NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT 3] Prohibition of Hostile Architecture

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Tsaivao
Envoy
 
Posts: 327
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Anarchy

[DRAFT 3] Prohibition of Hostile Architecture

Postby Tsaivao » Sun May 02, 2021 8:53 pm

OOC: This is the first time I've tried doing a World Assembly proposal, so hopefully this is good!

Category: Public Safety, Mild

The World Assembly,

Commending the intentions of GAR#344: Minimum Standard of Living Act to support the homeless and poverty-stricken.

Concerned by the usage of unethical and unsafe civil engineering to dissuade individuals from resting in outdoor spaces.

Disturbed that this type of architecture is intended to intimidate or even physically harm individuals.

Noting that hostile architecture may be discomforting or extremely harmful to all individuals, not just those who are seeking temporary shelter.

Further noting that the provisions for the homeless provided in GAR#344 ultimately make this form of civil engineering unnecessary.

This legislation hereby:
  1. Defines, for the purpose of this legislation, the following:
    1. "Publicly-accessible" as a descriptor for an area wherein people are reasonably expected to be capable of interacting with or traveling through without trespassing.
    2. "Hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent an individual from accessing or resting on publicly-accessible property by the use of designs made to directly cause pain or discomfort to said individual.
  2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all publicly-accessible outdoor spaces.
  3. Provides an exemption for clause 2 in the case of fences or barricades that are intended to prevent individuals from accessing publicly-accessible outdoor spaces through an unintended method, so long as any spikes or barbs are clearly visible, above eye-level, and only designed to prevent individuals from illegally climbing over the barricade or fence.


Category: Public Safety, Mild

The World Assembly,

Commending the intentions of GAR#344: Minimum Standard of Living Act to support the homeless and poverty-stricken.

Concerned by the usage of unethical and unsafe civil engineering to dissuade individuals from resting in outdoor spaces.

Disturbed that this type of architecture is intended to intimidate or even physically harm individuals.

Noting that hostile architecture may be discomforting or extremely harmful to all individuals, not just those who are seeking temporary shelter.

Further noting that the provisions for the homeless provided in GAR#344 ultimately make this form of civil engineering unnecessary.

This legislation hereby:
  1. Defines, for the purpose of this legislation, the following:
    1. "Publicly-accessible" as a descriptor for an area wherein people are reasonably expected to be capable of interacting with or traveling through without trespassing.
    2. "Hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent an individual from accessing or resting on publicly-accessible property by the use of designs made to directly cause pain or discomfort to said individual.
  2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all publicly-accessible outdoor spaces.


Category: Public Safety, Mild

The World Assembly,

Commending the intentions of GAR#344: Minimum Standard of Living Act to support the homeless and poverty-stricken.

Concerned by the usage of unethical and unsafe civil engineering to dissuade individuals from resting in outdoor spaces.

Disturbed that this type of architecture is intended to intimidate or even physically harm individuals.

Noting that hostile architecture may be discomforting or extremely harmful to all individuals, not just those who are seeking temporary shelter.

Further noting that the provisions for the homeless provided in GAR#344 ultimately make this form of civil engineering unnecessary.

This legislation hereby:
  1. Defines "hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent an individual from accessing or resting on public property by the use of designs made to cause pain or discomfort to said individual.
  2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all publicly-accessible outdoor spaces.


Category: Social Justice, Mild

The World Assembly,

Concerned on the treatment of the homeless and despaired across WA member nations.

Disturbed that many nations opt to ignore the problem through devious tactics rather than address the issue properly.

Determined to break down the animosity between homeless individuals and their governments.

Hopeful that compassion will improve the welfare and wellbeing of all who are homeless or transient.

Encouraged to convince member nations to treat the homeless with some level of personal dignity and compassion.

This legislation hereby:
  1. Defines the following:
    1. A "homeless individual" as a citizen who is unable to live in a residence, especially if the individual cannot afford a home.
    2. "Hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent a homeless individual from accessing or resting on public or private property by the use of designs made to cause pain or discomfort to homeless individuals.
  2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all public and private outdoor spaces.


"The people of Tsaivao wish to put forward this resolution for review, as we believe it could have great beneficial effect for the treatment of homeless individuals across the WA. Do note that this resolution does not attempt to 'fix' the homeless problem, nor does it attempt to justify the trespassing of homeless people on public or private property. This legislation is to make it such that homeless individuals are treated fairly and humanely, not as though they were animals who need to be scared off.

