[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

[Agadar]

To be honest, I think we've debated this legislation for long enough.
I motion to vote.

I second the motion to vote, and thus the voting period has begun.

I vote FOR.

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

I agree with this legislation and in so, I vote FOR

[Vancouvia]

Can I request that Senators post now when they vote their vouches i.e. I vote for with four votes. And please actively check the info dispatch to determine that you're being accurate.

[Doppler]

I vote FOR with 5 votes.

[Agadar]

Can I request that Senators post now when they vote their vouches i.e. I vote for with four votes. And please actively check the info dispatch to determine that you're being accurate.

I'm sure that won't be too much of an inconvenience to us. I won't edit the post in which I stated my vote, as that would go against Senate procedures, but I'll start doing so from now on.

I'd like to ask Speaker Dash to confirm that we adopt Van's suggestion.

[Doppler]

Can I request that Senators post now when they vote their vouches i.e. I vote for with four votes. And please actively check the info dispatch to determine that you're being accurate.

I'm sure that won't be too much of an inconvenience to us. I won't edit the post in which I stated my vote, as that would go against Senate procedures, but I'll start doing so from now on.

I'd like to ask Speaker Dash to confirm that we adopt Van's suggestion.

It would make the process a lot more easier. Than one person (presumably the VP or SPT) doesn't have to tally up the number of votes for or against and confuse numbers.

[Verdon]

I vote FOR with 6 votes.

[Dashgrinaar]

Can I request that Senators post now when they vote their vouches i.e. I vote for with four votes. And please actively check the info dispatch to determine that you're being accurate.

I'm sure that won't be too much of an inconvenience to us. I won't edit the post in which I stated my vote, as that would go against Senate procedures, but I'll start doing so from now on.

I'd like to ask Speaker Dash to confirm that we adopt Van's suggestion.

Confirmed. Sorry that I haven't been on a lot, I have a busy two weeks ahead of me.

[Dashgrinaar]

The Bill Passes, 19 votes for to none against, 4 abstained. The Grace Period Specification Amendment, "A Constitutional amendment to specify the duration and conditions of the grace period granted to newly-elected Executive Officers and Justices," has passed in the Senate and as such, will now be presented to the Supreme Court for consideration.

Grace Period Specification Amendment

---

"A Constitutional amendment to specify the duration and conditions of the grace period granted to newly-elected Executive Officers and Justices."

---

Preamble

The Constitution states in Article V, Section 4 among other things: 'Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties.' There are three problems found in this sentence:

1. It fails to specify exactly how long a 'reasonable period of time in office' is;
2. It establishes inactive officers may be prematurely challenged for elections, which is redundant: inactive officers lose their membership status and thus their office after 3 days of inactivity, just like normal member nations;
3. It fails to specify exactly who decides whether or not an officer is clearly not fulfilling their duties.

This amendment seeks to solve these problems in the following ways:

1. A 'reasonable period of time in office' will be specified to be 30 days;
2. It removes the part '... or the defending officer is inactive ...' from the sentence;
3. It specifies that it is the Vice President who decides whether or not an officer is clearly not fulfilling their duties in the case of the President, the President in the case of Executive Officers and the Chief Justice, and the Chief Justice in the case of Justices.

Grace Period Specification

(1) Amends the following sentence in Article V, Section 4: "Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent a reasonable period of time in office, or the defending officer is inactive or otherwise clearly not fulfilling their duties."

to

"Challenge elections can only occur after the defending officer has spent 30 days in office, or is clearly unwilling to or incapable of fulfilling their duties as judged by the Vice President (if the defending officer is the President), the President (if the defending officer is an Executive Officer or the Chief Justice), or the Chief Justice (if the defending officer is a Justice)."

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

Proposal
I propose the following bill.
Please provide feedback.
I think I may have overwritten this act and if anything, the Preamble and Article 1 are the most important, as they delineate two explicit punishable crimes. Everything else is somewhat worded as a suggestion and methods of preventing ambiguous circumstances...

