[ON HOLD] Restricting Civilian Access To Military Robots

[Covenstone]

*snip*

I'm fairly sure there already exists a resolution that requires the state to compensate people for any state-seized property.

In which case I am happy as a puppy in a field of toilet paper. (A killer robot puppy, obviously.)

[Wallenburg]

You can have my giant death robot when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[Tinfect]

*snip*

I'm fairly sure there already exists a resolution that requires the state to compensate people for any state-seized property.

OOC:
Fortunately, it does not apply to illegal goods, and, as a Civilian owning a Killer Robot without a licence would be illegal, no payout is necessary.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ara, you're talking about NEF.

[Araraukar]

Ara, you're talking about NEF.

OOC: Thank you. Couldn't remember it off the top of my head.

OOC: Fortunately, it does not apply to illegal goods, and, as a Civilian owning a Killer Robot without a licence would be illegal, no payout is necessary.

And yeah, looks like. Well, that makes it a tad bit less costly to implement. Though I might need to consider a grace period for those organizations who would be likely to receive the licencing for some individuals... Back to the drafting board!

EDIT: Annnnd draft 2 is up.

[States of Glory WA Office]

You can have my giant death robot when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Fairburn: With pleasure!

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

I'm fairly sure there already exists a resolution that requires the state to compensate people for any state-seized property.

OOC:
Fortunately, it does not apply to illegal goods, and, as a Civilian owning a Killer Robot without a licence would be illegal, no payout is necessary.

OOC:
Depends on how you define "killer robot", as opposed to "military robot" as defined in the proposal. There are plenty of robots with the capability of killing someone in possession of civilians IRL, and they don't require a license to operate or own. Why? Because they're niche recreational machinery designed and built to be used against other killer robots in an enclosed bulletproof arena, and not anywhere else. Because no one has actually died at a robot combat event even with the big 250lb Battlebots heavyweights. Because governments haven't been given a reason to even care about the sport as anything other than a STEM education opportunity. Because the people who build and drive these things are responsible enough with them that regulations and licensing isn't necessary.

I'd argue that the term "killer robot" is incredibly clickbaity and doesn't perfectly describe what this proposal does.

I can't believe I'd be applying my background in combat robotics to NationStates.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd argue that the term "killer robot" is incredibly clickbaity

OOC: Of course it is. But if you have better suggestions for the eventual submission title, feel free to share.

EDIT: Aren't the Robot Wars and Battlebots robots actually drones, being human-controlled and not autonomous?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: I'd argue that the term "killer robot" is incredibly clickbaity

OOC: Of course it is. But if you have better suggestions for the eventual submission title, feel free to share.

EDIT: Aren't the Robot Wars and Battlebots robots actually drones, being human-controlled and not autonomous?

OOC: I'd say that "Restricting Civilian Access To Military Robots" is more specific to what you're wanting to do.

As for the classification of combat robots and other tech sport machinery... we could debate on that for years. The Webster definition is as follows:

2 : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

(definition 2 used because definition 1 refers to robots in the context of speculative fiction)
This definition has issues, though. To qualify as being automatic, does it have to be able to determine when to do that task? If so, then you begin to exclude a lot of different machines that are generally considered robots, such as the arms used on vehicle assembly lines. Those have to be activated and deactivated manually by a human operator even if they perform the task without human intervention.

The best definition I've seen for a Robot is from Joseph Engelberger:

I can't define a robot, but I know one when I see one.

Basically, there's no truly satisfactory definition.

On top of this, there's no control standards in combat robotics beyond "some way of driving the robot in a controlled fashion and controlling any applicable weapons". All combat robots today have to respond to a radio signal by controlling motors, servos, etc. Then there are melty-brain spinners, where the entire robot spins up to high speed and uses a specialized control board to determine its controlled heading. Above that, a couple robots, most notably Chomp from season 2 of the ABC reboot of Battlebots, have used a semi-autonomous system to track targets and manage spacing. And then there's special classes at some events specifically for fully autonomous combat robots in the 1lb and 3lb weight classes, though these robots still have a remote kill switch.

Honestly, while they're not entirely autonomous for the most part, combat robots still utilize most concepts of robotics. I'd say that qualifies as a robot in most situations.