I am eager to learn of any feedback such that the draft may be improved! Thank you." --World Assembly Delegate Manhu Sentai Laogai
Last edited by Tsaivao on Tue May 04, 2021 5:57 pm, edited 6 times in total.
~::~ May the five winds guide us to glory ~::~
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
Nation doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, NS stats aren't really worried about except for Nudity because "haha funny"
The symbol on my flag is supposed to be a typhoon
Pro: LGBT, BLM, Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rationalism
Neutral: Gun Rights, Abortion, Centrism
Anti: Trumpism, Radicalization, Fundamentalism, Fascism

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15507
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon May 03, 2021 2:22 am

IC: "Were you aware of there already existing a resolution that requires all WA nations to provide basic creature comforts, such as shelter, to their inhabitants?"

OOC: I think it's called Minimum Standards of Living or something like that. Search the Passed Resolutions thread on this forum.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3842
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon May 03, 2021 8:04 am

"Ambassador, you might have a bit better luck with this by making a few modifications. First, there's no reason to limit protections to homeless persons: on a gorgeous spring afternoon, a short nap on a park bench - the sun warming your whole body with its loving embrace - is part of any well-balanced and not-psychotic person's working day. I might not even mention the homeless, as existing law mandates member nations to find adequate homes for all, and we as an assembly are extremely quick to take offense at those who, for whatever reason, decline such benefits. But the fact is there are plenty of other groups and individuals who can benefit from this ban - skateboarders, families with young children, picnickers... the list goes on!"

"Then, you may have a problem with 'private property.' After all, it's private! And it's muh proppity! I might change 'private' here to 'publicly accessible.' That accounts for those artificial stone embankments and micropark structures that capitalist countries have lining the sidewalks of their financial districts while still technically belonging to the private building management rather than the public sidewalk - but doesn't prevent private companies from enforcing a mechanized, siestaless regime upon their poor hapless employees. Best of luck."
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15985
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon May 03, 2021 8:09 am

"Opposed. States have a reasonable interest in ensuring that public architecture is not appropriated for nonstandard use. Over time, sleeping and camping on many architectural features will cause damage and wear out of conformity with anticipated lifespan. Give the degree of mandatory social support, there is no convincing reason to internationally regulate local architecture."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Barfleur
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Mon May 03, 2021 10:09 am

"While I appreciate the compassionate and humane principles behind this proposal, I cannot support it. With respect to private property, it is entirely legitimate to prevent such property from being used by individuals who have no right to it. And as to public property, the homeless are already protected by GA#344 'Minimum Standard of Living Act', and so I find this proposal unnecessary given that member nations are already obligated to provide 'minimum levels of access to [...] housing' (see GA#344, section 1)."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Tsaivao
Envoy
 
Posts: 327
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Tsaivao » Mon May 03, 2021 10:38 am

"Thank you all very much for providing ample feedback on this proposal. Your concerns will be worked into a second draft when we are able to draft it."

Araraukar wrote:IC: "Were you aware of there already existing a resolution that requires all WA nations to provide basic creature comforts, such as shelter, to their inhabitants?"

OOC: I think it's called Minimum Standards of Living or something like that. Search the Passed Resolutions thread on this forum.

Barfleur wrote:"While I appreciate the compassionate and humane principles behind this proposal, I cannot support it. With respect to private property, it is entirely legitimate to prevent such property from being used by individuals who have no right to it. And as to public property, the homeless are already protected by GA#344 'Minimum Standard of Living Act', and so I find this proposal unnecessary given that member nations are already obligated to provide 'minimum levels of access to [...] housing' (see GA#344, section 1)."

"Honorable Ambassadors, thank you for informing me of this legislation. The intent of the proposal here, however, is independent of the provisions laid out in GA#344; hostile architecture may still be a tactic to prevent citizens from finding a place of rest in the case of more temporary/immediate displacement from their residence (e.g. victims of abuse, inebriated individuals, etc). Therefore, even in context of this past legislation, I do believe that this proposal is necessary moreso for the ethical and responsible treatment of those temporarily displaced, as well as regular citizens who may even be injured on certain fixtures of hostile architecture."

OOC: With all that said, I'm going to be reworking this proposal away from the homelessness perspective and more towards public safety. Perhaps a category change is in order!

