The South Pacific
PASSED: Regional Communications Act - Printable Version

+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: PASSED: Regional Communications Act (/thread-4385.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Roavin - 08-17-2016

I think we can motion, no?

Motion to vote (on the latest revision I posted).


Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Kris Kringle - 08-17-2016

(08-17-2016, 02:36 PM)Punchwood Wrote:
(08-17-2016, 09:32 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: It's funny because it's so ridiculous.

Which part in particular?

I wasn't referring to the vast majority of people arguing for common sense solutions to this issue.


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Seraph - 08-17-2016

I second Roavin's motion.


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Omega - 08-17-2016

(08-17-2016, 03:17 PM)Roavin Wrote: I think we can motion, no?

Motion to vote (on the latest revision I posted).

Was that a motion on the Act and the Amendment or just the Act?

I will bring this to a vote tonight assuming the current at vote legislation passes, and if no one believes we need to discuss this longer. If someone does believe we need more discussion I need you to speak up in the next few hours.


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Drugged Monkeys - 08-17-2016

I think k we need more discussion. I would request at least 24 more hours


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Omega - 08-17-2016

(08-17-2016, 04:21 PM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I think k we need more discussion. I would request at least 24 more hours

Granted. If after 24 hours or more general consensus comes that we are done the above motion will still be noted.


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Roavin - 08-17-2016

Just a heads up, I made a very small grammatical fix in (3) - I forgot the word "of" (thanks Seraph!).


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Belschaft - 08-17-2016

I'm hoping to get some input from the region at large on this, so would appreciate if there's no rush to vote.


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Roavin - 08-17-2016

(08-17-2016, 06:03 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm hoping to get some input from the region at large on this, so would appreciate if there's no rush to vote.

That'd be great. How are you planning on doing so?


RE: Proposal: Regional Communications Act - Drugged Monkeys - 08-18-2016

(08-14-2016, 03:44 PM)Roavin Wrote: Some changes to my revised draft based on discussion here and on Discord.

Summary of changes:
  • Omega correctly pointed out that my wording for 1.1.d was too broad. I've restricted it accordingly.
  • Omega also pointed at 2.2.b ("push particular legislative agendas"). While I personally find the language okay as is, I see that this is not generally the case and after taking input from Bel, Tsu, Glen, and Seraph on Discord, I've removed it and instead added a positive formulation in 2.1.d.

What I did not change:
  • Bel mentioned that this should extend to "all forms of mass-communication - including using stamps or scripts to TG the entire region - not just RO powers". I believe my draft as written already does this as far as possible. We can't prevent using stamps to TG the entire region from outside except via GHR, and that is beyond TSP's jurisdiction (and would have to be solved via the Delegate filing a GHR).



I've marked red/blue here the changes based on my previous draft, not based on the original Tsu draft. Otherwise this would be impossible to read >_>


Regional Communications Act

An act clarifying proper communication by government officials

1. Scope

(1) Modes of mass communication covered include
a. Mass Telegrams to the region
b. Dispatches pinned to the regional World Factbook Entry
c. Changes to the regional World Factbook Entry
d. Any other form of communication visible by the in-game region at large separate from the Regional Message Board.
d. Any other form of communication, apart from the Regional Message Board, that is directly visible on the NationStates website by the in-game region at large.

(2) Any individual capable of engaging in mass communication with the region as described above shall be subject to the regulations contained herein.

2. Mass Communication

(1) Communications to the region shall be
a. respectful
b. honest
c. restrained to a reasonable frequency of notifications
d. neutral with respect to political ideology or debate

(2) Communications to the region shall not
a. mislead the public
b. push particular legislative agendas
cb. attack or otherwise diminish other officials
dc. attack or otherwise diminish The South Pacific or her allies
ed. directly or indirectly threaten the security apparatus of the South Pacific or her allies

(3) The Delegate may, at their discretion, enact further restrictions, guidelines, or approval processes on the use of mass communications.

(4) The Council on Regional Security may temporarily suspend the provisions contained herein for themselves or any duly chosen surrogates for purposes of regional security.

3. Infractions

(1) Infractions may be brought before the Permanent Justice in a court case. For the duration of the court proceedings, the Delegate may suspend the mass communication capabilities of the accused.


Charter amendment, Article V (stays as is):


3. The Local Council will have the authority to run regional polls, create and pin Dispatches, and to suppress messages on the Regional Message Board according to a standard moderation policy. It may not alter the regional flag or tags, and may not send out mass telegrams,without the approval of the Delegate.

One issue I see for sure is the use of the word "reasonable" in 2.1.C.
There is no way to quantify "reasonable". We had this same issue come up recently when the CoA was absent for awhile, and we didn't know how long we had to wait to put something to vote ourselves because the charter says "a reasonable timeframe" in regards to the CoA being absent or unable to carry out the duty of putting legislation to vote.