newspaper; therefore, all I want is the insertion of a clause into the Constitution that states:

To post in the newspaper, respectfully and in accordance with game rules of etiquette

If the court said that the respectfully clause should be extended to the paper then we should insert it in there directly. Regardless of whether the clause has some serious definition issues and its quite possible that it will never be enforceable. This legislation proposal not being drafted to consider alterations to the Constitution, to remove or change the respectfully clause; the legislation's focus is on incorporating/adding the regional newspaper into the Constitution so that the Constitution can account for the activities performed there. Let's keep this scope in mind when writing the legislation and write it in accordance to the Supreme Court ruling.

 

I think that what Acario brought up on the rmb should be considered. Which was what level of technology our rp should be set to. I think that the tech level should be set to maybe 50 years in the future. I have technology levels that are not out of this world but different Ideas that would need some sort of future tech level.

 

I have been recently appointed Minister of Interior and, for the time being, have been given editing responsibilities. I can understand that some people will think I may purposely censor Fastercat to further my own agenda, but I want to be perfectly clear about this: The only time I will edit or reject an article is if it violates NS RP rules or if its unconstitutional. If they do not, then I am obligated to publish the articles and this must be understood by anyone who takes the position of CE. Free speech, no matter how hateful, must be upheld. I agree that our newspaper is not a recruitment device and any commercial should be banned, but as long as the authors are from the region and do not violate the rules or constitution, then they must publish the articles. No debate, no question, no argument.

 

I disagree, my nations have always been FT and I have successfully interacted with MT without being OP. We don't need to set limitations on tech level, a rule against god nodding is good enough. As long as everyone plays respectfully and with the intention of having fun we can have virtually any combination of players.

 

Its been almost a week since the last message here. Are we going to get an updated version of the proposed legislation soon? or send what we have now to vote?

 

Kind of stalled out, didn't it?

 

How about we aim for having a draft of this bill by the end of the zombie event? Regional participation is going to be up, so we can get more response about the bill.

 

As far as I know we don't have an actual draft... I've not heard from drasnia in almost two weeks, and the other member of the legislative panel hasn't been heard from since day 1... (I've actually never heard of them at all, perhaps a puppet of unknown an owner?)

 

Let's get some communication at least between you and Drasnia to get something together. The regional paper has been in limbo for longer than I would have liked, I believe this legislation is needed to get activity in the paper again.

 

When the final draft is done, I would like to see one person ultimately responsible for the newspaper. That person can have all the minions they want, but the final responsibility comes down to that one person. This will prevent lots of finger pointing and hearsay should any matters come up in the future.

 

Agree on the single appointed editor. Proposal might benefit from some more checks and balances; for example, allow the legislature to impeach the editor or allow people who feel they've been unjustly censored to appeal to the court (who could decide whether or not it is worth hearing, so that they're not stuck re-evaluating every decision by the editor).

 

There is only one problem I could see possibly arising, does the respectful Clause of the constitution apply to the newspaper?

 

According to the latest Supreme Court ruling, yes. They said the clause does extend to cover the regional newspaper and they ruled on the issue from the perspective that the clause does apply to the regional newspaper. I would just like it to be expressly written into the Constitution rather than having to refer back to this court case.

However, it might be best to have two separate bills: one for the CE and one for the respectfully clause extension.

 

Thank you, that had slipped my mind. Given the SC decision, I'd be willing to vote for this as is.