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Ambassador, you might have a bit better luck with this by making a few modifications. First, there's no reason to limit protections to homeless persons: on a gorgeous spring afternoon, a short nap on a park bench - the sun warming your whole body with its loving embrace - is part of any well-balanced and not-psychotic person's working day. I might not even mention the homeless, as existing law mandates member nations to find adequate homes for all, and we as an assembly are extremely quick to take offense at those who, for whatever reason, decline such benefits. But the fact is there are plenty of other groups and individuals who can benefit from this ban - skateboarders, families with young children, picnickers... the list goes on!"


OOC: This as well is the reason I will be re-appropriating the proposal to a public safety issue, as others have graciously pointed out for me.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Then, you may have a problem with 'private property.' After all, it's private! And it's muh proppity! I might change 'private' here to 'publicly accessible.' That accounts for those artificial stone embankments and micropark structures that capitalist countries have lining the sidewalks of their financial districts while still technically belonging to the private building management rather than the public sidewalk - but doesn't prevent private companies from enforcing a mechanized, siestaless regime upon their poor hapless employees. Best of luck."


IC: "Honorable Ambassador, at first I will admit that I did not agree on the requirements to protect private property in this matter, but after due consideration, I will accept the provision of 'publicly accessible' property to sufficiently define the intent of the proposal. Thank you."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. States have a reasonable interest in ensuring that public architecture is not appropriated for nonstandard use. Over time, sleeping and camping on many architectural features will cause damage and wear out of conformity with anticipated lifespan. Give the degree of mandatory social support, there is no convincing reason to internationally regulate local architecture."


IC: "But there is reason to internationally regulate the right of an individual to be safe from harm in public, honorable Ambassador. We will rework this proposal to push the issue more towards that of public safety for all. The existence of very adequate and significant social infrastructure for the homeless, however, does not mean that this form of engineering should be fair game, as hostile architecture is capable of making publicly accessible spaces hazardous for anyone, even in a structure's intended use case. Thank you for bringing attention to the infrastructure available to those without shelter, and we hope we can earn your support by shifting the area-of-effect to address in future iterations."

OOC: I will post when a new draft is up
Last edited by Tsaivao on Mon May 03, 2021 10:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
~::~ May the five winds guide us to glory ~::~
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
Nation doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, NS stats aren't really worried about except for Nudity because "haha funny"
The symbol on my flag is supposed to be a typhoon
Pro: LGBT, BLM, Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rationalism
Neutral: Gun Rights, Abortion, Centrism
Anti: Trumpism, Radicalization, Fundamentalism, Fascism

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2888
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon May 03, 2021 11:06 am

Tsaivao wrote:IC: "But there is reason to internationally regulate the right of an individual to be safe from harm in public, honorable Ambassador. We will rework this proposal to push the issue more towards that of public safety for all. The existence of very adequate and significant social infrastructure for the homeless, however, does not mean that this form of engineering should be fair game, as hostile architecture is capable of making publicly accessible spaces hazardous for anyone, even in a structure's intended use case. Thank you for bringing attention to the infrastructure available to those without shelter, and we hope we can earn your support by shifting the area-of-effect to address in future iterations."


"While we're glad that the ban on bedroom doors is being dropped, I question if this new envisaged law is an international issue? If there's pointy concrete on the underpass of the M5 and the N19 in Shrone, what difference does it make to you? If anything, banning such would be a net decrease in safety."
Last edited by Bananaistan on Mon May 03, 2021 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Tsaivao
Envoy
 
Posts: 327
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Tsaivao » Mon May 03, 2021 11:23 am

OOC: Second draft is up, please leave your thoughts when you're able, thank you.

Bananaistan wrote:
Tsaivao wrote:IC: "But there is reason to internationally regulate the right of an individual to be safe from harm in public, honorable Ambassador. We will rework this proposal to push the issue more towards that of public safety for all. The existence of very adequate and significant social infrastructure for the homeless, however, does not mean that this form of engineering should be fair game, as hostile architecture is capable of making publicly accessible spaces hazardous for anyone, even in a structure's intended use case. Thank you for bringing attention to the infrastructure available to those without shelter, and we hope we can earn your support by shifting the area-of-effect to address in future iterations."


"While we're glad that the ban on bedroom doors is being dropped, I question if this new envisaged law is an international issue? If there's pointy concrete on the underpass of the M5 and the N19 in Shrone, what difference does it make to you? If anything, banning such would be a net decrease in safety."


