+- 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: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws (/thread-2100.html)
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Aramanchovia - 04-12-2015
That is what has been motioned and seconded to vote Hopolis, yes.
Was planning on making the vote for this last night (1AM here, so a few hours ago), so the vote would end on a Friday night my time, as weekends are better for me for updating, but had a few other issues. This will likely be put to vote tonight now (20ish hours time). Apologies for the delay.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Aramanchovia - 04-12-2015
Disregard that, it is a CoL amendment so it will still close mid week with 3 days for voting. Will still be put to vote tonight anyway, really need some sleep...
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Escade - 04-12-2015
When there are so many points, I think it would be beneficial probably to be able to talk about each of the points and then narrow the text down to what people do approve of. I also agree with Hopolis about defamation and also just tightening or clarifying some of the language.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Farengeto - 04-12-2015
(04-12-2015, 11:37 AM)Escade Wrote: When there are so many points, I think it would be beneficial probably to be able to talk about each of the points and then narrow the text down to what people do approve of. I also agree with Hopolis about defamation and also just tightening or clarifying some of the language.
I waited nearly two weeks for that, and no one said anything. Even now you've had 2 days to make comments. No one was discussing anything, so I saw no reason to delay the votem
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - TAC Saxton - 04-12-2015
(04-01-2015, 03:08 AM)TAC Wrote: I'm not excited at all to see the return of Defamation or Public Apologies.
Defamation charges amount to "he called me dumb. I'm telling mommy."
Public Apologies achieve absolutely nothing. A forced apology loses its meaning.
(04-01-2015, 09:53 AM)Escade Wrote: Unless the court delineates what happens in terms of defamation I'm wary of this, mostly defamation was used by one or two persons to shut up anyone who spoke out against them.
Also agree with TAC.
(04-01-2015, 02:09 AM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I'm going to need a lengthy explanation on how the Court will approach defamation charges, how they will separate their biases and emotions from the cases, and how they will determine whether or not somebody experienced actual harm from a statement. Also, how the Court will determine whether a statement is false, how to deal with inherently political statements, and how it will prevent itself from becoming the Language Police during campaigns.
Until the Court develops actual jurisprudence on the issue, I have no faith whatsoever that it can faithfully and coherently adjudicate something like defamation.
(04-01-2015, 10:04 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:I remain opposed to the reintroduction of Defamation. Historically it has only been used to intimidate citizens and prevent legitimate political debate that is uncomfortable to whoever threatens charges.
I pretty much agree with Glen, TAC and Escade. These reforms are aiming at issues that have little relevance to the region today, and would offer no substantial benefit.
Just puttin' these back out here as they address what some of us believe to be major flaws in this proposal.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Kris Kringle - 04-12-2015
(04-12-2015, 12:23 PM)Farengeto Wrote:(04-12-2015, 11:37 AM)Escade Wrote: When there are so many points, I think it would be beneficial probably to be able to talk about each of the points and then narrow the text down to what people do approve of. I also agree with Hopolis about defamation and also just tightening or clarifying some of the language.
I waited nearly two weeks for that, and no one said anything. Even now you've had 2 days to make comments. No one was discussing anything, so I saw no reason to delay the votem
That's not how it works, Farengeto. We have been expressing our concerns. It's not as simply as saying that we haven't and that the vote should proceed.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Aramanchovia - 04-13-2015
Do you have an objection to splitting this into two votes Farengeto? I am willing to do it this way, as there seems a fair bit of opposition to the defamation part of your proposal, it may give a better chance to at least get the rest over the line.
Technically doing so would probably still need a motion/second though, and the current proposal would probably still need to be brought to vote eventually as per the competing legislation clauses, but up to you (I think this is the current procedure anyway, which seems ridiculous, happy to be corrected). I would rather not waste people's time with a vote if it is a good chance to fail.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Farengeto - 04-13-2015
Fine. I withdraw the proposal amd motion two new ones, one just the defamation part and the other the rest of it.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Hopolis - 04-13-2015
In which case, if a second is required I'd be happy to second both parts of it to get the ball rolling on this.
RE: Amendment to Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Laws - Farengeto - 04-16-2015
Can we get this to vote already? I've waited nearly a week.