The Better Banner Bill

[bootsie]

So, we have this weird section of our law that causes an interesting loophole. While Section 10.1.5 of the Legal Code makes it easier for residents to distinguish official governmental documents and false ones, it also means those same residents can’t show pride in the region because our flag just happens to have our Coat of Arms on it. This is a problem, and a problem we need to fix. Some have suggested we just throw caution to the wind and throw out our regional symbol, one created by Thel D’Ran many years ago in favor of a more modern or radical design. I think the easiest decision is to strike Section 10.1.5 from the Legal Code. Not only does this keep our flag intact, but it also makes it so we don’t have to yell at new residents about a law that has good intentions, but fails in practice.

Section 10.1.5 shall be struck from the Legal Code and all following sections renumbered accordingly:

5. The Coat of Arms of The North Pacific may not be used except to represent The North Pacific or an official regional entity.

 

[BluieGamer]

How will we ensure, then, that certain dispatches/posts/statements are officially from the government if the seal does not hold this power anymore?

 

[bootsie]

How will we ensure, then, that certain dispatches/posts/statements are officially from the government if the seal does not hold this power anymore?

The seal is just one piece of what makes something we say look official. I think R3naissanc3r and anyone else who contributed to the look of the dispatches did a great job of making sure they all had a certain look to them. One that is consistent among all of our dispatches, no matter what they concern.

Most are posted by The Northern Light, and most are pinned, at least while relevant.

Now, one could argue this style could be copied and impersonation could take place, but context clues are important. I receive emails from “Apple” all the time, but even though I see that Apple logo, it’s best to look for inconsistencies. Incorrect grammar, being posted by a new nation, or contradictory information would be things that nations should look for in order to not be fooled. And if they weren’t sure or confused, they could always let the government know.

 

[Syrixia]

If I'm being honest, I prefer the current flag. I think it's simplistic and, in that simplicity, is nigh-iconic. Whereas most other feeders and other GCRs have at the very least slightly more complicated flags, ours is a simple tricolor- if one can even call it that, since it's just blue and white.

For this reason- and since I also agree with Boots' reasoning above- out of all the bills circulating attempting to address Section 10.1.5, I support this one.

 

[Zaz]

I prefer this option as well. Don't get me wrong I think the flag proposed by Darc and Pry looks great. But I love our current flag and couldn't vote to replace it.

 

[Gorundu]

The seal is just one piece of what makes something we say look official. I think R3naissanc3r and anyone else who contributed to the look of the dispatches did a great job of making sure they all had a certain look to them. One that is consistent among all of our dispatches, no matter what they concern.

Most are posted by The Northern Light, and most are pinned, at least while relevant.

Now, one could argue this style could be copied and impersonation could take place, but context clues are important. I receive emails from “Apple” all the time, but even though I see that Apple logo, it’s best to look for inconsistencies. Incorrect grammar, being posted by a new nation, or contradictory information would be things that nations should look for in order to not be fooled. And if they weren’t sure or confused, they could always let the government know.

True, but like with the Apple example, there are always people who do get fooled. You listed incorrect grammar, new nation, and contradictory information as some clues, but if a dispatch is done properly, none of these clues would exist.

 

[Malphe]

Yeh this makes way more sense to me than the other alternatives that have been proposed. I don't think the whole how-to-tell-if-official-dispatch thing is really an issue, if it's not posted by TNL then it's not official right? If someone can't just check the author then not our issue. If they don't understand that then idk if whether or not the CoA is on the fake dispatch would make much of an impact to them.

 

[bootsie]

If I'm being honest, I prefer the current flag. I think it's simplistic and, in that simplicity, is nigh-iconic. Whereas most other feeders and other GCRs have at the very least slightly more complicated flags, ours is a simple tricolor- if one can even call it that, since it's just blue and white.

For this reason- and since I also agree with Boots' reasoning above- out of all the bills circulating attempting to address Section 10.1.5, I support this one.

I prefer this option as well. Don't get me wrong I think the flag proposed by Darc and Pry looks great. But I love our current flag and couldn't vote to replace it.

Thank you both for your support.

True, but like with the Apple example, there are always people who do get fooled. You listed incorrect grammar, new nation, and contradictory information as some clues, but if a dispatch is done properly, none of these clues would exist.

I think that’s something the government can address if impersonation becomes very rampant.

Yeh this makes way more sense to me than the other alternatives that have been proposed. I don't think the whole how-to-tell-if-official-dispatch thing is really an issue, if it's not posted by TNL then it's not official right? If someone can't just check the author then not our issue. If they don't understand that then idk if whether or not the CoA is on the fake dispatch would make much of an impact to them.