[Lexicor]

*snip*

I'm fairly sure there already exists a resolution that requires the state to compensate people for any state-seized property.

Curse you Eminent Domain!

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can't believe I'd be applying my background in combat robotics to NationStates.

Yea, and I'm the great lawman of the Canadian Rockies.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I can't believe I'd be applying my background in combat robotics to NationStates.

Yea, and I'm the great lawman of the Canadian Rockies.

OOC: How was that claim implausible?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd say that "Restricting Civilian Access To Military Robots" is more specific to what you're wanting to do.

OOC: I'll probably keep the working title until submission anyway, since the definition of a military robot includes the word "lethal", but thank you.

As for the classification of combat robots and other tech sport machinery

Well, according to my definition of a drone, they would be, as they're remotely controlled by sapient beings.

*snip*

*snip*

Howabout actual feedback on the actual draft? Especially the new clause 6? There's something wrong with the wording (but can't quite put my finger on it) and you're both better with using English than me.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

I can't believe I'd be applying my background in combat robotics to NationStates.

Yea, and I'm the great lawman of the Canadian Rockies.

OOC: You know that video I posted in this thread earlier? The black robot that won that battle and eventually went on to win the entire event is mine. Another link if you missed it. And a link to the beetleweight finals.

So, how many outlaws have you brought to justice out in the Canadian Rockies?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: What about civilian ownership of [non-sapient] Killer Cyborgs?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Howabout actual feedback on the actual draft? Especially the new clause 6? There's something wrong with the wording (but can't quite put my finger on it) and you're both better with using English than me.

OOC: Honestly, if I were in your position, I'd split up the clause. Here's how I'd do it:

6. Allows member nations to set a grace period before the destroying
destruction or permanent control transferring transfer of control of the military robots, to let so that the appropriate future users of the robots to get licenced may be licenced,

7. but Requires that during that grace period, the military robots are not in use may not be used by non-military operators,

Of course, bear in mind that this is just how I'd write it and that someone else may do it differently.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What about civilian ownership of [non-sapient] Killer Cyborgs?

OOC: Partially-joke answer: I expect that'd be treated the same way as lethal pet ownership. A bit more serious answer: Unless you think your cyborg fits the "military robot" definition in this resolution, it's outside its scope.

The reason that robots and cyborgs are defined the way they are, is that I know that if I started to define every possible different type of non-sapient creature that was partially machine that's computer-controlled, I'd soon have separate categories for meat puppets as well as artificial limbs. Hence there's some leeway in the definitions. There's an even bigger loophole for nations not wanting to have to comply with this, but it's another one I'm not going to try to plug, because, again, it'd lead to massive micromanagement with little gain.

*snip*

OOC: Thank you for the suggestions, and even without splitting the clause in two, that looks like it'll fix the wording issues I was having with it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, how many outlaws have you brought to justice out in the Canadian Rockies?

What made you think that great lawmen of the Canadian Rockies catch outlaws in the Canadian Rockies? They make blustering statements and claim to be investigating websites across the seas!

[Projection Island]

The Projective ambassador stands, clearing her throat briefly before speaking. "Given this subject matter is of quite some interest to our island, our company, and our customers, as well as our possible intention of later joining this Assembly, I would be remiss if I failed to offer my criticism of this proposal."

Restricting Civilian Access To Killer Robots

"My cousins tend to object to being called killer robots unless they've actually killed someone."

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

"Would this not be a Gun Control resolution? A killer robot, in most nations, would basically be a walking, rolling, or hovering gun, and you're primarily limiting civilian actors here, not the military."

"a military robot" as a potentially lethal robot designed to be used by the military,

"The first condition becomes redundant when you take into account that any military robot is 'potentially' lethal given that it may, at any point, be dropped on someone's head. I would suggest mentioning that it must also be intentionally lethal."

5. Requires that any military robots under the control of unlicenced civilians must be destroyed or transferred to under military control,

"I would echo previous concerns about this section, but I have been following the discussion so far. Is there a good reason to not explicitly mention that removing a robot's lethal parts might be a valid option?"

