NationStates

OOC:

viewtopic.php?p=29040910#p29040910

Also "NS =/= RL" is as relevant an argument as pointing out the existence of some RL law. Are we supposed to transcribe all RL laws into GA resolutions?

If you want to make this really landmark, expand it to a universal protection of not just free thought, but also of free speech.

@Banana

1. That doesn't even support the claim, as I've not threatened to vote against on format
2. Heightened scrutiny of proposals that don't meet format expectations is expected, most everyone in the GA does it (see this thread and that for DVR if you want the proof)
3. I still disavow my statements from three years ago

So the existence of the real life legislation is an argument, thought poorly made on mobile, as to the importance of the topic, which is a response to 'this is pointless'. It's not a claim as to 'copy all the UN resolutions'. If you meant something different with NS isn't RL, could you elaborate?

@AN , to borrow a F7 phrase , we have freedom of expression legislation already.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:@Banana

1. That's doesn't even support the claim, as I've not threatened to vote against on format
2. Heightened scrutiny of proposals that don't meet format expectations is expected, most everyone in the GA does it (see this thread and that for DVR if you want the proof)
3. I still disavow my statements from three years ago

It's only one post that I easily found but given your no 3 here it's now irrelevant and I apologise for insinuating that this format thing is your current/more recent position.

Agreed on point no 2 though it's not something I'd get bogged down in beyond "is there an operative clause here?" EG I've no problem with the lack of preamble and length of this proposal because it's an obvious operative clause.

So the existence of the real life legislation is an argument, thought poorly made on mobile, as to the importance of the topic, which is a response to 'this is pointless'. It's not a claim as to 'copy all the UN resolutions'. If you meant something different with NS isn't RL, could you elaborate?

I meant no more than the existence of a section in a UN convention to the same effect isn't a substantial argument in favour but I think we get each other on this point so that's fair enough.

OOC:Not again! IA you're going to lose respect of many people with this mockery of the GA. Shall this be submitted I'll run a counter campaign.

Klaus receives a copy of the proposal then proceeds to read it, he is extremely shocked by the length and says the following, "With kind regards, I will not allow this blatant mockery of this respectful assembly."he throws the copy in his paper shredder.

Happy to clear things up with Banana.

MG, it's definitely insufficient to claim that someone is mocking the WA by writing properly formatted legislation on a topic of significance. At that level, you should show how. So how am I mocking the WA? And when the NSUN passed the tax ban, was that mocking the UN?

In suppo

"Support."

(OOC: Can you have a ‘belief of a thought’? ‘Belief in a thought’ seems more traditional wording.)

Kenmoria: Prepositions corrected.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
If this proposal is not supposed to cover actually expressing the thoughts, rather than just holding or believing them, then the lack [that has already been pointed out] of any reliable way for most member nations' governments to tell what people really think or believe means that this would have little or no actual effects: 'Mild', at the most.

OOC: ^This, still.

I'm still against, people (including leaders) should be free to do what they want.

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:I'm still against, people (including leaders) should be free to do what they want.

(OOC: That’s what the proposal says; it bans member nations from restricting people’s freedom of thought. That is, unless you are saying that leaders should be free to restrict thinking, in which case you are simply rehashing traditional NatSov arguments.)

[insert pesky music note emoji] We don't need no thought control ... [insert pesky music note emoji]

Support

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:I'm still against, people (including leaders) should be free to do what they want.

If you let leaders do what they want, you'll end up with everyone else not being free to do what they want ... not a coherent argument.

Anyone else who tried this would be shot down.

Kenmoria wrote:

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:I'm still against, people (including leaders) should be free to do what they want.

(OOC: That’s what the proposal says; it bans member nations from restricting people’s freedom of thought. That is, unless you are saying that leaders should be free to restrict thinking, in which case you are simply rehashing traditional NatSov arguments.)

Leaders lead their nation, and so what they want to do comes before what other people in that nation want to do.

Jocospor wrote:Anyone else who tried this would be shot down.

