[PASSED] Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act"

by **Wallenburg** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:43 pm

Evil Eagle wrote:This was just passed in APRIL!!!
Now it looks like it's on the track to repeal. What the hell is wrong with this bureaucracy?

Four months is more than enough time for a not-so-good piece of legislation. This is hardly a rushed repeal. Some resolutions are repealed within a week because of how bad they are.

Stop passing laws that are just repeal worthy, stop repealing laws that are pass worthy. This body looks silly and confused. Obsessed with busy work.

Repeals exist because people have differing opinions, and not everyone in the GA agrees with each other.

Read these bills before implementing them, then stick with your belief in them. Unless a resolution is well needed and well defined it should never pass in the first place.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the average voter doesn't even bother reading past the title and category. Some don't even look at the entire title. People on this forum, the ones who actually pay some level of attention to the stuff going to vote, are not to blame for bad resolutions. At least, not usually.

There is nothing wrong with doing nothing when nothing is necessary.

It is necessary to repeal the target in order to replace it with something better.

by **Socialist Federative Yugoslavia** » Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:27 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Socialist Federative Yugoslavia wrote:Let me get this straight - NationStates is attempting to end net-neutrality within itself at the same the FCC is trying to end net neutrality in the real world that will actually hurt NationStates?

1) This is the General Assembly, a roleplay-oriented part of NS. This resolution has nothing to do with the website itself.
2) The very same person authoring this repeal has written a replacement, one that actually does what it sets out to achieve, and regulates the Internet intelligently.

1) I understand that, I was referring to how the FCC's real life ban will affect NS, not how the General Assembly's ban will.

Fauxia wrote:
Socialist Federative Yugoslavia wrote:Let me get this straight - NationStates is attempting to end net-neutrality within itself at the same the FCC is trying to end net neutrality in the real world that will actually hurt NationStates?
Did I mention I changed my position to for this repeal?

Also, it doesn't end net neutrality in NationStates (why do people always think this?) It just ends neutrality in states that want to. Also, replacement legislation should guarantee some degree of neutrality.

In that case, I will not oppose the repeal.

by **Wallenburg** » Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:36 am

Socialist Federative Yugoslavia wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:1) This is the General Assembly, a roleplay-oriented part of NS. This resolution has nothing to do with the website itself.
2) The very same person authoring this repeal has written a replacement, one that actually does what it sets out to achieve, and regulates the Internet intelligently.

1) I understand that, I was referring to how the FCC's real life ban will affect NS, not how the General Assembly's ban will.

I'm not sure what ban you are talking about, but if you are talking about real life politics and government, you should be in the NSG forum, not in the GA forum.

by **Kal-dul** » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:59 am

Is it possible for someone to explain this to me without all the lawful gibberish? Is this to protect ney neutrality or to end it, as I wish to preserve it. Thank you in advance.

-Kal-dul

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:09 am

Kal-dul wrote:Is it possible for someone to explain this to me without all the lawful gibberish? Is this to protect net neutrality or to end it, as I wish to preserve it. Thank you in advance.

It repeals the existing resolution that currently requires all member nations to protect net neutrality, but does nothing to keep any nations that want to continue following that principle -- such as yours -- from doing so. Furthermore, a potential replacement for that earlier resolution has already been [mostly?] drafted, and you can expect that to be submitted reasonably soon after this repeal passes.
(Before you ask, amending a passed resolution isn't allowed so "repeal and then replace" is the only way to make changes.)

by **Farwood** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:42 am

It is my opinion that the reasons stated for the proposed repeal do not in fact warrant such and that amendments can be made to the existing document to address the concerns presented in this proposal. Despite this it appears that the motion will carry and the previously-signed law will be removed from the books without there being due consideration for the long-term ramifications.

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 am

Farwood wrote:It is my opinion that the reasons stated for the proposed repeal do not in fact warrant such and that amendments can be made to the existing document to address the concerns presented in this proposal. Despite this it appears that the motion will carry and the previously-signed law will be removed from the books without there being due consideration for the long-term ramifications.

