WITHDRAWN: The IRC Officializing Act

Simply because you have spoken to me about these matters since before I was Vice Delegate, and I was unable or unwilling to do anything, does not mean I have committed cyber-bullying against you. Nor has Eluvatar.

Simply because I did not reassign you to the Ambassadors, or give you a government position does not = cyber bullying.
 
Wow, lots of posts about Gov recently, and not many about the actual legislation. I think the threadjack may risk obscuring good discussion about this bill.

Does anyone have a decent justification for the legal issues in this bill? I don't spend much (read: any) time on #tnp, so I'll admit there may be some benefit to making it official that I'm not seeing. If not, I don't think this is going to pass, nor should it.
 
To be honest, I like the idea of recognizing #tnp as the official channel of TNP, but beyond that I don’t really support anything additional. I think a small clause which states that #tnp is the officially recognized IRC channel and is the only channel allowed to be posted on the RMB as a ‘TNP channel’, should do the trick. Here’s my stab:

1.The official IRC channel of The North Pacific shall be defined as a non-TNP territory, akin to a region that is not The North Pacific, and shall be treated as such for the purposes of this act.
2.The official Internet Relay Channel (IRC) channel of The North Pacific, is hereby recognized as #tnp on the Esper Network.
3.Only official IRC channel(s) of The North Pacific may be noted as such on the Regional Message Board.
4.Usage of non-official IRC channel(s) of The North Pacific to denote as such on the Regional Message Board shall constitute fraud as defined by the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

If we treat #tnp as we do the East Pacific, The South Pacific, and any other region where many of our laws don’t preside over the participants, I think that does the trick. I also worded this in such a way that if #tnp does not remain the official channel, we can simply replace it and not have to replace everything else.

I believe the courts have ruled that comments made on these channels are not subject to the FOIA and even if someone posts a log that log may not be subject to a FOIA request. I did not included #tnp-cabinet here as the OP does because if you’re in the cabinet I’d think you’d allow all cabinet members in the channel. If not, then I believe that’s almost a separate issue.
 
So, this law would do nothing except to force the RA to pass a law whenever the region feels like changing channels?

When currently, the region can change channel without such a law?

Sorry, I'm not seeing the point. Just making trouble where there was none.
 
Call me old-fashioned, but I think irc should not be official anything. It is useful for facilitating meetings, but the choice of the channel should be entirely at the delegate's discretion. As far as the social channel goes - holy cow, aren't our courts bogged down enough? And does the whole world really want to know that so-and-so called whats-his-name an obscenity unrepeatable in polite society? More importantly, do we want to be in the business of regulating what happens on irc? I don't think it would be good for either irc or the forum.

Edit: Just saw punk's version, and it looks like an improvement over the original proposal.
 
I think PD's wording gets around the legal issue - treating #tnp as non-TNP territory, like another region. But I still think this legislation is unnecessary.

I haven't been here long, but if I know anything about TNP, it's that our laws are complicated, verbose, and legion. I don't think it should take an act of the assembly to change the IRC channel the region uses.
 
Because there has been an inquiry:

The list below is exhaustive, the following persons are banned from #tnp:

Govindia (20 Nov 2011 [AKICK] -- flaming, harrassment)
Kurdazistan [aka Heero] (28 Mar 2012 -- flaming harrassing etc)
Lamb Stone (27 Apr 2012 -- forum destruction, ban evasion, impersonation)
Amland [aka turtle/Knuckles/Teto] (04 Jul 2012 -- spamming)
Tyler (24 Jul 2012 -- harrassment, flaming)
Insane Power (20 Aug 2012 -- harrassment)
94 Block (22 Aug 2012 -- forum destruction)
Luxembourg (26 Sep 2012 -- hacking, forum destruction?)
LaosRefugees (09 Oct 2012 -- forum destruction)
Unibot (17 Nov 2012 -- flaming)
Empire of Narnia (07 Dec 2012 -- spamming, ban evasion)
mib_olc6fi [unknown spammer] (11 Dec 2012 -- spamming)
 
Perhaps a more simple solution. #tnp is recognized as the main stream of conversation for the regional government, but not controlled nor under the wing of the regional government. That is, removing the arguments, what this legislation is intended to accomplish, yet it does not add any more controversy as to the say the regional government has over the channel.
 
Iro:
Perhaps a more simple solution. #tnp is recognized as the main stream of conversation for the regional government, but not controlled nor under the wing of the regional government. That is, removing the arguments, what this legislation is intended to accomplish, yet it does not add any more controversy as to the say the regional government has over the channel.
Click to expand...
That's basically what Punk D said. But my point is, you can't have an official IRC channel and still allow the community to change channels whenever it wants. That seems to be the point of an official channel. I think the community (and therefore the government) should be allowed to change channels without being considered "unofficial," or having to pass another law ammending this one to reflect the new choice of channel.

This is just crazy.
 
the more and more we talk about this, the more i lean towards the what-is-the-point-of-making-this-official.

I love legislation, but i think someone said it earlier about if ain't broke don't fix it.

If people still want legislation, i think what I propose above makes the channel official but keeps it out of the jurisdiction of TNP territory.
 
PD's version is approximately what I was shooting for. My drunk-revised version was....interesting. >_>

I'm working on a new draft, building on PD's but drafted in more concrete language. There are terms that are open to interpretation which could be the basis of absurd legal inquiries, which can be avoided.
 
Bokeryville:
I'm in agreement with those who want to keep irc unofficial. To me this seems like this is legalese for legalese's sake.
Click to expand...
It's not legalese for legalese sake. It's a matter of ending a long running dispute over what channel is the legitimate channel of the North Pacific.

However, the writing on the wall is overall quite clear. It is clear that in this current atmosphere, this proposal will not be helpful to the North Pacific. That, and half this thread has been hijacked by other points of discussion that have no bearing the legislation as a whole.

I motion for the Speaker to shelve this proposal.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Yeah, I think it's unnecessary. It's working now, we might as well leave it as is.
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing.

Sometimes I think people want to make changes just for sake of doing something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top