Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 07-20-2022, 09:44 AM

We have “freedom of speech,” but it doesn’t have any resemblance to what that freedom means in the real world. We say that no TSPer can be denied freedom of expression by the state, yet the state (in the form of admins and mods) will ban you for saying something offensive under the auspices of “reasonable moderation.” Obviously the freedom of speech in the game means something different than in the real world, we can’t apply it one to one.

That’s what I mean. What does any particular freedom or right we want to enshrine in law *mean* in the context of this game? And when you take that context into account, are there freedoms that make sense IRL but not here?

(This post was last modified: 07-20-2022, 09:44 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 07-20-2022, 06:58 PM

My view of the BoR - as one of the few TSPers who have actually had their rights infringed and gone on to issue legal and legislative challenges to said infringement - is that it needs to be less abstract and more focused on the actual gameplay mechanics that it is meant to protect. We should be looking to far more closely define the actual day to day rights of TSPers and create genuine protections which set out the fundamental game rules of what is considered acceptable (if somewhat duplicitous) behaviour in a political simulator and what crosses the communities red lines.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

A bee · 07-20-2022, 08:09 PM

I believe that the essence in both of your feedbacks is, on at least a basic level, telling me that this revision is incomplete and inadequate (in the sense that it doesn't provide further insight on what these Rights and Freedoms do, hence how they would be enacted AND in the sense that it fails to cover some real-time cases). Simply put - it is 'attached from reality'.
I'll address specifics now.

(07-20-2022, 09:44 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: We have “freedom of speech,” but it doesn’t have any resemblance to what that freedom means in the real world. We say that no TSPer can be denied freedom of expression by the state, yet the state (in the form of admins and mods) will ban you for saying something offensive under the auspices of “reasonable moderation.”

Would providing definitions as to what the following terms are referencing be a solution?: freedom of speech (...and the freedoms derived from it...); limited only by; reasonable moderation; as well as an additional clause encapsulating the procedure of how these events can legally occur?
Another potential solution would be that these rights and freedoms are limited in instance that a player displays heinous acts of bad faith (ex. spreading anti semitic rhetoric)?

(07-20-2022, 09:44 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: What does any particular freedom or right we want to enshrine in law *mean* in the context of this game? And when you take that context into account, are there freedoms that make sense IRL but not here?

I've addressed the discrepancy in the beginning, I'm thinking that a different structure where key terms are defined before these rules are set would lead for Chapter III to be more comprehensible.
Well...yes. (ex. III and VIII Amendment of the US Constitution). I agree that we cannot just carbon-copy pre-existing RL document.

(07-20-2022, 06:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: less abstract and more focused on the actual gameplay mechanics that it is meant to protect.

Addressed in the beginning and noted. However, I feel as though certain aspects in the Draft Resolution will still have an aspect of abstraction, in one way or another.

(07-20-2022, 06:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: We should be looking to far more closely define the actual day to day rights of TSPers and create genuine protections which set out the fundamental game rules of what is considered acceptable (if somewhat duplicitous) behaviour in a political simulator and what crosses the communities red lines.

I agree but the only 2 cents I can give you now is that a lot of benign behavior gets treated the same way as something blatantly out of place. Going into depth with it, the move towards the governance encapsulating aspects of the society (in this case community) within itself, is a general rule when it comes to governance itself.
Alas, I will now oblige myself in trying to construct mechanisms which would mitigate such events and include them in the the Draft Resolution.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

A bee · 07-28-2022, 01:30 PM

The list of proposals have been updated.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

A bee · 08-14-2022, 12:32 PM

Due to no discussions occurring after the proposals have been updated and due to this reminder from Chair of the GC; I consider this the final draft.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

im_a_waffle1 · 08-14-2022, 05:12 PM

You are trying to go completely out of the scope of the bill of rights by mandating things that should definitely be in their own section, especially trying to mandate who moderates the RMB. As-is, I am voting against if this does go to vote.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

A bee · 08-14-2022, 05:45 PM

(08-14-2022, 05:12 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: You are trying to go completely out of the scope of the bill of rights by mandating things that should definitely be in their own section, especially trying to mandate who moderates the RMB. As-is, I am voting against if this does go to vote.

Just to clarify: the preceding chapters of a constitutional document should generally do this.
You're free to do as you wish.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990