Amendments aren't possible.

by **Tinhampton** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:03 am

Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act" was passed 9,305 votes to 5,290.

by **The Greater Siriusian Domain** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:24 am

OOC: I would paraphrase a certain senator from a certain science-fantasy movie if there wasn't a replacement proposal in the works.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:32 am

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:OOC: I would paraphrase a certain senator from a certain science-fantasy movie if there wasn't a replacement proposal in the works.

OOC: Do it anyway, cause I want to know which one you mean.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:54 am

Araraukar wrote:
The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:OOC: I would paraphrase a certain senator from a certain science-fantasy movie if there wasn't a replacement proposal in the works.

OOC: Do it anyway, cause I want to know which one you mean.

Amidala, this is how freedom dies, thunderous applause.

by **Fauxia** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:01 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do it anyway, cause I want to know which one you mean.

Amidala, this is how freedom dies, thunderous applause.

I think it's liberty, not freedom.

by **The Greater Siriusian Domain** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:41 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Amidala, this is how freedom dies, thunderous applause.
I think it's liberty, not freedom.

OOC: Actually, the quote is "This is how democracy dies. With thunderous applause". The way I'd paraphrase it, though, is "This is how freedom of speech dies. With thunderous applause."

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:26 pm

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:
Fauxia wrote:I think it's liberty, not freedom.

OOC: Actually, the quote is "This is how democracy dies. With thunderous applause". The way I'd paraphrase it, though, is "This is how freedom of speech dies. With thunderous applause."

OOC: Also, not a senator

by **The Greater Siriusian Domain** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:48 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:
OOC: Actually, the quote is "This is how democracy dies. With thunderous applause". The way I'd paraphrase it, though, is "This is how freedom of speech dies. With thunderous applause."

OOC: Also, not a senator

OOC: I definitely remember her holding the title of senator. Anakin brought it up in Episode 2 (before the infamous "I hate sand" scene). If you're saying she was a representative, that was Jar Jar "let's give Palpatine total control over the government! I'm sure nothing will go wrong!" Binks' position.

by **Sanctaria** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:02 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:
OOC: Actually, the quote is "This is how democracy dies. With thunderous applause". The way I'd paraphrase it, though, is "This is how freedom of speech dies. With thunderous applause."

OOC: Also, not a senator

((She was a Senator, I'm about 99% positive)

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:17 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Also, not a senator

She was and during the comments and speech given by Palpatine, she was a Senator. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Padmé_Amidala

by **Fauxia** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:20 pm

Okay, the mods are probably not happy that a WA thread turned into a discussion about a Star Wars quote...

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:24 pm

OOC: Yes, yes. But wasn't Obi-Wan the one who actually said it??? Not a senator!

(I can't believe I'm acknowledging the prequels on a public forum, but such is the age in which we live. So it goes.)

by **Fauxia** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:46 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Yes, yes. But wasn't Obi-Wan the one who actually said it??? Not a senator!

(I can't believe I'm acknowledging the prequels on a public forum, but such is the age in which we live. So it goes.)

I must agree with the second part.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:46 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Yes, yes. But wasn't Obi-Wan the one who actually said it??? Not a senator!

(I can't believe I'm acknowledging the prequels on a public forum, but such is the age in which we live. So it goes.)

OOC: Obi-Wan's had some work done.

Congrats on the successful repeal! I look forward to the replacement.

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:23 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Yes, yes. But wasn't Obi-Wan the one who actually said it??? Not a senator!

(I can't believe I'm acknowledging the prequels on a public forum, but such is the age in which we live. So it goes.)

OOC: Obi-Wan's had some work done.

Congrats on the successful repeal! I look forward to the replacement.

Ah. I stand corrected then. :oops:

[PASSED] Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act"

Who is online