Content Integrity Act

---

"An Act of Legislation to preserve the integrity and accountability of all regional works and content, providing a definition and system for addressing acts of plagiarism and content infidelity"

---

---

Preamble

---

The purpose of this act is to formally address the issue of plagiarism and content theft, both definitively and concisely, as well as provide a framework and course of action in response to alleged plagiarism and content infidelity. This has been raised in response to no existing legislation that discusses, delineates, or defines the grounds for plagiarism and content infidelity. In an environment in which role play and the integrity of creator content is of high importance, the necessity of this act is deemed paramount. This act is an extension of A.S. #025 Consequences for Actions (2016)

---

Article I - Definitions

---

(1) - Plagiarism - The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his [or her] writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one's own mind. (Black's Law Dictionary)

(2) - Content Infidelity - The act of stealing, unauthorized replication, and/or unauthorized possession, either in part or in whole, of the content within another individual's fact books, accounts, bulletins, forum posts (see exceptions) and other relevant content (whose relevancy is determined on a case by case basis), inclusive of written works, illustrations, graphics, diagrams, maps, charts, as well as other content (to be delineated on a case by case basis)

---

Article II - Enforcement Procedure

---

(1.1) - Accusation and Content Claim by the Original Content Owner - Upon witnessing the act of Plagiarism and Content Infidelity, the original owner of the content may (but is not mandated to) file a claim of Plagiarism and/or Content Infidelity (fulfilling the definitions above) against the alleged suspect. The claim shall be filed with the Supreme Court, who, by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Line 6) is required to "arbitrate on any OOC matters as requested by the parties involved".

Inversely, the original owner of the content may authorize the replication of his or her own content by another, and thus, the act of replication, reuse, or appropriation, in part or in whole, is no longer deemed plagiarism or content infidelity.

(1.2) - Accusation and Content Claim by Bystanders - Upon witnessing the act of Plagiarism and Content Infidelity, a bystander should (but is not mandated to) notify the original content owner, as well as the Supreme Court. The bystander may (but is not mandated to) file the accusation, in which the Supreme Court, who, by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Line 6) is required to "arbitrate on any OOC matters as requested by the parties involved", however, should, on a case by case basis, decide if the bystander is considered a qualifier of the term "parties involved", or if, in that case, the claim can only be filed by the original content owner.

(1.3) - Inclusion - When filing a claim or accusation of plagiarism and content infidelity, notifying an Executive Officer should be (but is not mandated to be) included, in addition to the notification of the Supreme Court (and content owner when filing a claim as a bystander).

(2) - Proceedings - Upon receiving a claim of plagiarism or content infidelity, the Supreme Court is given the freedom to decide its method of handling the claim, as delineated in the Constitution (Article III, Section 7): "The Supreme Court shall determine the rules of its own proceedings."

(3) - Formal Rulings via The Judiciary - A formal ruling is achieved by a formal decision by the Supreme Court, delineated in the Constitution (Article III, Section 4): "The justices shall act as a collective unit. A majority vote is necessary for any decisions." Formal Rulings are to be treated as a Supreme Court Order.

(4) - Formal Rulings via The Executive - In the interest of expediency, and instances where content is obviously and blatantly plagiarized, or content infidelity is obviously and blatantly committed, a ruling can be issued through an Executive Order. Appeals can be performed to the Supreme Court to appeal this form of Formal Ruling.

(5) - Informal Rulings - An informal ruling is achieved by simple request by any individual for the plagiarized content or 'content of infidelity' to be removed, in which the accused is not obligated to (but encouraged) to remove the plagiarized content or 'content of infidelity'. Informal Rulings are not to be treated as orders by an officer.

---

Article III - Exceptions and Clarifications

---

Section 1 - Exceptions

(1) - Quoting - The act of quoting another individual's content in forums, regional message boards, or other applicable circumstances (to be determined on a case by case basis), should not be considered plagiarism or content infidelity.

(2) - External Information - The act of replicating content outside of Nationstates, such as the use of content from online encyclopedias, online record databases, Wikipedia, and other non-Nationstates content, is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of this act of legislation, and therefor, should not be enforceable under this act.

(2.1) - Replication Reciprocity - The act of replicating content by another player that is explicitly copied from a non-Nationstates external source, should not be considered plagiarism or content infidelity, and should be treated as though the content was copied from the external source directly. See Clarification (3).

(3.1) - Formatting - Reuse or replication of a particular style of formatting in Factbooks, Forum Posts, or other applicable circumstances (to be determined on a case by case basis), should not be considered plagiarism or content infidelity.

(3.2) - Distinguishing Format from Content - Format is inclusive of hexadecimal color codes, text / image alignments, table formatting, bbcode tags, and other applicable instances (to be determined on a case by case basis), while Content is defined as original works generated by a creator, supplemented optionally by formatting. Content can exist without formatting, and inversely formatting can exist without content.

(4) - Mathematical Formulas - Equations, calculations, mathematical principles, formula, and statistical methodology is considered common propriety, and therefor, replicating the methods of computing data should not be considered plagiarism or content infidelity.

