World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam

[Kaboomlandia]

I make no comment upon the "morality" of this kind of power bloc; I merely note that this is nothing new for NSGP, and that many of those opposed to this instance are rank hypocrites.

I also don't see how it isn't an obvious violation of section 2 of Europeia's Charter of Rights Act: "Every person shall have ... the right to freely express and disseminate their opinion in any manner or medium".

In Europeia, at least, those rights are limited to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." But what exactly is this accord? It's a restriction on speech and press; a wholesale ban targeted against WA proposal authors. It calls for government retaliation against unapproved speech. That's what it boils down to. That's not free and democratic. That's government control of the means of communication.

Hold on there. Nothing in Europeian law gives it jurisdiction over the World Assembly says or does. Nothing in our laws would block citizens from sending out legal WA campaign telegrams the way they are supposed to be sent - to WA Delegates who actually have a say in whether it makes quorum or not. Sending out telegrams to delegates is the way they are meant to be used. Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam. The actual quote is somewhere in Euro's forums, but I have heard Mouse express the opinion that WA Delegates basically "sign up" for this, and that includes dealing with campaign telegrams. What this does is to stop uninvolved WA members from being caught in the crossfire of warring telegram campaigns, as well as stop people who attempt to buy themselves GA resolutions.

[Falapatorius]

Frankly, I don't see how the terms of this treaty aren't flagrant violations of the freedom of speech and freedom of press, both enshrined in TNP's constitution.

It all depends on the actions taken by a signatory Delegate. If a TNP citizen (like myself) were to send out one of these mass telegrams, I would indeed have legal protections. The treaty allows counter-campaigning from the signatories, which is reasonable. No harm, no foul basically. However, the remedy of stomping or stacking as a punishment for so-called 'WA spam' has an indirect aspect of speech suppression. Authors are effectively prevented from promoting their proposal in regions that hold a vote-swaying amount of endos. Furthermore, the practice of blacklisting seems out of place in a self-professed democratic region. As noted by other posters here, this treaty could be manipulated by sending out TGs intended to provoke the opposite response vote-wise. Judging from some the posts thus far, we could see an increase in the activity this treaty is trying to curb.

The one area I believe this treaty could run afoul of TNP Law is this clause (color mine):

1. World Assembly Proposal Campaigning
b) World Assembly Campaigns that spam the telegram inboxes of other World Assembly members of a given region without the consent or approval of the World Assembly Delegate are to be discouraged.

This runs counter to TNP's Bill of Rights:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

As well as:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.

I would say there'd be grounds for legal challenge under certain circumstances.

If I were a TNP or Europeian citizen, I would be filing suit. These freedoms either mean something or they don't. (I suspect they don't.)

I've been in TNP for 3 years now. One thing I've observed is that the Law can be changed when it becomes inconvenient.

[Auralia]

Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam. The actual quote is somewhere in Euro's forums, but I have heard Mouse express the opinion that WA Delegates basically "sign up" for this, and that includes dealing with campaign telegrams.

Sending World Assembly member states telegrams about resolutions they're going to vote on is not spam. World Assembly member states also "sign up for this" in the same sense as delegates by joining the World Assembly in the first place. If they really don't want to receive campaign telegrams, they're free to turn them off.

[Louisistan]

Tempted to write some garbage resolution or another, then mass telegram the signatory regions here about it just to irk them.

No, no, no. The trick is to write some garbage resolution then send a tag:wa AGAINST your own resolution which will prompt an automatic stomp FOR by all the signatory regions.

So did you read it before you came up with this genius plan? There's nothing automatic about it.

[Altmoras]

No, no, no. The trick is to write some garbage resolution then send a tag:wa AGAINST your own resolution which will prompt an automatic stomp FOR by all the signatory regions.

So did you read it before you came up with this genius plan? There's nothing automatic about it.

Well you see, I wasn't being entirely serious.

