NationStates

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Not that I think it's plagiarism, but ST:TNG actually has it as "no-one"...

TOS was the better show. TNG was crap television.

Them's fightin' words!

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:TOS was the better show. TNG was crap television.

Them's fightin' words!

Deep Space Nine kicked both their asses, 'specially in the mid to late seasons.

Back on topic, please, Trekkies.



But yes, DS9 rocks.

All OOC:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Law does not punish people, organizations or individuals, for that which is not reasonably within their control or knowledge. EP has, here and on Discord, outlined a number of RP'd difficulties in his roleplay that lead me to believe that such situations are so far out of his nation's control or effective knowledge that they couldn't be said to be responsible for them.

If Excidium Planetis is incapable of regulating international travel on a FT tech level, then I don't know how it can run something as complex as an interstellar fleetwide government.

Even if they were, it would be logical to assume that the appropriate response here is to make reasonable attempts to bring those who flaunt international law to justice, and not to establish ATC infrastructure on every planet with more than one nation on it on the off chance that there are illegal elements ignoring international law. RNT ought apply here.

Of course. I never suggested otherwise.

Its really the same way that we would address the current WA ban on rape under the Sexual Autonomy Guarantee. A nation isn't going to be non-compliant if a rapist succeeds at his crime, they would be non-compliant if they willfully took no attempt to bring justice to him. And they surely wouldn't be non-compliant if the nation was never sufficiently aware of the violation to have taken action in the first place. That's an unreasonable interpretation of the duties a nation has to fulfill it's obligations, and would likely render every developing nation in the WA in violation of something through no fault of their own.

"Sexual Autonomy Guarantee" has no mandates that could be interpreted to mandate the complete eradication of sexual crimes. It has mandates that criminalize rape and sexual assault, and mandate that member states respond to breaches of sexual law properly. Member states with even an incompetent yet official criminal justice system can do that. Your analogy makes no sense.

The RNT tells me that I, as an author, don't need to consider unrealistic interpretations in unusual circumstances, and that nations and the WA will work out these situations in an effective manner. Otherwise, I'd be derailed by any Tom, Dick, or Harry that has an unusual nation.

It is not unrealistic to expect member states to show international travel some oversight.

Ooc: then that is between EP and the WA. RNT has also historically allowed proposals to be drafted from a MT perspective and allowed FT nations to work around it as best suits them. I find EP's complaints to be easily addressed by the RNT.

Wallenburg wrote:All OOC:
If Excidium Planetis is incapable of regulating international travel on a FT tech level, then I don't know how it can run something as complex as an interstellar fleetwide government.

Ooc: that's a domestic concern for EP then.

Of course. I never suggested otherwise.

Which puts the rest of the burdenon EP to prosecute such violators where they have sufficient evidence and identifying information to do so. If they can't, even with good faith efforts, that's not non-compliance, that's realistic limits unique to EP. I am not writing a law for EP, but for the WA as a whole. It is up to EP and the WA to work out a solution.

It is not unrealistic to expect member states to show international travel some oversight.

Ooc: funny that; I happen to agree.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: then that is between EP and the WA. RNT has also historically allowed proposals to be drafted from a MT perspective and allowed FT nations to work around it as best suits them. I find EP's complaints to be easily addressed by the RNT.

Watch your words, you almost sound like Chester.

OOC:
The issue is less that they are lawbreakers but that even law abiding Excidian adventurers would be unable to comply in a meaningful way.

The result is noncompliance. Call it noncompliance in good faith if you must, but it would still be a massive failure to comply on the part of Excidium Planetis.

The heavens are the sole domain of the Moon Spirits and their vassals. Enroaching on it would surely doom us all!

Excidium Planetis wrote:OOC:
The issue is less that they are lawbreakers but that even law abiding Excidian adventurers would be unable to comply in a meaningful way.

The result is noncompliance. Call it noncompliance in good faith if you must, but it would still be a massive failure to comply on the part of Excidium Planetis.

