Imperium Anglorum wrote:Kinth wrote:
I'm not conflicting myself insofar as you have an attachment to the importance of fiction that I, in this context at least, don't have. Like, to be clear and serious and what-not, I'm repealing this legislation for entirely OOC reasons. The question of whether replacement needs to exist before a repeal is submitted, I think, should be answered in this case with No.
I see this resolution also similar to CoCR. There has been discussion on the forum to repeal CoCR simply to make room for more legislation and different legislative projects. Similarly have been discussions to repeal NEF for similar reasons. The Assembly is reaching a point where it becomes difficult to find ground that is not already tread. It is best, then, to tread ground which has only been very lightly tread in very broad strokes. This is one of those cases. And similarly is CoCR. And similarly is NEF.
A singular replacement of the target with similarly broad mandates is not something I would support. Instead, I would support smaller and more focused resolutions on subsections of expression. It would be interesting to see one on artistic expression, one on political speech, etc. This would be much more interesting and offer a lot more activity, opportunities to new players, and engender better and more focused discourse than a replacement on similarly broad grounds.
Moreover, we as a community seemingly lack the ability to engage with issues before they are actually on top of us. Nobody submits challenges until it becomes too late. Nobody gives feedback on proposals. Many GA regulars bemoan the fact that people come out of the woodworks only at vote. I wouldn't say this proposals is one of those cases (mostly because it was drafted for a very brief period, but longer than about a quarter of my passed resolutions), but it has happened to me and many authors in the past. Similarly undermanned and ignored are drafts for replacement of legislation that players do not believe will in fact be repealed. Insofar as it has been repealed, then, there will actually be legislative efforts to replace it.
But I also don't want to monopolise those efforts. Because we have a very strong norm that in the cases of repeal-replaces, ie the person who repealed it gets the ability to go first for replacing it (and go second and a third time, at least, until everyone tires of it). Furthermore, we also have strong norms about idea stealing, so much so that I didn't move ahead with this proposal until I received approval from the person who first thought of repeal as a solution for this commercial speech problem. I think these are both probably good norms in the abstract. I don't think they are good norms here, however, when the purpose of the project is to reinvigorate discourse on this topic.
EDIT: My apologies on the many edits to this text. I'm typing really fast.
Again, while I do now see the reasons behind this repeal, I would first like to see at least individual speech protected by another resolution ready to be voted as soon as this is repealed. Agreed that the other forms of expression can be looked at another time, but speech at a minimum would be necessary in my view.
Also, to Imperial States of Burgh, lol no.