9. Reaffirms that this resolution does not affect drones or cyborgs, or any sapient machines or computers.

"Now, I may have misunderstood your intentions for this proposal but I'm at least thirty percent sure that you aren't a malfunctioning robot secretly trying to empower a machine uprising. If you aren't, you might want to re-word this to: 'Reaffirms that this resolution does not affect the ownership of drones or cyborgs, or any sapient machines or computers.' Otherwise, given the wording, you give 'sapient' machines or anyone with a cyborg limb the ability to own unlicensed military hardware, free of this resolution's control."

"If, of course, you are actually a malfunctioning robot masquerading as a human, do feel free to ignore me."

---

"I believe that covers all of my major concerns. This proposal seems quite reasonable compared to a number of the others I've stumbled into while looking over the Assembly's logs."

"This said, I will continue to look over this, as I may have missed something important. I was slightly preoccupied trying to procure a proper nameplate." She gestures down to a small paper fold-up that reads 'Ambassador Sally'. "In fact, I still am."

---

Glad to see someone else has a petrifying fear of random citizens out and about with hulking Golem's capable of leveling a whole city block.

"If your nation has a sufficient giant robot problem that you have such a profound fear of them, perhaps the best idea would be to buy one for yourself for defense. Or a hoard of smaller ones. While our company doesn't generally sell to foreign powers, we might be able to do something for you if you're willing to sign the extended licensing agreement."

[Araraukar]

you might want to re-word this to: 'Reaffirms that this resolution does not affect the ownership of drones or cyborgs, or any sapient machines or computers.'

OOC: I'll get back to you on the rest of the content later, but just pointing out that you can't legally own a sapient being, since slavery has been banned.

And I'm not trying to legislate anything on drones - not use nor ownership - or cyborgs (though I might drop the "sapient" from their definition to cut down on complaints, that'll probably be something for next draft), or any machines or computers that themselves house one or more sapient minds.

[Aclion]

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

"Would this not be a Gun Control resolution? A killer robot, in most nations, would basically be a walking, rolling, or hovering gun, and you're primarily limiting civilian actors here, not the military."

ADRIANNE: Cat's out of the bag now.

CELICE: Hush!

*ehem* We second the objections of Projection Island. This proposal is intended to restrict civilian ownership of arms and not to reduce military spending, as such it is properly categorized as Gun Control: Tighten.

We will be very reluctant to support such a measure. Since the WA has already mandated all measures absolutely necessary for nations to control gun violence and WA nations remain free to address the issue of -ehem- "killer robots" themselves; and since the civilian ownership of killer robots in one nation does not appear to create externalities for other nations.

Can you argue that the thoughtless use of killer robots would not be addressed at the national level and that it presents a special hazard that would warrant WA interference in a domestic matter?

[Lexicor]

I'd concur with the other two Ambassador's on the proposed change of category. Though Lexicorian Laws will have to redefine the meaning of the word "gun" to keep up with the World Assembly (its ok, our small and nimble bureaucratic team LOVES fiddling with definitions!)


OOC: The concept of a robot being a gun only made me think of a Transformer turning into a gun, specifically a blue 9mm with red flames that occasionally goes on existential rambles about the future of mankind.

[Projection Island]

you might want to re-word this to: 'Reaffirms that this resolution does not affect the ownership of drones or cyborgs, or any sapient machines or computers.'

OOC: I'll get back to you on the rest of the content later, but just pointing out that you can't legally own a sapient being, since slavery has been banned.

And I'm not trying to legislate anything on drones - not use nor ownership - or cyborgs (though I might drop the "sapient" from their definition to cut down on complaints, that'll probably be something for next draft), or any machines or computers that themselves house one or more sapient minds.

OOC: That comment is mainly to say that the wording of that clause is a bit ambiguous. The current wording says that sapient machines and cyborgs (two classes that should otherwise fall under the licensing rules, assuming the nation considers them "individuals") are not affected by the proposal, which implies that a nation can get away with not requiring a license from anyone who is at least part machine. Which I'm guessing is not what you meant for that bit to say.

My edit, as far as I can tell, should clear up that ambiguity. Since you (I assume) still want those classes to be required to get licenses for their killer robots, specifying that the resolution doesn't affect their ownership is basically saying, "No, this resolution does not, in fact legalize sapient robot/cyborg slavery." And since the non-sapient machines you mention in that clause are (generally) not given property rights in the first place, the only parts of this proposal that could otherwise be construed to relate to them are the ones that relate to the circumstances under which they could be owned, and by who.