[Sedgistan]

Nothing in our laws would block citizens from sending out legal WA campaign telegrams the way they are supposed to be sent - to WA Delegates who actually have a say in whether it makes quorum or not. Sending out telegrams to delegates is the way they are meant to be used. Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam.

I don't know where your definition of spam comes from, nor what has given you the impression that WA campaign TGs are "meant" to be sent to Delegates only, but you're wrong on both counts. Part of the purpose of the TG system overhaul was to encourage these kinds of communications between regular players.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Nothing in our laws would block citizens from sending out legal WA campaign telegrams the way they are supposed to be sent - to WA Delegates who actually have a say in whether it makes quorum or not. Sending out telegrams to delegates is the way they are meant to be used.

"In any manner or medium" isn't compatible with the argument that Mousebumples gets to decide which manner and medium WA campaigns are "supposed to be sent."

Like I said, these freedoms either mean something or they don't. They apparently don't, at least in europeia and TNP.

[Gruenberg]

I don't know where your definition of spam comes from, nor what has given you the impression that WA campaign TGs are "meant" to be sent to Delegates only

Probably from the moderator organizing this bloc.

[LollerLand]

Nothing in our laws would block citizens from sending out legal WA campaign telegrams the way they are supposed to be sent - to WA Delegates who actually have a say in whether it makes quorum or not. Sending out telegrams to delegates is the way they are meant to be used. Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam.

I don't know where your definition of spam comes from, nor what has given you the impression that WA campaign TGs are "meant" to be sent to Delegates only, but you're wrong on both counts. Part of the purpose of the TG system overhaul was to encourage these kinds of communications between regular players.

This.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I can't speak for any of the other signatories...[snip]

On another note, what this accord does is make a conscious effort to eliminate the ability to buy yourself a WA resolution just by sending out a massive wall of TGs, a la Bitely. That is not something that is wanted in the WA.

1. You can't speak for the WA, either. Nor even just the General Assembly.

2. This solution to that problem is like burning down a building to eliminate its bedbugs.

[The Forsworn Knights]

I can't speak for any of the other signatories...[snip]

On another note, what this accord does is make a conscious effort to eliminate the ability to buy yourself a WA resolution just by sending out a massive wall of TGs, a la Bitely. That is not something that is wanted in the WA.

1. You can't speak for the WA, either. Nor even just the General Assembly.

2. This solution to that problem is like burning down a building to eliminate its bedbugs.

I dunno man, bedbugs are serious business.

Anyhow, as I have stated previously this is a power-play by the superdelegates to rig the Democratic Primary against the ebul commies. Not only that, but the signatories involved in the OP of this thread seemed to do everything in their power to make it look as official as possible- and while if I remember right the Mods made a point of ruling that Moderators could do things like these with their official accounts as players- it is still in very poor taste to do it.

Especially considering the dangerous idea some people involved in this seem to have in which they speak for the WA and that they have some form of authority simply because they have a Moderator in their ranks, with blunt blanket statements such as 'X is not welcome in the WA, and despite the very specific campaign tag for general WA members that was surely an oversight by the coders and we know what is right.'
In short, I am very much opposed to this. I get not wanting people to recruit in UCR's when the regional government says that is not welcome, I get banning RMB recruitment when there is the recruitment TG option ready at hand- but I draw the line at actively threatening WA authors simply for using a campaigning mechanic that was very intentionally included by the NS site administration, and effectively attempting to hold the WA as a whole hostage because a small handful of nations refuse to do their jobs as Super-Delegates.

[Western Evilly]

Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam.

Just wondering when we can expect the official announcement from Mr. Barry, where he has named 10K Islands, Europiea, Europe, and TNP the new adjudicators of spam?

I don't know where your definition of spam comes from, nor what has given you the impression that WA campaign TGs are "meant" to be sent to Delegates only

Probably from the moderator organizing this bloc.

Given the fact she is one of the prolific champions of abortion, one has to wonder if there is some sooper seekrit clause in there that compels signatories to automatically stomp any resolution that just happens to mention the word "abortion"? But in all seriousness, are signatories compelled to stomp any attempt to repeal a Mousebuilt resolution?

