SO 2017-20(-01) Revised Regional Roleplay Act

Article I: Introduction
Recognizing that the Region as a whole has voted for a map, Located at the Government Committee on the adoption of a Regional Map, ensuring that we must instate this map and appoint an official to deal with this and deal with roleplay in general, this bill will establish the legitimacy of our new map and a new official to go with it.

Article II: Appointment of the Official
The new official, entitled Role Play Moderator, will be assigned by the minister of Development until the same or a new Minister of development wishes to remove this official, for valid reasons, from office and instate a new official.

Article III: Tasks and Punishments for this official
I. This official will have the following tasks:
A) Evaluating and assigning allotments of land to member states that request land.
B) Watching over Role Play and spotting cheating and/or unfairness.
C) Creating Large-scale events for all nations to participate in (although nations may create events too).
D) Punishing Nations that do not follow the rules of the Map and of Role Play in general. Mods also have the power to revoke unfair actions taken performed by nations.

II. For violating rules and regulations themselves, or not doing their job correctly, they may receive aban from participating in role-play far an allotted amount of time.


Article IV: Gaining and Earning Territory
Because of the adoption of the new regional map, nations will need to be able to receive land. There are several ways to get land:

A) Requesting a piece of land, which will be equal in size.
B) Conquering land through RP.

Article V: Rules and Regulations of the Regional Map
Nations must follow certain rules and regulations in order to keep Role Play fair and Organized, like the ones already established by the founder, they may receive the following punishments:
A) Ban from Participating in Role Play

April 9th, 2017
Sepharich, PM, Senator
Thomolia, MwP, Senator
Libertarian Democracy, MoD, Senator
Hashkin, Senator
Abdoa, Speaker Pro Tempore

First of all, I wish to inform the Right Honourable author of this Bill that I made an edit to his Bill, namely one that made the link properly working. May I presume that my Rt. Hon. friend [Sepharich] has no objections to this edit?

Well, with that being sorted out, I shall continue to comment on the text of the Bill itself.

The first thing I wish to point out, is that Article I still does not initiate the Map as Our Regional Map. In my opinion, the text should be like this:

"The Map (link to map B), for which the Members of Our Region have voted in a Regional Poll lasting from (date 1) to (date 2), shall henceforward be adopted as Our Regional Map."

Secondly, I greatly object to an official for the Regional Map, who will be appointed by a political officeholder, or at least under a political officeholder. The most important objection that I have in this regard, is that he might change the Map due to his own benefit or that of his party. Of course we would still have that problem with another official (whether appointed or elected), but given that he is appointed by a Minister, it is to be taken into mind that that might create some legitimacy for him from the Cabinet/Executive Branch of governance, rather than from all members of Our Region themselves directly.

On Article III, I have another few objections/questions:
1) Will it be for the official to decide over his own allotments of land as well? Given that I am opinionated that one should not decide upon one's own matters, could we include an especial provision to decide that another official/office may decide over such allotments made by the official during his term?
2) Could you explain to me why a map coordinator should have powers of a general moderator with regards to roleplay issues? Why not only letting him regulate the map only?
3) Why does the map coordinator have to create regional events, in which members will be obligated to participate in? And why should members even be punished at all for not participating in such events? I strongly suggest that clauses I.C juncto I.D of Article III be removed from this Bill. Especially the latter should not be in a Bill for regulating the regional map.
4) Also, ongoing on point 3. I strongly object to the entirety of clause II, Article III. First of all, who will decide which punishments are awarded, will it be the official, a Regional Court, another judicial official? The punishments also have to be explained (i.e. felony, etc.). Also, can you please explain to me why a Member that does not wish to participate with several roleplays (like I most probably will not interfere with wars, etc.) will lose their position? Which positions can be lost? Can one lose a Membership of Parliament? Can one be dismissed as a Cabinet Minister (with or without the consent of the Prime Minister)? Can the PM or the President "lose their job"? Are administrative (i.e. the Founder and Administrative Officials) functions included? And again, why does this have to be said out in this Bill, that should merely regulate the adoption and rules concerning Our Regional Map?

Article IV has to be improved a lot, according to my opinion. First of all, I think the articles should be outlining the procedures a lot more. It just says that in a way land can be claimed, but how does one go through the procedures? On what basis can the official reject or approve a land claim? Also, why is it not stated that lands already claimed cannot be claimed by another member? Secondly, are nations required to accept that they will lose land in ongoing roleplays? Why not having the participating nations consenting first? I have seen this working in various other Regions as well (one such example is Geopolity). Will there also be an objective maximum of lands to be claimed? Or a minimum? Will returning members have an advantage? What if multiple claims to the same territories are made on same moment? Why does this Bill (and more specifically, this Article) not regulate these very important matters?

The former issues also apply to Article V.

Please address these issues. And as you will find out, I am very co-operative when it comes to good plans. I will always support noble ideas (whether I share the views for them or not) and will be keen to help you out with the re-arranging of this very important Bill!