OOC: If the IASA can't be bothered to establish a traffic control center on a given planet, I don't see how it's non-compliance to not bother sending interstellar messengers to file flight plans for launches on that planet (at least with IASA - liaising with planetary neighbors is a relatively trivial concern as I outlined IC above). This is one of those areas where FT nations should feel free to take a (somewhat carefully RP'd) waiver and basically say, We comply where it is actually possible for us to comply, and ignore the rest. If the WA passed a law banning witchcraft, psychologists in non-magical states could not suddenly be expected to report to the Mountain-Isolated Monastic Inquisition every single time a patient claimed clairvoyancy or deja vu. You have to make allowances for cases where the strictest literal interpretation would be absurd or outright ludicrous given the constraints of prior RP. This is the essence of Creative Compliance. Like a nation of ocean-dwelling water-breathers allegedly having to chip in for "their share" of international highway and rail upkeep fees - literally they're obligated, but practically they would pay almost if not entirely nothing, since they don't use those modes of transport.

All that said, SP, it wouldn't be totally amiss (nor castrate the resolution) for you to add a very simple clarification such as "...where at all practical." That should clear things up, no?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
All that said, SP, it wouldn't be totally amiss (nor castrate the resolution) for you to add a very simple clarification such as "...where at all practical." That should clear things up, no?

OOC: Done.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: RNT has also historically allowed proposals to be drafted from a MT perspective and allowed FT nations to work around it as best suits them. I find EP's complaints to be easily addressed by the RNT.

OOC: This being the same "reasonable nation" EP that has literally just claimed that non-human sapients are not people? (And the RP-side nation of Excidium Planetis does have non-human citizens, so it's not a RP ignoring thing.)

This is yet to be addressed, btw:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: And also the tech assistance thing may run into issues with the patents that Auralia forced on everyone.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: RNT has also historically allowed proposals to be drafted from a MT perspective and allowed FT nations to work around it as best suits them. I find EP's complaints to be easily addressed by the RNT.

OOC: This being the same "reasonable nation" EP that has literally just claimed that non-human sapients are not people? (And the RP-side nation of Excidium Planetis does have non-human citizens, so it's not a RP ignoring thing.)

This is yet to be addressed, btw:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: And also the tech assistance thing may run into issues with the patents that Auralia forced on everyone.

OOC: Technical assistance would necessarily have to comply with extant law. That does not need to be explicit when the actions are by the very entity that promulgates that law.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: And also the tech assistance thing may run into issues with the patents that Auralia forced on everyone.

OOC: Technical assistance would necessarily have to comply with extant law. That does not need to be explicit when the actions are by the very entity that promulgates that law.

OOC: Actually, how would it work? Does the patent thing prohibit the WA from breaking the rules, or just the member nations? If only the member nations (and any businesses in them) but not the WA, then presumably the WA could give whatever tech to the member nations and as soon as the tech changed hands, the nations/businesses in the cases where the patents would apply, would instantly be required to stop using the tech without paying royalties.

Colour me amused.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Technical assistance would necessarily have to comply with extant law. That does not need to be explicit when the actions are by the very entity that promulgates that law.

OOC: Actually, how would it work? Does the patent thing prohibit the WA from breaking the rules, or just the member nations? If only the member nations (and any businesses in them) but not the WA, then presumably the WA could give whatever tech to the member nations and as soon as the tech changed hands, the nations/businesses in the cases where the patents would apply, would instantly be required to stop using the tech without paying royalties.

Colour me amused.

OOC: An interpretation that gave the WA free reign to ignore patent protections would be an interpretation that frustrates the purpose of the law, which would be contrary to fundamental canons of construction.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: An interpretation that gave the WA free reign to ignore patent protections would be an interpretation that frustrates the purpose of the law, which would be contrary to fundamental canons of construction.

OOC: Canons and construction?

Ah yes, Ara is back to 'a committee cannot balance two goals and do two different things at the same time'.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: An interpretation that gave the WA free reign to ignore patent protections would be an interpretation that frustrates the purpose of the law, which would be contrary to fundamental canons of construction.

OOC: Canons and construction?

I believe canons of construction are the usual way law is interpreted.