OOC:Exactly this^^^^^^^^^

Jocospor wrote:Anyone else who tried this would be shot down.

OOC: To be fair, IA is being shot down, but I suspect he's turned into an undead zombie golem a long time ago, so it's having little effect.

Jocospor wrote:Anyone else who tried this would be shot down.

(OOC: You aren’t wrong. It’s one of the long-running issues with the GA. Personally, I would prefer a more conventional format, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with briefness.

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That’s what the proposal says; it bans member nations from restricting people’s freedom of thought. That is, unless you are saying that leaders should be free to restrict thinking, in which case you are simply rehashing traditional NatSov arguments.)

Leaders lead their nation, and so what they want to do comes before what other people in that nation want to do.

The World Assembly leads all member states, so what it wants to be do comes above what leaders want to do. In this particular case, the proposal guarantees something that is mostly irrelevant to MT states, and is one of the basest freedoms imaginable in any tech level. I don’t see a good reason to oppose.)

Kenmoria wrote:The World Assembly leads all member states, so what it wants to be do comes above what leaders want to do.

OOC: Controls, rather than leads, but yes, WA law goes above national law.

As for a basic right and such, that's not the point. The point is that this proposal is about as sensible as making a proposal that says WA nations are banned from banning breathing. Or dying. Or anything else that you realistically couldn't do anyway. It's an unnecessary law.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Not again! IA you're going to lose respect of many people with this mockery of the GA. Shall this be submitted I'll run a counter campaign.

Come now, one-liner resolution antics and thought crimes are the only things that keep the GA from going stale.

Araraukar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:The World Assembly leads all member states, so what it wants to be do comes above what leaders want to do.

OOC: Controls, rather than leads, but yes, WA law goes above national law.

As for a basic right and such, that's not the point. The point is that this proposal is about as sensible as making a proposal that says WA nations are banned from banning breathing. Or dying. Or anything else that you realistically couldn't do anyway. It's an unnecessary law.

(OOC: The technology is already in development, and there is always the question of FT or PMT member states operating with different tech levels.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Controls, rather than leads, but yes, WA law goes above national law.

As for a basic right and such, that's not the point. The point is that this proposal is about as sensible as making a proposal that says WA nations are banned from banning breathing. Or dying. Or anything else that you realistically couldn't do anyway. It's an unnecessary law.

(OOC: The technology is already in development, and there is always the question of FT or PMT member states operating with different tech levels.)

OOC: Or, for that matter, telepathic species in the WA. (Yes, I know, but still.)

Support.

This has absolutely no material effect on anyone. Useless laws get voted down.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The technology is already in development, and there is always the question of FT or PMT member states operating with different tech levels.)

OOC: I am well aware of that research, because human mind and memory are among the subjects of great interest to me. FMRI has already been known to be pretty much fool-proof lie detector for a while as well, but it's still not being used as a lie detector in trials. Why? Because it's unwieldy as it requires the person to be hooked up to the MRI machine. Same here. Even if the system was perfected so that it can actually read thoughts, it would still require you to be in a FMRI machine. Those are big and unwieldy. Even in the best case scenario it would only strengthen the argument against this thing, as it would make the "conspiracy to commit X" crimes all that much harder to act on.

As for roleplaying... I have an actual telepathic species and they additionally utilize brain implants capable of "reading" thoughts in my RP, and yet I am arguing against this on the basis that most nations in NS will not. FT nations are even at best guess, about 10% of all nations. Magical nations that can achieve thought reading via magical means, likely overlapping slightly with FT, but let's call that another 10%. That still leaves 80% of nations where it is not something that can feasibly be achieved. So the strength cannot be significant, as it does not significantly impact a significant amount of member nations.

I also find it highly hypocritical of IA to use "but RP!" as the basis on a proposal after years of calling all imaginative RP "wanking", and strawmanning my RP in particular, simply because I've opposed his bully tactics. But his morals or the lack of them are not the point here.