[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

[Vioraux]

If there is no punishment like I thought there would be this legislation seems useless

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

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.

Then again, with something so difficult to enforce, a formal prosecution / notification process would simply add an unnecessary mechanism to an open-ended system. I feel as though notifying anybody would eventually cause the claim to reach the editor, and appropriate disciplinary action will follow suit. If anything, usual circumstances would cause an individual witnessing plagiarism to go straight to the supervisor.

Though perhaps you're right, and that I should add a line stating a recommendation to go to the supervisor.

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

You're right in that there is no necessity for this legislation, but then again, this is a preemptive "decleration of intolerence"
We may not be able to enforce it, but with passage it demonstrates our intention of promoting content integrity, both onsite and offsite.
It covers bases, and is a gateway to bridging offsite and onsite content, a first step in response to journalism trends.

Also consider currently, that the individuals running offsite content are usually officers of TWI, and thus, there is "some" degree of potential for enforcement, and that we are not necessarily powerless. A clear deceleration of what the TWI will and will not tolerate in terms of this topic, adds a layer of 'rigid policy' in an area that is otherwise uncontrolled.

"Abide by our rules, or be considered spam" is the mentality.

[Agadar]

If all the law does is establish "abide by our rules, or be considered spam" while:

1. failing to specify a course of action for victims of plagiarism to take;
2. failing to even specify what officer is responsible for handling plagiarism cases;
3. failing to punish nations should there be evidence they are behind a specific website that commits plagiarism.

then I don't think it is enough to warrant legislation at all.

[Doppler]

Vancouvia raises a point with the off-site stuff and PPU raises a point with no punishment as well. I don't really see where this is act is going to come into play.

[The Grand Royal Commercial Prefecture]

If all the law does is establish "abide by our rules, or be considered spam" while:

1. failing to specify a course of action for victims of plagiarism to take;
2. failing to even specify what officer is responsible for handling plagiarism cases;
3. failing to punish nations should there be evidence they are behind a specific website that commits plagiarism.

then I don't think it is enough to warrant legislation at all.

Vancouvia raises a point with the off-site stuff and PPU raises a point with no punishment as well. I don't really see where this is act is going to come into play.

This act was originally drafted in response to a request by one of my vouchers to have a certain degree of 'copyrighting' system for offsite content.
Through discussion with my fellow Senators, I realize the duality and reciprocity of issues with this concept.

If the legislation has very light restriction, because enforcement is difficult and impossible
then the legislation is inadequate, undeveloped, and unnecessary.

If the legislation has very heavy restriction, because it is inadequate, undeveloped, and unnecessary
then the legislation will be difficult and impossible to enforce.

It has become apparent to me that as of now, offsite content is too 'new' as a phenomena (for The Western Isles) and is too difficult to regulate, for us to extrapolate jurisdiction and provide enforcement. I think, for now, that it's probably best that this issue is handled informally (due to the 'informal' nature of offsite content) and not through hard-line legislation. Finding the perfect formula for offsite enforcement will take time and effort, and in the interest of an efficient chamber, I believe that the floor open for more pressing issues.

I hereby revoke my proposal for the Content Integrity Act and the subsequent amendment, the Offsite Content Integrity Act, for further development outside of the Senate.
When the time comes, after observing further trends in offsite content, I'll propose similar legislation again. For now, this act of legislation is attempting to provide a solution to something that has yet to become a substantial issue. Thusly, I shall throw it onto the back burners, and make way for more immediate issues that may come to the Senate's attention.

[The Pacific Peace Union]

I requested it but if enforcement is that hard then it does seem best to revoke it.

[Dashgrinaar]

Would the Senators like to present a topic for the Senate to discuss at the present time?

[Agadar]

Would the Senators like to present a topic for the Senate to discuss at the present time?

Not at the moment, no.

[Dashgrinaar]

Since it's been about 3 weeks,

Would the Senators like to present a topic for the Senate to discuss at the present time?

[United Great Britian]

Since it's been about 3 weeks,

Would the Senators like to present a topic for the Senate to discuss at the present time?

Why are you pressuring them to waste time?

[Agadar]

Since it's been about 3 weeks,

Why are you pressuring them to waste time?

Discussing topics in the Senate is hardly a waste of time, UGB, and it is one of the VP's duties to promote activity in the Senate.

Speaker: I have no topics to present today. I am currently content with the legislative state of affairs of our region. However, I will make sure to forward your question to my supporters. Maybe they see things I don't.