(5) - Culturally Significant Works - Culturally Significant Works, such as historic pieces of art, historic landmarks, and real world content of cultural significance, is considered external content, and thus, the use of such culturally significant works in player content, cannot be considered plagiarism or content infidelity. Modified renditions of such works (for example, edited images) no longer fulfill this category.

Section 2 - Clarifications

(1) - Case by Case Basis - The Supreme Court, when acting in accordance to the Constitution, shall determine the applicability of ambiguous circumstances during a claim of plagiarism and / or content infidelity.

(2) - Enforcement Procedure Flexibility - The Enforcement Procedure is to be considered a suggestion of operation, and is subject to change, provided that any amendments to the suggested enforcement procedure abides by the Constitution.

(3) - Further Elaboration: Replication Reciprocity - Replication Reciprocity involves a scenario in which a player copies content from an external source, and another player copies the first player's content: a "quotation of a quotation" scenario. Instances in which the external content is paraphrased, summarized, and rewritten, is NOT open to replication reciprocity, and therefor is protected against plagiarism and content infringement. The threshold in which a quotation becomes a summary or a paraphrasing, shall be determined on a case by case basis.

---

Article IV - Declaration of Intention

---

The intention of this act of legislation is to provide a clear and concise method of declaring plagiarism and content infidelity, while also providing an expedient way to respond to such instances, firstly with an informal ruling, then with a Formal Ruling via the Executive, where Formal Ruling via the Supreme Court is only in instances of appeals, or ambiguous infringement.

[Vancouvia]

The mods here are very good about removing plagirized dispatches promptly upon filing a GHR. I have used this multiple times in the past to stop other regions from copy-pasting our Constitution and other documents to their own regions. There's no need to send this through our Supreme Court when the mods take care of this.

[Agadar]

The mods here are very good about removing plagirized dispatches promptly upon filing a GHR. I have used this multiple times in the past to stop other regions from copy-pasting our Constitution and other documents to their own regions. There's no need to send this through our Supreme Court when the mods take care of this.

I'm trying to think of any advantages it might bring to try and internally resolve plagiarizations before getting the moderators involved. I can't currently think of any. On top of that, if it is internally decided that something is not plagiarization, then what is preventing the accuser from getting the moderators involved anyway, thus rendering the entire internal process pointless?

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

The mods here are very good about removing plagirized dispatches promptly upon filing a GHR. I have used this multiple times in the past to stop other regions from copy-pasting our Constitution and other documents to their own regions. There's no need to send this through our Supreme Court when the mods take care of this.

I'm trying to think of any advantages it might bring to try and internally resolve plagiarizations before getting the moderators involved. I can't currently think of any. On top of that, if it is internally decided that something is not plagiarization, then what is preventing the accuser from getting the moderators involved anyway, thus rendering the entire internal process pointless?

This legislation is made in response to an increasing appearance in Regional Journalism, such as TWIG and the Polar Report. This legislation protects regional content from cross replication, and I simply extended it to factbooks and regional content. It's merely a redundancy (also in part that I was not aware how moderators handled plagiarism).

Perhaps I should just reword it as simply a formal statement that plagiarism and content infidelity is not permitted? In instances of both internal regional content, as well as external offsite journalism?

[Agadar]

The mods here are very good about removing plagirized dispatches promptly upon filing a GHR. I have used this multiple times in the past to stop other regions from copy-pasting our Constitution and other documents to their own regions. There's no need to send this through our Supreme Court when the mods take care of this.

This legislation is made in response to an increasing appearance in Regional Journalism, such as TWIG and the Polar Report. This legislation protects regional content from cross replication, and I simply extended it to factbooks and regional content. It's merely a redundancy (also in part that I was not aware how moderators handled plagiarism).

Perhaps I should just reword it as simply a formal statement that plagiarism and content infidelity is not permitted? In instances of both internal regional content, as well as external offsite journalism?

I see merit in legislation covering plagiarism on offsite pages associated with our region, as those websites are out of the jurisdiction of the NationStates moderators but not necessarily out of the jurisdiction of our regional government. I think if you make your proposed legislation primarily about how to handle plagiarism on offsite pages associated with our region instead of onsite plagiarism (as the latter is handled smoothly by the moderators according to Vancouvia) then I think it would have more merit than it has in its current form.

[Vancouvia]

And write it in simple layman's terms....

[Doppler]

The mods here are very good about removing plagirized dispatches promptly upon filing a GHR. I have used this multiple times in the past to stop other regions from copy-pasting our Constitution and other documents to their own regions. There's no need to send this through our Supreme Court when the mods take care of this.