[Tinhampton]

Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam.

Just wondering when we can expect the official announcement from Mr. Barry, where he has named 10K Islands, Europiea, Europe, and TNP the new adjudicators of spam?

Well, Max Barry is unlikely to, given that he never even talked about the likes of DEN - most of his posts about NS are about the game, not the players.

Probably from the moderator organizing this bloc.

Given the fact she is one of the prolific champions of abortion, one has to wonder if there is some sooper seekrit clause in there that compels signatories to automatically stomp any resolution that just happens to mention the word "abortion"? But in all seriousness, are signatories compelled to stomp any attempt to repeal a Mousebuilt resolution?

What if we send out a telegram campaign AGAINST the Mousebuilt resolution? The WAACS would then encourage the signatories into voting AGAINST it!

[Western Evilly]

Just wondering when we can expect the official announcement from Mr. Barry, where he has named 10K Islands, Europiea, Europe, and TNP the new adjudicators of spam?

Well, Max Barry is unlikely to, given that he never even talked about the likes of DEN - most of his posts about NS are about the game, not the players.

I was being factitious, but the point seems to have have been taken.

Given the fact she is one of the prolific champions of abortion, one has to wonder if there is some sooper seekrit clause in there that compels signatories to automatically stomp any resolution that just happens to mention the word "abortion"? But in all seriousness, are signatories compelled to stomp any attempt to repeal a Mousebuilt resolution?

What if we send out a telegram campaign AGAINST the Mousebuilt resolution? The WAACS would then encourage the signatories into voting AGAINST it!

They are a crafty bunch of devils aren't they?

[Consular]

Carpet-bombing ordinary WA members with telegrams is spam. The actual quote is somewhere in Euro's forums, but I have heard Mouse express the opinion that WA Delegates basically "sign up" for this, and that includes dealing with campaign telegrams.

Sending World Assembly member states telegrams about resolutions they're going to vote on is not spam. World Assembly member states also "sign up for this" in the same sense as delegates by joining the World Assembly in the first place. If they really don't want to receive campaign telegrams, they're free to turn them off.

Indeed. A rather disapointing argument, especially from a game moderator. Shouldn't we be trying to increase accessibility to one of the game's core activities?

I can just see no positive reason for this accord to be needed, there's no pressing need at all to protect nations from telegram messages, they're quite capable of doing that themselves. Anyway last I checked I was a WA member, and I have been for some time, and I receive very few blanket campaign messages at all. The only thing vaguely spam-ish I get are the messages from the World Assembly Compliance Commission.

The lack of any real response to all this criticism is also pretty disapointing. I suppose Euro and Co just hope this will blow over and we'll all forget about it. I mean, there's little we can actually do of course -- they can control and manipulate their regions as they please. But given this was willingly posted in gameplay, you'd think they'd try to respond to comments.

[Auralia]

Indeed. A rather disapointing argument, especially from a game moderator. Shouldn't we be trying to increase accessibility to one of the game's core activities?

If you're calling for moderators to be called to a higher standard in NationStates gameplay, don't bother. The mods have made it quite clear that they will not allow us to hold them such a standard. Mouse has already admitted this is nothing more than a political move to ensure that only she can send telegrams to the nations in her region:

While they can certainly turn off Campaign telegrams (and some certainly have), I periodically send out informative WA telegrams to my regionmates - using the same Campaign designation - and I know that a number of my region-mates find these to be useful and informative telegrams.

[...]

Sending a tag:wa telegram is most definitely legal within NS site rules; however, as this is a game about politicking, coordinating our votes against what our regions view as mass spam to all WA nations is also most definitely legal within NS site rules.

[Gruenberg]

Indeed. A rather disapointing argument, especially from a game moderator. Shouldn't we be trying to increase accessibility to one of the game's core activities?