[United Great Britian]

Why are you pressuring them to waste time?

Discussing topics in the Senate is hardly a waste of time, UGB, and it is one of the VP's duties to promote activity in the Senate.

Speaker: I have no topics to present today. I am currently content with the legislative state of affairs of our region. However, I will make sure to forward your question to my supporters. Maybe they see things I don't.

I mean it feels as if, Dash is trying to force discussion over nothing.

[Eutristan]

Discussing topics in the Senate is hardly a waste of time, UGB, and it is one of the VP's duties to promote activity in the Senate.

Speaker: I have no topics to present today. I am currently content with the legislative state of affairs of our region. However, I will make sure to forward your question to my supporters. Maybe they see things I don't.

I mean it feels as if, Dash is trying to force discussion over nothing.

I mean it feels as if, UGB is trying to incite debates.

[United Great Britian]

I mean it feels as if, Dash is trying to force discussion over nothing.

I mean it feels as if, UGB is trying to incite debates.

What do you think it would mean if I was?

[The Pacific Peace Union]

I mean it feels as if, UGB is trying to incite debates.

What do you think it would mean if I was?

Kinda dumb because there's no need for debate on the senate thread at the moment

[Dashgrinaar]

To the Senators and their affiliate vouchers;

I would like to bring to your attention that a matter has been brought up before the region that will eventually come before the Senate. As of last year, the power to change the map is held in the hands of the Senate, along with founder consent. Final changes are implemented through a regional vote with a 75% approval threshold.

The people of the region are beginning to discuss changes such as cap raises paired with map expansions. I would like to bring this to the Senate floor for discussion.

[Agadar]

To the Senators and their affiliate vouchers;

I would like to bring to your attention that a matter has been brought up before the region that will eventually come before the Senate. As of last year, the power to change the map is held in the hands of the Senate, along with founder consent. Final changes are implemented through a regional vote with a 75% approval threshold.

The people of the region are beginning to discuss changes such as cap raises paired with map expansions. I would like to bring this to the Senate floor for discussion.

Which one is it you wish to discuss: the map changes proposed by some, or the laws covering map changes?

EDIT: In the case of the former, what changes are being proposed? I glossed over some arguments made, mostly by President Miklania, but I do not quite recall them.

[Taziristan]

Tag.

[Dashgrinaar]

Sorry, I asked Mik for some info but never received it, so I'll just move ahead. Let's begin dicussion on the changes being proposed, mainly map expansion and raising the caps.

[Verdon]

Elaborate. I've been apartment hunting in another state for the past 4 days.

[Agadar]

Sorry, I asked Mik for some info but never received it, so I'll just move ahead. Let's begin dicussion on the changes being proposed, mainly map expansion and raising the caps.

What are the arguments proposed for map expansion and raising the caps?

[Taziristan]

In my opinion, I believe that any discussion of this topic is premature. There are too many unknowns in what the region might be willing to accept or will not be willing to accept as there is no proposed idea on how to enlarge the region or raise the caps without significant complications. However, If we wish to discuss this topic now, in a body that creates law for the region, then we should weigh the possible pros and the possible cons.

Please note this is assuming this proposal that I THINK Miklania was leaning towards and some members were agreeing on:

That the caps be raised to 100 million and 50-60 thousand GDP, that some how our current map was enlarged to include more land to the west, south, and east, and that nations be allowed to take more land.

Pros:

1. The Only positive thing I can see coming of this is a wider range of nation building possibilities, including the possibility of Superpowers and Regional Powers and true scenarios like the Iran vs Israel affair or the Cold war, or a Real World War. The possibilities of a larger map and higher caps are abundant. However, at what cost does this come?

Cons:

1. Reconciliation of Pre-existing Cannon

In terms of player created cannon (History, economics, wars, culture, etc.), players will have to face a whole new world around them and face the fact that to live in this new world of higher population caps and GDP caps, there will need to be a massive change in their own cannon. They will have to change their history to accommodate their new position in the world, their economies to better compete with nations around them, their militaries to even stand a chance at defending themselves against whatever nation chooses to be at the high end of the new soft cap or population cap. Regional politics and alliances, once the defining reasoning for war, now will be shattered despite many RPs creating this system of alliances and tensions, or friendships and rivalries. Nations' ancient history will be uprooted as they attempt to explain how (in Atnaia's case) the became the british empire or how (in my case) Islam was introduced to the area, as there would now be an entire continent blocking me from China. All of these things plus many more that I could not think of now would be affected by this great upheaval of our system.