I wish to co-support this bill

Bill in line for debate, however, since I can't move it now (I'm on my phone before school), I will wait for the Hon Nassau-Windsor to make his point, and for most questions to be answered.

If the cosponsors of this bill wouldn't mind waiting until the Hon Nassau-Windsor's remarks have been made before this bill proceed to the Debate Hall, as if any changes to the bill are agreed upon following those remarks, we will not have to spend time voting on them as amendments - they can just be directly inserted before the debate. However, I totally understand if Rt Hon Sepharich wishes to maintain this bill in the line for debate.

Abdoa wrote:If the cosponsors of this bill wouldn't mind waiting until the Hon Nassau-Windsor's remarks have been made before this bill proceed to the Debate Hall, as if any changes to the bill are agreed upon following those remarks, we will not have to spend time voting on them as amendments - they can just be directly inserted before the debate. However, I totally understand if Rt Hon Sepharich wishes to maintain this bill in the line for debate.

This is ok. Please inform him to reply soon.

Much improved! I just have a few relatively minor things:
1) Article I, just say something like, "the base map found at <link>". "Map B" is undefined legally.
2) The wording is weird. I get what you're trying to say, but the wording makes it look like the MoD can just eliminate the position if it feels like it.
3) Article III: Split this up into Section 1 and Section 2 so clauses can be properly referenced.
4) "Loss of Credibility" is not a judicialS punishment; it is merely a social response.
5) Specify in what cases could the "Pole Play Moderator" deny a claim request.
6) If you are going to take people to court, then you need to A) establish the criminal offence B) define it and C) classify it. Optionally you may D) specify a punishment or range of punishments (if it is within the bounds of the classification).
7) Define "Loss of Position"
"Nations receive land based on Merit, Previous Role Playing and Population." No. First of all, define merit. Second of all, everyone should have an equal opportunity at RP, and the "previous role playing" influence will build up as time passes. Also, most nations that are serious about RP do not use NS population numbers, but nevertheless I still think it shouldn't be considered. Why should one player get a mere city while the next gets half a continent, just because of the amount of time they have played NS in their life?

I would highly recommend that the Right Honourable Thomolia temporarily rescind his co-sponsorship so that this bill can be edited swiftly. Once the bill goes to the debate hall, it would take days to get a change approved.

I agree with a lot of your points, but I already put a lot of time into this, so I will just make some amendments later. Anyways, I am quite busy at the moment.

Yeah, yeah I will rescind my cosponsorship in order to make the procedure slimmer and easier.

Alright, I will edit the bill into accordance with MOST of your suggestions.

Libertarian Democracy wrote:Much improved!  I just have a few relatively minor things:
1) Article I, just say something like, "the base map found at <link>".  "Map B" is undefined legally.
2) The wording is weird.  I get what you're trying to say, but the wording makes it look like the MoD can just eliminate the position if it feels like it.
3) Article III: Split this up into Section 1 and Section 2 so clauses can be properly referenced.
4) "Loss of Credibility" is not a judicialS punishment; it is merely a social response.
5) Specify in what cases could the "Pole Play Moderator" deny a claim request.
6) If you are going to take people to court, then you need to A) establish the criminal offence B) define it and C) classify it.  Optionally you may D) specify a punishment or range of punishments (if it is within the bounds of the classification).
7) Define "Loss of Position"
"Nations receive land based on Merit, Previous Role Playing and Population." No.  First of all, define merit.  Second of all, everyone should have an equal opportunity at RP, and the "previous role playing" influence will build up as time passes.  Also, most nations that are serious about RP do not use NS population numbers, but nevertheless I still think it shouldn't be considered.  Why should one player get a mere city while the next gets half a continent, just because of the amount of time they have played NS in their life?

I would highly recommend that the Right Honourable Thomolia temporarily rescind his co-sponsorship so that this bill can be edited swiftly.  Once the bill goes to the debate hall, it would take days to get a change approved.

I still do not agree that we should distribute the territory evenly because a lot of people aren't active and it will make role-play a lot harder.

Poeple who aren't active do not get land: equal parcels of land are distributed to the people who apply for them, is I think the principle that me and LibDem are coming from.

Comments have been made.

A few more things:
0) Thank you Thomolia
1) When I said that "Loss of Credibility" is not a judicial punishment, that means just erase it from the bill in its entirety. The government has no authority to enforce a social phenomenon.
2) I am willing to compromise on the land deal. I think Abdoa's proposal has much merit to it. But if you aren't going to budge on your current proposed inequalities, then I cannot support this bill.
3) I vehemently object to having a Loss of Government Position as a punishment for an RP violation. The main objective of the RP Moderator should be to ensure the regulations are followed, not that people are punished. There is a difference.
4) Loss of Land is also unacceptable.
5) You still haven't addressed the Court issue. If you are going to charge someone in Criminal Court, you must abide by the Judicial Rights and Procedures and define the specific crime.