This legislation is made in response to an increasing appearance in Regional Journalism, such as TWIG and the Polar Report. This legislation protects regional content from cross replication, and I simply extended it to factbooks and regional content. It's merely a redundancy (also in part that I was not aware how moderators handled plagiarism).

Perhaps I should just reword it as simply a formal statement that plagiarism and content infidelity is not permitted? In instances of both internal regional content, as well as external offsite journalism?

I think you should re-word it. I really don't see how it is directed in Region Journalism. Were you attempting to conduct this act at dispatches as well as Regional Journalism?

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

This legislation is made in response to an increasing appearance in Regional Journalism, such as TWIG and the Polar Report. This legislation protects regional content from cross replication, and I simply extended it to factbooks and regional content. It's merely a redundancy (also in part that I was not aware how moderators handled plagiarism).

Perhaps I should just reword it as simply a formal statement that plagiarism and content infidelity is not permitted? In instances of both internal regional content, as well as external offsite journalism?

I think you should re-word it. I really don't see how it is directed in Region Journalism. Were you attempting to conduct this act at dispatches as well as Regional Journalism?

Yes, I was trying to make umbrella legislation to counteract content replication.
I'm currently redrafting for Western Isles Offsite Content.

[Agadar]

I think you should re-word it. I really don't see how it is directed in Region Journalism. Were you attempting to conduct this act at dispatches as well as Regional Journalism?

Yes, I was trying to make umbrella legislation to counteract content replication.
I'm currently redrafting for Western Isles Offsite Content.

It might have merit to include in your bill that onsite plagiarism should be handled between the accuser and the plagiarizer, and failing that, the accuser should get the moderators involved.

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

Yes, I was trying to make umbrella legislation to counteract content replication.
I'm currently redrafting for Western Isles Offsite Content.

It might have merit to include in your bill that onsite plagiarism should be handled between the accuser and the plagiarizer, and failing that, the accuser should get the moderators involved.

From my understanding, having learned from this discussion, that an informal procedure does not need formal recognition in legislation, and would be more appropriate as a suggestion given up front to newcomers

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

Rewritten for discussion
Previous proposal is amended into this new proposal.

Offsite Content Integrity Act

---

"An Act of Legislation to preserve the integrity and accountability of offsite regional works and content, providing a definition and system for addressing acts of plagiarism and content infidelity"

---

---

Preamble

---

The purpose of this act is to formally address the issue of plagiarism and content theft on Western Isles Offsite Content, both definitively and concisely, as well as providing a framework for enforcement. This has been raised in response to no existing legislation that discusses, delineates, or defines the grounds for plagiarism and content infidelity on offsite content relevant to The Western Isles.

---

Article I - Definitions

---

(1) - Plagiarism - The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his [or her] writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one's own mind. (Black's Law Dictionary)

(2) - Content Infidelity - The act of stealing, unauthorized replication, and/or unauthorized possession, either in part or in whole, of the content within another individual's fact books, accounts, bulletins, forum posts (see exceptions) and other relevant content (whose relevancy is determined on a case by case basis), inclusive of written works, illustrations, graphics, diagrams, maps, charts, as well as other content (to be delineated on a case by case basis)

---

Article II - Enforcement

---

(1) All Western Isles offsite content that contains plagiarized content, or is produced with content infidelity, is strictly prohibited. Exceptions apply.

(2) Responsibility for enforcing the removal of plagiarized content, or content infidelity, is placed upon the respective content supervisor of the offsite publisher.

(3) Failure of the responsible supervisor to enforce the removal of plagiarized content, or content infidelity, will result in the offsite content being unacknowledged, unofficial, and of no relevance to The Western Isles. Promotion of unacknowledged or unofficial offsite content in the RMB or Telegrams is strictly prohibited, and is considered spam.

---

Article III - Exceptions

---

(1) The following are exceptions to this act, and can be replicated freely: Ideas, methods, processes, or systems; Facts and events ( particular interpretations of facts and events cannot be replicated freely, but the events themselves and the freedom to generate interpretations, remains in the public domain); Names, titles, short phrases, and slogans; Listings of ingredients or contents; Familiar symbols or designs, typeface; Computations, extrapolations, etc; Senate Legislation; Authorized Quotation.

(2) The extent in which content remains in the public domain, or if content infidelity or plagiarism has occurred, is for interpretation by the content supervisor of the offsite publisher. Orders by regional officers can override the interpretation of the supervisor. If the supervisor is a regional officer, the interpretation can be overridden by the founder.

[The Pacific Peace Union]

So there is no punishment? Like if someone copied something from TWIG I could not take them to court?

[Agadar]

The page is looking messed up for me, GRCP. It's something to do with your formatting.

