Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 08-12-2016, 11:03 PM

Following the recent court case regarding mass TGs, I thought something like this might be in order.

I want to stress, this isn't anything personal, but rather an attempt to stop potential problems before they happen.

Quote:
Regional Communications Act

An act clarifying proper communication by government officials

1. Communications Covered by this Act

(1) Modes of communication covered include

a. Mass Telegrams
b. Pinned Dispatches
c. Changes to the World Factbook Entry

2. Government Officials

(1) All elected or appointed regional officials are covered by this act, whether they are using powers provided in the "Regional Officers Act" or received independently.

3. Appropriateness of Communication

(1) Communications to the region should be

a. respectful
b. honest
c. trustworthy
d. limited

(2) Communications to the region should not

a. mislead the public
b. push particular legislative agendas
c. attack or otherwise diminish other officials
d. attack or otherwise diminish The South Pacific or her allies
e. attempt to lower endorsements of elected officials

4. Infractions

(1) Charges regarding infractions to this act may be brought before the Permanent Justice

(2) Officials who are found to have violated this act may be subjected to

a. suspension or removal of regional officer privileges
b. suspension or removal from office

5. Suspension

(1) This act may be suspended with the consent of the Council for Regional Security.

I based this off of the Regional Officers Act, but I'm happy to make changes.

Ultimately, I think we need something to place to make sure that people — including the delegate — are not abusing their powers.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 10-05-2016, 11:06 PM by Omega.)

Omega · 08-12-2016, 11:05 PM

I like this however I think we need to define what constitutes pushing an agenda and not leave that up to the courts.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

**Seraph** · 08-13-2016, 04:29 AM

Yes, I also like this, but fear that without more specificity the resulting ambiguity will plague the judiciary for some time. I'll try and make some suggestions later, but it's probably best left to the more politically and legally minded of us.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

**Belschaft** · 08-13-2016, 11:47 AM

I think there's a real risk that this would do little more than transfer political disagreements to the court; who, after all, defines what a "particular legislative agenda" is?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 08-13-2016, 12:35 PM

If it's any more than notifying that there's a vote ongoing, then that would be pushing a legislative agenda. That seems simple to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Seraph** · 08-13-2016, 01:32 PM

(08-13-2016, 12:35 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: If it's any more than notifying that there's a vote ongoing, then that would be pushing a legislative agenda. That seems simple to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it seems simple to you, but apparently not to others, that's when you legislate it more specifically. Otherwise you and the others will disagree and it'll go to the judiciary again.

I might not be the most politically savvy here, but I can see a pattern when it emerges.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

***sandaoguo*** · 08-13-2016, 01:37 PM

"Conveying any ounce of opinion on an item before the Assembly is prohibited."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 08-13-2016, 01:42 PM

Define opinion. You could make the argument that how the legislation is described - for example, "Discretionary powers of the Chair of the Assembly" - counts as an opinion.

I think this is one big legal mess waiting to happen, and just opens up the inevitably of me being taken to court again the next time there's an Assembly vote.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 08-13-2016, 03:55 PM

(08-13-2016, 01:42 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Define opinion. You could make the argument that how the legislation is described - for example, "Discretionary powers of the Chair of the Assembly" - counts as an opinion.

I think this is one big legal mess waiting to happen, and just opens up the inevitably of me being taken to court again the next time there's an Assembly vote.

Here's my concern and what I was hoping to addressed with that clause.

Right now, our system is susceptible to pitting people against each other. Whether that is the LC trying to take power from the Assembly or the delegate trying to drum up support for a coup. "Pushing legislative agendas" — as I envisioned — would be telling people to vote for "x".

As I see it, we have a difference between providing information (ie. Bel's TG today) and rallying support for a cause.

If someone has better wording — great. This was the best I could come up with when writing this.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 08-13-2016, 05:02 PM

The problem with that is Tsu, when you look at the previous regional poll - where the TG I sent out provided information - I ended up in court because some people didn't like the information I provided.

Honest to god, whilst I like your intentions with this I can't see it achieving anything but resulting in the Local Council Assembly Representative being brought to court once a month.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 08-13-2016, 05:02 PM by Belschaft.)