Oops, why did I post with this account?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Ah yes, Ara is back to 'a committee cannot balance two goals and do two different things at the same time'.

OOC: That reminds me that I forgot to make fun of you on your recent fussing about bolding text in a proposal...

World Assembly Improvement Foundation wrote:I believe canons of construction are the usual way law is interpreted.

OOC: I meant "what does it mean?", not "really?" Legalese in English is difficult and annoying a lot of the time.

Oops, why did I post with this account?

*dons the Sekrit Conspiratory Tinfoil Hat^TM* Because you're plotting to bring down the entire WA behind all our backs?

OOC: I don't see a problem. Nations know full well that any technology that they turn over to the committee is to be freely shared among WA nations; and, there is nothing that compels them to turn over all or even any of their technology; it's up to them what they want to share. Seems to me that a reasonable nation would withhold any technology that's covered under patents so that it does not get distributed for free.

Wrapper wrote:OOC: ...there is nothing that compels them to turn over all or even any of their technology; it's up to them what they want to share.

OOC: Except WA has access to all the data about patented stuff anyway, since the international patents are re-routed through it.

Araraukar wrote:

World Assembly Improvement Foundation wrote:I believe canons of construction are the usual way law is interpreted.

OOC: I meant "what does it mean?", not "really?" Legalese in English is difficult and annoying a lot of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Its a method by which a statute is interpreted where there is an ambiguity in the text. Things like how an ambiguous phrase is determined in light of the words around it, how every part of the statute is interpreted together and not as individual fragments, or how a statute will not be interpreted in a manner as to make part or all of it absurd or otherwise utterly frustrated. When there is an ambiguity. This does not apply for nonambiguous statements. Those get as-is treatment.

Separatist Peoples wrote:*snip*

OOC: Thank you.

An addition to the patent-related thing; the proposal doesn't say WA would only share info that was freely donated for the purpose.

Also, part of the reason why I think the patent thing is stupid is that what's public domain in one nation, can still be patented in another, and thus restricted by that patent in a third.

If a far-FT nation shared all its public domain data with WA for the purposes of this resolution, and the data was forwarded by the WA to a nation where it was restricted by the patent owned by someone in another nation, then that nation would still need to pay royalties if it were to use the data it was given freely by WA, which was forwarding the data only because another nation gave it up for the purpose.

The patent thing really sucks ass when you bring tech level differences into play.

EDIT: For example, all scientific and technological data is public domain in Araraukar, which has put it at odds with a lot of the nations on its planet, as those nations have patent systems and dislike third parties buying the public domain data from Araraukar to use freely and ignoring the patents. So yes, I know it can be a problem even in single-tech level thing.

Araraukar wrote:
An addition to the patent-related thing; the proposal doesn't say WA would only share info that was freely donated for the purpose.

OOC: Doesn't need to. I don't think it's reasonable to assume the WA will sabotage it's own efforts.

Also, part of the reason why I think the patent thing is stupid is that what's public domain in one nation, can still be patented in another, and thus restricted by that patent in a third.

OOC: That is an RP issue that I am not going to reconcile. If you RP in a nation of a particular tech, you are welcome to pretend that in your reality, the FT tech simply doesn't exist. Its your choice to include a canon recognition of FT powers in your nation's canon, and your problem if you interpret it that way. The GA is, for all relevant purposes, a point where all realities overlap, which is why Bell can talk to Markhov even though there is no Imperium in the C.D.S.P.'s world. If you want to pretend that there is both a FT Imperium of Man and also a 1930's Wallenburg or 1920's Imperium Anglorum, that's your headache.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: That is an RP issue that I am not going to reconcile. If you RP in a nation of a particular tech

OOC: I was actually thinking of issues on MT-to-MT level (see my RP example about Araraukar above). Patents exist in the RL world, after all.

Araraukar wrote:

World Assembly Improvement Foundation wrote:I believe canons of construction are the usual way law is interpreted.

OOC: I meant "what does it mean?", not "really?" Legalese in English is difficult and annoying a lot of the time.

That is what it means. "Canons of construction" = "the usual methods for interpreting law".