There's also a closing url-tag in your post, but no opening tag.

PPU raises a fair point that there is currently no punishment for plagiarizers.

It also fails to define who determines whether something is plagiarism or not. The Supreme Court seems like the go-to for that.

You write "The extent in which content remains in the public domain, or if content infidelity or plagiarism has occurred, is for interpretation by the content supervisor of the offsite publisher." I disagree with that. The regional government should be the primary decider, not the secondary.

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

The page is looking messed up for me, GRCP. It's something to do with your formatting.
There's also a closing url-tag in your post, but no opening tag.

Removed the accidental URL closing tag.
Align justify is what messed up the formatting.
Sorry about all that.

So there is no punishment? Like if someone copied something from TWIG I could not take them to court?

PPU raises a fair point that there is currently no punishment for plagiarizers.

I think from an enforcement perspective, matters outside of NationStates seems beyond our capability. Say for instance, another region copies some non-specific content from TWIG, and posts it as their offsite content. We have no enforcement ability to raise flags against them, other then denouncing their actions. Secondly, with offsite content, you pose the risk of impersonation and falsification. Say for instance, an individual deliberately plagiarizes TWIG content under a false alias as another nation, and we actively prosecute the nation being framed.

Since offsite content is difficult enforce, I'd rather not encumber our system with a procedure that requires substantial evidence gathering to counteract the anonymity factor as well as trying to extrapolate our jurisdiction.

This legislation merely oversees off-site content on a site supervised by TWI members, and mandates the removal of plagiarized content. Subsequent prosecution following removal, is a cumbersome process, even for actual real life copyright agencies.

The most we can do now is promote the integrity of content we oversee and claim to be ours.

You write "The extent in which content remains in the public domain, or if content infidelity or plagiarism has occurred, is for interpretation by the content supervisor of the offsite publisher." I disagree with that. The regional government should be the primary decider, not the secondary.

This is in the interest of expediency. There may be a point in which handling issues of ambiguity in plagiarism may encumber the regional government, and in so, a supervisor's oversight easily lifts some of that burden. Giving officers 'override' capability simply adds one additional step to changing interpretations, which I doubt will take much effort at all.

Also, allowing regional government to to be the primary source of interpretation somewhat hampers the autonomy of offsite content creators. Think of it in terms of actual journalism. When a Newspaper goes out, and has plagiarized content, does the government swoop in and start making interpretations? Occasionally, but usually, plagiarism is cut off by an Editor in Chief, prior to an appeal to government.

Thirdly, having the regional government 'vet' content with ambiguous plagiarism may actually be a deterrent to the spirit of journalism and content creation. The fear of having someone of power, look through what you've written, and then prosecute you both offsite and onsite, may dissuade participants to enter the field of offsite content creation. WIth a supervisor, there is distinct and beneficial dichotomy between onsite and offsite, and only in instances of true ambiguity, will the two merge.

In short, allowing supervisor interpretations promotes efficiency, better reflects realistic proceedings, and has little 'impedance' in terms of regional government authority. It's simply another filter and resolution method.

---

Offsite content for TWI is in its fledgling stages, this act is designed in a way to have room for growth and development, should journalism and offsite content creation catch ground.

[Agadar]

I think from an enforcement perspective, matters outside of NationStates seems beyond our capability. Say for instance, another region copies some non-specific content from TWIG, and posts it as their offsite content. We have no enforcement ability to raise flags against them, other then denouncing their actions.

There's not much we can do about websites unassociated with TWI committing plagiarism, so that is a moot point in this discussion.

Secondly, with offsite content, you pose the risk of impersonation and falsification. Say for instance, an individual deliberately plagiarizes TWIG content under a false alias as another nation, and we actively prosecute the nation being framed.

Since offsite content is difficult enforce, I'd rather not encumber our system with a procedure that requires substantial evidence gathering to counteract the anonymity factor as well as trying to extrapolate our jurisdiction.

I see no problem with this. If it cannot be proven that the nation being prosecuted is the one behind the website, then he walks free. That is the justice system at work.

On another note: it's not entirely clear to me from reading the law what the entire process is. Imagine I stumble upon a website associated with TWI that has plagiarized my factbook. What do I do? Ask whoever is in charge of the website to change it? Or do I directly go to a government official? And if so, which government official? Do I approach the President, or the Interior Secretary, or someone else? Or am I supposed to bring a case to the Supreme Court? And so forth. I'd like to see some elaboration on that.

[Vancouvia]

If the plagiarism is on site: contact mods
If it's off site: you are basically powerless

I don't see a need for this legislation