In short: "Reaffirms that this resolution does not affect the ownership of drones or cyborgs, or any sapient machines or computers," translates to "No, this proposal does not institute sapient machine/cyborg slavery, nor does it legislate anything on drones or computers."

Whereas the current translates to, "Only full biologicals are required to get a killer robot license."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Still in the land of toothache and insomnia, so not touching the other arguments properly yet, but as per the suggested category change...

Robots are not guns. Some robots may be equipped with guns, but are not guns themselves.

IC: Don't be silly, robots are not guns. Some robots may be equipped with guns, but are not guns themselves.

---

OOC: As for the current category, from the Categories part of the rules:

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

It has also previously been ruled that a mild resolution can get away with only affecting one or the other, rather than both.

A case could be made to make it IS, which is why I originally asked for opinions on whether it'd be IS or GD, but I figured that as I'm restricting dangerous weapons ownership, they should cause fewer issues for the lawful owners (like police or military), and thus money would not need to be budgeted into having counter-measures at hand all the time.

Also, GA #399 has a roughly similar aim of restricting (in that case sale rather than ownership) military grade weaponry, and it's also a GD-mild.

---

OOC: The current wording says that sapient machines and cyborgs

OOC: False. It says, and I quote, "drones or cyborgs, or any sapient machines or computers". Sapient is used of the "machines or computers". In the definitions cyborgs are defined as sapient. Anything sapient can't be owned as that'd be slavery and is banned by existing resolutions.

Anything non-sapient that would be part mechanical and part biological, would not count as cyborg for the purposes of this resolution like the definitions clause says.

(two classes that should otherwise fall under the licensing rules, assuming the nation considers them "individuals")

It's not about what the nation considers. Sapient creatures have WA protection essentially saying that they have human rights. You can't own a sapient creature as that'd be slavery and is banned by existing resolutions.

And seriously, if you're suggesting that I have to define what I mean by "individual", when I'm talking about people, I'm going to throw some meme pic at you.

[Projection Island]

IC: Don't be silly, robots are not guns. Some robots may be equipped with guns, but are not guns themselves.

"It is a very thin line, Miss Leveret. Even if a given killer robot is not equipped with a gun, they still serve very much the same purpose. If you point them in something's direction, you want that something to stop existing."

"And beside that, you must surely know that enough killer robots are equipped with guns that you are most certainly restricting a certain class of gun. Namely, the attached-to-a-robot class."

OOC: Incidentally, I know I'm new here, but I'd be of the opinion that any civilian restrictions on any sort of weaponry (from sharpened rocks to death stars) should be under gun control. Quite frankly, it seems odd that you'd have to entirely shoehorn a proposal whose main goal is restriction into a category that doesn't actually end up restricting anything.

OOC: As for the current category, from the Categories part of the rules:

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

It has also previously been ruled that a mild resolution can get away with only affecting one or the other, rather than both.

A case could be made to make it IS, which is why I originally asked for opinions on whether it'd be IS or GD, but I figured that as I'm restricting dangerous weapons ownership, they should cause fewer issues for the lawful owners (like police or military), and thus money would not need to be budgeted into having counter-measures at hand all the time.

Also, GA #399 has a roughly similar aim of restricting (in that case sale rather than ownership) military grade weaponry, and it's also a GD-mild.

OOC: The problem would be, to me, that you're taking a side-effect of the resolution and making it the primary purpose. Yes, military/police spending would likely be impacted, but only because of the tightening of laws over ownership over civilians. The resolution you linked, while also having a similar effect on civilian ownership, is mainly focused on who the military is allowed to transfer their things to, and what the military situation of another nation can be like before they can transfer to them. Which means that the primary focus is on the military, with the civilian restrictions as a side-note of that. Your proposal does the opposite. You would probably need a substantial re-write to change my mind (although since I don't vote as of yet, and will likely never be a delegate, this doesn't matter too much; I just argue loudly).

Besides, just think about being the first person to write a proper, non-objectionable, legal gun control resolution.