"Ambassador, it is of our opinion that there are other, far better and far safer methods of cordoning off sections of public infrastructure that are indeed dangerous. Simple barricades, fencing, even other forms of useful infrastructure such as bike racks are all better alternatives than the equivalent of embedding the concrete with Dragon's Teeth to prevent someone from taking shelter. This proposal does not intend to do away with marking areas which are not to be trespassed upon, it only wishes to get rid of that which can be dangerous. In the case of the aforementioned Dragon's Teeth, they can be harmful to anyone who may trip and fall on top of them. At night, they may be very difficult to actually see, as there is not often a requirement to make these spikes very visible.

"The question of whether or not this is an international issue is of a different concern. To my understanding, it is the responsibility of a nation to protect her own citizens from harm, and actively causing harm under the pretense of protecting them from harm is hypocritical to me. The issue is raised on the basis that public safety be respected by all member nations, and that individuals should be able to avoid injury caused by their own state for solving an issue that should no longer be a threat.

"Besides, urban areas where these tactics are most often use also tend to be destinations of tourism. It would probably not be good for a Vao, who is high off his mind in Shrone, to wander through the night and collapse on top of said row of spikes. It just seems to me like public safety shouldn't attempt to do the opposite in its own name."
Last edited by Tsaivao on Mon May 03, 2021 11:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
~::~ May the five winds guide us to glory ~::~
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
Nation doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, NS stats aren't really worried about except for Nudity because "haha funny"
The symbol on my flag is supposed to be a typhoon
Pro: LGBT, BLM, Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rationalism
Neutral: Gun Rights, Abortion, Centrism
Anti: Trumpism, Radicalization, Fundamentalism, Fascism

User avatar
Barfleur
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Mon May 03, 2021 12:30 pm

"I have read the revised proposal, and I appreciate the Ambassador from Tsaivao's thoughtful replies. But I still fail to see how a total ban on hostile architecture in 'publicly-accessible outdoor spaces' is in order. If a municipality in Barfleur, for instance, wished to place spikes on the fence of a public park, while still allowing people to enter that park by means of the normal gate and road, how does the municipal interest in discouraging improper entry into the park (for reasons of public safety, as well as to prevent plants from being trampled) effect any genuine harm upon a person who could just as easily enter the park the proper way?"
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Tsaivao
Envoy
 
Posts: 327
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Tsaivao » Mon May 03, 2021 1:00 pm

Barfleur wrote:"I have read the revised proposal, and I appreciate the Ambassador from Tsaivao's thoughtful replies. But I still fail to see how a total ban on hostile architecture in 'publicly-accessible outdoor spaces' is in order. If a municipality in Barfleur, for instance, wished to place spikes on the fence of a public park, while still allowing people to enter that park by means of the normal gate and road, how does the municipal interest in discouraging improper entry into the park (for reasons of public safety, as well as to prevent plants from being trampled) effect any genuine harm upon a person who could just as easily enter the park the proper way?"

OOC: Just so I understand correctly, your issue is that you'd like spikes to be placed on top of the fence for aesthetics/additional protection? I suppose an exemption could be made for fences and railings, or maybe a more strict definition of what counts publicly accessible outdoor space. I dont think it's unreasonable to want this for fences, but Im unsure of how to word it.

Maybe "Defines 'publicly accessible' as any space outdoors wherein an individual is able tread or cross legally." would work? It wouldn't be legal to climb a park fence, nor would it be expected for someone to sleep on top of a fence. My biggest problem right now is trying to come up with a definition that doesnt invalidate the proposal ("Oh, you can't legally enter this area, therefore the floor is now lava cuz of the definition of publicly accessible")

Edit: Updated to draft 2b, maybe this will cover it. I'll wait a week and see if there are any more responses.
Last edited by Tsaivao on Mon May 03, 2021 3:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
~::~ May the five winds guide us to glory ~::~
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
Nation doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, NS stats aren't really worried about except for Nudity because "haha funny"
The symbol on my flag is supposed to be a typhoon
Pro: LGBT, BLM, Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rationalism
Neutral: Gun Rights, Abortion, Centrism
Anti: Trumpism, Radicalization, Fundamentalism, Fascism

User avatar
Barfleur
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Tue May 04, 2021 7:36 am

Tsaivao wrote:
Barfleur wrote:"I have read the revised proposal, and I appreciate the Ambassador from Tsaivao's thoughtful replies. But I still fail to see how a total ban on hostile architecture in 'publicly-accessible outdoor spaces' is in order. If a municipality in Barfleur, for instance, wished to place spikes on the fence of a public park, while still allowing people to enter that park by means of the normal gate and road, how does the municipal interest in discouraging improper entry into the park (for reasons of public safety, as well as to prevent plants from being trampled) effect any genuine harm upon a person who could just as easily enter the park the proper way?"