Good point, Malphe.

As a note, I’m not against changing the flag. I just believe that changing the flag is a very radical way of fixing this law. Shall the Assembly vote to change the flag, I still think it is useful to get rid of this outdated law.

 

[Syrixia]

I think that’s something the government can address if impersonation becomes very rampant.

And that's another thing- I don't think impersonation will become rampant. I think those who do think so need to get some perspective- firstly, this is a game, and secondly, the Legal Code is tucked away in the forum; it's not like we are or will be broadcasting this change to the world. I don't think there will be any significant uptick in impersonation. And if there is? People can use common sense and look for stuff posted by TNL and/or regional officers.

 

[bootsie]

So, as the Vexillum Billum has failed, I would like to pick this proposal back up. Anyone have anything to add before we send this to a vote?

 

[SillyString]

I don't think I can support this bill.

I like that there is a symbol that is enshrined in our law as an official symbol of the government. I like that we have a way to enforce that it not be used for other things, aside from its creator having to claim copyright infringement. I like that the seal is special.

I'm not concerned about a dramatic rise in impersonation should that clause be struck. I don't think people are likely to alter their criminally-minded behavior based on what's actually in our law. Fraudsters gonna fraud no matter what.

But I do worry about dilution of the symbol. If it's no longer reserved for government use, people will be free to use it for personal dispatches, RP posts, etc. Not to defraud anybody, but just because they like it - and then it becomes significantly less meaningful or impactful for government bodies, like the court, the ministries, etc to use it in their seals and to open official posts. It turns it into pithy decoration, instead of a mark of importance.

I'd also like to point out that you are incorrect in thinking that residents cannot use the flag. Anybody can use the flag - there's a court ruling establishing just that.

As to the second questions posed to the Court: "2. Does Section 7.1, #4 of the Legal Code prohibit anyone who is not "an official regional entity" from flying the flag simply because it contains the coat of arms, despite the Legal Code containing no explicit prohibition against flying the flag?"

No it does not. The Legal Code specifically lists both the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the North Pacific as separate items. It is the belief of the Court that just because the flag contains an image of the Coat of Arms does not make the flag THE Coat of Arms. Therefore to be quite clear nations may fly the Flag of the North Pacific but may not fly the Coat of Arms of the North Pacific.

As to the third question posed to the Court: "3. Can nations of The North Pacific who are not "an official regional entity" legally fly the flag of The North Pacific?"

Yes the requirement established in the Legal Code only states that the Coat of Arms may not be used unless by "an official regional entity". As the Court has stated above the Flag and Coat of Arms are two separate items and not one and the same.

(bolding mine.) Anybody telling residents otherwise needs to stop - and any government official telling residents otherwise needs to be mindful that flying the flag can be considered a form of free speech, and wrongfully barring people from doing so can be treacherous to one's tenure.

Since the rationale for why this bill might be needed is not legally sound, and since I think the impact on one of our most cherished symbols would be quite harmful, I find myself in opposition.

 

[bootsie]

I don't think I can support this bill.

I like that there is a symbol that is enshrined in our law as an official symbol of the government. I like that we have a way to enforce that it not be used for other things, aside from its creator having to claim copyright infringement. I like that the seal is special.

I'm not concerned about a dramatic rise in impersonation should that clause be struck. I don't think people are likely to alter their criminally-minded behavior based on what's actually in our law. Fraudsters gonna fraud no matter what.

But I do worry about dilution of the symbol. If it's no longer reserved for government use, people will be free to use it for personal dispatches, RP posts, etc. Not to defraud anybody, but just because they like it - and then it becomes significantly less meaningful or impactful for government bodies, like the court, the ministries, etc to use it in their seals and to open official posts. It turns it into pithy decoration, instead of a mark of importance.

I'd also like to point out that you are incorrect in thinking that residents cannot use the flag. Anybody can use the flag - there's a court ruling establishing just that.



(bolding mine.) Anybody telling residents otherwise needs to stop - and any government official telling residents otherwise needs to be mindful that flying the flag can be considered a form of free speech, and wrongfully barring people from doing so can be treacherous to one's tenure.

Since the rationale for why this bill might be needed is not legally sound, and since I think the impact on one of our most cherished symbols would be quite harmful, I find myself in opposition.

Thank you for that legal education. I was not aware of that ruling, and no one has ever brought that to my attention when the CoA/flag intersection came up.

If anyone can use the flag, which I was not aware you could, I don’t see a use for the bill any further.

 

[Darcania]

You can see where the confusion regarding the CoA/flag comes from, now.