Libertarian Democracy wrote:A few more things:
0) Thank you Thomolia
1) When I said that "Loss of Credibility" is not a judicial punishment, that means just erase it from the bill in its entirety.  The government has no authority to enforce a social phenomenon.
2) I am willing to compromise on the land deal.  I think Abdoa's proposal has much merit to it.  But if you aren't going to budge on your current proposed inequalities, then I cannot support this bill.
3) I vehemently object to having a Loss of Government Position as a punishment for an RP violation.  The main objective of the RP Moderator should be to ensure the regulations are followed, not that people are punished.  There is a difference.
4) Loss of Land is also unacceptable.
5) You still haven't addressed the Court issue.  If you are going to charge someone in Criminal Court, you must abide by the Judicial Rights and Procedures and define the specific crime.

Loss of position was only valid if you gave a larger chunk of land for personal gains. I like Abdoa's idea.

One last question: What are the already established punishments?

Libertarian Democracy wrote:One last question: What are the already established punishments?

There were none. I was mistaken.

Nassau-Windsor wrote:First of all, I wish to inform the Right Honourable author of this Bill that I made an edit to his Bill, namely one that made the link properly working. May I presume that my Rt. Hon. friend [Sepharich] has no objections to this edit?

Well, with that being sorted out, I shall continue to comment on the text of the Bill itself.

The first thing I wish to point out, is that Article I still does not initiate the Map as Our Regional Map. In my opinion, the text should be like this:

"The Map (link to map B), for which the Members of Our Region have voted in a Regional Poll lasting from (date 1) to (date 2), shall henceforward be adopted as Our Regional Map."

Secondly, I greatly object to an official for the Regional Map, who will be appointed by a political officeholder, or at least under a political officeholder. The most important objection that I have in this regard, is that he might change the Map due to his own benefit or that of his party. Of course we would still have that problem with another official (whether appointed or elected), but given that he is appointed by a Minister, it is to be taken into mind that that might create some legitimacy for him from the Cabinet/Executive Branch of governance, rather than from all members of Our Region themselves directly.

On Article III, I have another few objections/questions:
1) Will it be for the official to decide over his own allotments of land as well? Given that I am opinionated that one should not decide upon one's own matters, could we include an especial provision to decide that another official/office may decide over such allotments made by the official during his term?
2) Could you explain to me why a map coordinator should have powers of a general moderator with regards to roleplay issues? Why not only letting him regulate the map only?
3) Why does the map coordinator have to create regional events, in which members will be obligated to participate in? And why should members even be punished at all for not participating in such events? I strongly suggest that clauses I.C juncto I.D of Article III be removed from this Bill. Especially the latter should not be in a Bill for regulating the regional map.
4) Also, ongoing on point 3. I strongly object to the entirety of clause II, Article III. First of all, who will decide which punishments are awarded, will it be the official, a Regional Court, another judicial official? The punishments also have to be explained (i.e. felony, etc.). Also, can you please explain to me why a Member that does not wish to participate with several roleplays (like I most probably will not interfere with wars, etc.) will lose their position? Which positions can be lost? Can one lose a Membership of Parliament? Can one be dismissed as a Cabinet Minister (with or without the consent of the Prime Minister)? Can the PM or the President "lose their job"? Are administrative (i.e. the Founder and Administrative Officials) functions included? And again, why does this have to be said out in this Bill, that should merely regulate the adoption and rules concerning Our Regional Map?

Article IV has to be improved a lot, according to my opinion. First of all, I think the articles should be outlining the procedures a lot more. It just says that in a way land can be claimed, but how does one go through the procedures? On what basis can the official reject or approve a land claim? Also, why is it not stated that lands already claimed cannot be claimed by another member? Secondly, are nations required to accept that they will lose land in ongoing roleplays? Why not having the participating nations consenting first? I have seen this working in various other Regions as well (one such example is Geopolity). Will there also be an objective maximum of lands to be claimed? Or a minimum? Will returning members have an advantage? What if multiple claims to the same territories are made on same moment? Why does this Bill (and more specifically, this Article) not regulate these very important matters?

The former issues also apply to Article V.

Please address these issues. And as you will find out, I am very co-operative when it comes to good plans. I will always support noble ideas (whether I share the views for them or not) and will be keen to help you out with the re-arranging of this very important Bill!

I have edited the bill mostly into accordance with your wants, but I do believe my proposal will be most efficient in giving people land. Please re-overlook this bill.

Final Final thing: make sure the RP Mod can nullify RP actions if they violate RP regulations. For example, if a nation posts "20 billion bombs are dropped on the rest of the world", then the RP Mod can step in and say "no, stop godmodding you noob".

Libertarian Democracy wrote:Final Final thing: make sure the RP Mod can nullify RP actions if they violate RP regulations.  For example, if a nation posts "20 billion bombs are dropped on the rest of the world", then the RP Mod can step in and say "no, stop godmodding you noob".

Done.

If no one else has any objections, I am prepared to co-sponsor this bill.

Me, too.

I will also like to co-sponsor this bill

Well then, I cosponsor, and the bill moves to the Debate Hall.