If you're calling for moderators to be called to a higher standard in NationStates gameplay, don't bother. The mods have made it quite clear that they will not allow us to hold them such a standard.

In fact, they're held to a lower standard!

Especially considering the dangerous idea some people involved in this seem to have in which they speak for the WA and that they have some form of authority simply because they have a Moderator in their ranks, with blunt blanket statements such as 'X is not welcome in the WA, and despite the very specific campaign tag for general WA members that was surely an oversight by the coders and we know what is right.'

This really can't be emphasised enough.

[Western Evilly]

I suppose Euro and Co just hope this will blow over and we'll all forget about it.

Unless a proposal by their treaty allies just happens to make it to the floor. I somehow doubt 10K Islands would vote against a defender proposal based on the mere fact that a campaign was run.

[Kaboomlandia]

For the record, I was nominated as Europeia's WA Minister and will be discussing with the other signatories on the best course of action going forward if I am confirmed. This could include repealing it, by the way, but it does have issues that need to be looked at.

[Unibot III]

Sending World Assembly member states telegrams about resolutions they're going to vote on is not spam. World Assembly member states also "sign up for this" in the same sense as delegates by joining the World Assembly in the first place. If they really don't want to receive campaign telegrams, they're free to turn them off.

Indeed. A rather disapointing argument, especially from a game moderator. Shouldn't we be trying to increase accessibility to one of the game's core activities?

In defense of the moderators: one of the senior game moderators has spoke out against this accord quite vocally.

It's an obvious attempt to undermine a deliberate game development (more user-control over telegram boxes.) This is a sad move backwards for anyone who remembers the 'old days': where user-created regions were regarded by the rules as 'owning' their residents' telegram boxes (players could not legally consent to receiving any messages to do or join anything without first moving to a related region - their own telegram boxes weren't theirs to solicit), where communication to user-created residents was mostly locked down tight even against their own individual volition, where the rules were tilted against WA Authors and recruiters, so much so even that a wrong move (say, missing a single declaration in a WFE) could kill your nation.

We moved away from the old way of thinking about private communication because it didn't serve the interests of players, it served the interests of major regions trying to keep a hold on their residents and tighten communication between them and outsiders. Claiming this accord is for the benefit of residents is a ridiculous assertion - those residents can change the filter settings at their own volition - this accord is all about the interests of the regions involved; it's about controlling communication and influencing the WA for the benefit of the signatories.

Moreover, it's also a slippery slope. They've tried to turn back the clock on UCR recruitment, now they've tried to turn back the clock on WA information - what's next? Clubs? Fairs? Forum threads? Organizations? Events? Defences/Raids? Any sort of communication of a soliciting nature could be culled under the mantra of "it's for their own good."

[Altmoras]

For the record, I was nominated as Europeia's WA Minister and will be discussing with the other signatories on the best course of action going forward if I am confirmed. This could include repealing it, by the way, but it does have issues that need to be looked at.

I must admit, I'm confused by the timing here. 10 days after this is Accord posted publicly, we're told that it is going to undergo review and a possible repeal?

Why post it in the first place then?

[Consular]

Europeia is a diverse place. Perhaps not everyone agrees with Mousebumples' authoritarian and somewhat patronising views on campaigning.

[Libetarian Republics]

At least Euro is responding to the criticism.

[Auralia]

At least Euro is responding to the criticism.

That's true, and let me just say to Kaboomlandia that your willingness to reconsider the accord is appreciated.

[Common-Sense Politics]

Europeia is a diverse place. Perhaps not everyone agrees with Mousebumples' authoritarian and somewhat patronising views on campaigning.

I would venture a guess that most of us don't even care much about the WA to begin with, let alone campaigning practices. We don't have much in the way of coherent WA policy to work with even if we all did. Europeia is indeed a diverse place and there are indeed differing opinions on this particular issue. What we all agree on, however, is that we don't much like seeing our commitment to our most fundamental laws questioned in a transparent attempt at insult rather than debate of the topic at hand. You could say we're pretty much of one mind on that one.