OOC: Just so I understand correctly, your issue is that you'd like spikes to be placed on top of the fence for aesthetics/additional protection? I suppose an exemption could be made for fences and railings, or maybe a more strict definition of what counts publicly accessible outdoor space. I dont think it's unreasonable to want this for fences, but Im unsure of how to word it.

Maybe "Defines 'publicly accessible' as any space outdoors wherein an individual is able tread or cross legally." would work? It wouldn't be legal to climb a park fence, nor would it be expected for someone to sleep on top of a fence. My biggest problem right now is trying to come up with a definition that doesnt invalidate the proposal ("Oh, you can't legally enter this area, therefore the floor is now lava cuz of the definition of publicly accessible")

Edit: Updated to draft 2b, maybe this will cover it. I'll wait a week and see if there are any more responses.

OOC: I'm probably splitting hairs by using this example, and I do apologize for this, but there are non-aesthetical reasons for which hostile architecture may be legitimately put to use in public spaces. Take, for example, a park which has a clearly defined entry/exit gate. Now, there are all sorts of reasons why the municipal authorities might want to prevent people from entering by other means: to deter muggers (especially in places where there are no/fewer cameras), to stop people from trampling on flowers, and to discourage people from, say, climbing a wall where they risk falling and being impaled on a tree branch on the other side. Placing spikes on the park's wall or fence would not meaningfully prevent people from accessing the park, as the main gate remains wide open--it just serves the interest of orderly use of, and care for, public spaces.
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Tsaivao
Envoy
 
Posts: 327
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Tsaivao » Tue May 04, 2021 5:58 pm

Barfleur wrote:
Tsaivao wrote:OOC: Just so I understand correctly, your issue is that you'd like spikes to be placed on top of the fence for aesthetics/additional protection? I suppose an exemption could be made for fences and railings, or maybe a more strict definition of what counts publicly accessible outdoor space. I dont think it's unreasonable to want this for fences, but Im unsure of how to word it.

Maybe "Defines 'publicly accessible' as any space outdoors wherein an individual is able tread or cross legally." would work? It wouldn't be legal to climb a park fence, nor would it be expected for someone to sleep on top of a fence. My biggest problem right now is trying to come up with a definition that doesnt invalidate the proposal ("Oh, you can't legally enter this area, therefore the floor is now lava cuz of the definition of publicly accessible")

Edit: Updated to draft 2b, maybe this will cover it. I'll wait a week and see if there are any more responses.

OOC: I'm probably splitting hairs by using this example, and I do apologize for this, but there are non-aesthetical reasons for which hostile architecture may be legitimately put to use in public spaces. Take, for example, a park which has a clearly defined entry/exit gate. Now, there are all sorts of reasons why the municipal authorities might want to prevent people from entering by other means: to deter muggers (especially in places where there are no/fewer cameras), to stop people from trampling on flowers, and to discourage people from, say, climbing a wall where they risk falling and being impaled on a tree branch on the other side. Placing spikes on the park's wall or fence would not meaningfully prevent people from accessing the park, as the main gate remains wide open--it just serves the interest of orderly use of, and care for, public spaces.

OOC: I've added a special exemption for barricades and fences in clause 3, though I'm personally a bit uncertain about it myself. I do acknowledge that there is a need to make the distinction for fences as you say, but to be honest I'm not quite sure how to phrase it legally in a way that satisfies me or the intention of the proposal.
~::~ May the five winds guide us to glory ~::~
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
Nation doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, NS stats aren't really worried about except for Nudity because "haha funny"
The symbol on my flag is supposed to be a typhoon
Pro: LGBT, BLM, Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rationalism
Neutral: Gun Rights, Abortion, Centrism
Anti: Trumpism, Radicalization, Fundamentalism, Fascism


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan

Advertisement

Remove ads