2. Reconciliation of Now Required Cannon

The worst part about this whole thing in terms of history is attempting to explain where this new land came from. Currently, we could easily say we are part of the Ring of Fire, where under water volcanoes formed and created islands, or any number of things. But to include land that can raise multiple nations with 100 million people a piece? That would require something extraordinary, cataclysmic, and alternate in Earth's long history. How these new landmasses got here would be such a large hole in the assumptions of our map that it would be impossible to ignore and must be answered sooner of later.

3. With New Caps Come New Powers

Originally, the caps were placed at 30k GDPpc and 30 Million people (soft anyways) to keep us fair and balanced. It offered nations to be considered large and have a large military like Miklania or small like Ostehaar has made his. It required regional cooperation with Space programs and Nuclear research. It limited our force projection so that one nation could not conquer a bunch of small ones simply due to lack of manpower. Essentially, we eliminated the scenario that is playing out in Real life right now, where one superpower controls the world and intervenes constantly. Vancouvia and Polar Svalbard did this so that we could be a fair. But now, with new caps, we are threatening one of the most welcoming aspects of our region. We will see nations that come in with a population of 80 million, a massive GDP and military, team up with a couple other large nations and begin to push smaller, non aligned nations around. You will see another similar alliance rise up to stand against them and thus create a war that becomes too large to truly manage and an RP scenario that only hurts the prospects of smaller nations, who are forced into foreign policies that keep the nation's head low and ducking for cover when the larger nations swing. This is not the TWI we are used to and it will shatter our community of isles.

4. Prominent RPers Have Said They Would Quit and that This Would Hurt Role Play Realism

I believe Ostehaar has hinted at it and Atnaia flat out said it. Atnaia and Randmar in particular have called us out already on being too unrealistic with carriers and satellites and nuclear programs, with vast, modern education systems and power house economies that Would give many European countries a run for their money. Do we really want to lose great pillars of our community to a few nations' boredom because of lack of a diverse role play interest? I would dare say no. Not while this region is running so well as it is.

5. Personal Experience Screams NO

When I left TWI as Ventlimer, I went to Admayora. It was a region with a map a lot like ours, except with less islands and including four large continents. We started off nice, fun, and continued to try and grow the small region, at one point getting 20 members, I think. It was by application only. However, merely a month later, Inefficient government along with bad attempts to reconcile world geography and history wit resources and ethnicity managed to cause all but 1 or 2 nations in the region to simply quit. Even the founder CTE'd. However, in the meantime we did carry out some wars, some roleplay. The large empires crushed the small nations, nations with less than 30 Million people were left out of the RPs all together due to their lack of importance in the Geopolitical world of the time. The Region had potential, but over ambitious allowances of roleplay killed it. I do not want anything of this kind to happen to TWI.

For these reasons, I fully oppose any sort of change in our caps and roleplay that does not include careful, incremental, planned, and well executed changes over the period of months or even a year to get this right.

I would hope that the senate also realizes that it cannot make a single change to the map without the consent of the governed in TWI and that this discussion in itself is not only one of the most premature it has ever decided to hold, but also the most unnecessary and dangerous to the life of this region.

[Agadar]

Regional roleplaying is not something I would consider myself an expert in, but as a Senator I will state my opinion nonetheless.

I personally don't see any advantages to raising the caps, nor do I see any advantages to allow nations to take more land. We will only end up with everyone having bigger numbers and more pixels on the map, and with those not wanting to increase their numbers and pixels being marginalized. If anything, I can foresee this being detrimental to regional roleplaying as a whole: instead of nations banding together for military and trade alliances and scientific ventures, the new bigger nations won't have need for others. They will be powerful and wealthy enough to do everything on their own.

The one thing I do see merit in, and which we might be forced to do at some point in the future, though not now, is expanding the map. If we grow larger and recruit more active nations, then the map must grow with us, or some of the active nations will not be able to be placed on the map. Seeing as there currently still is plenty of room to spare, map expansion seems to me like a discussion for another time.

[Verdon]

You guys are making it easy for me, I don't even have to type.

I don't think we should shoot anything down before it's introduced here, but my personal argument against such a change is that it doesn't actually change anything; if you raise the limits, everyone raises their numbers to 'keep up'.

[Dashgrinaar]

Actually, maybe we should end this conversation for the current time, as I have seen extremely little word of this on the RMB. I would like to see if there are any topics anyone would like to bring up.