|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 9:54:07 GMT -6
The I Can't Believe It's Not A Talossa Website Act
Whereas; Talossa relies heavily on her many citizens to act as a face of the Kingdom; Whereas; the regime of Talossa must work to protect itself from persons acting in the name of Talossa on the Internet; Whereas; due to the advent of online social networking, pages on said sites should be set up in official capacity by an assigned Ministry within the government; Therefore; the Ziu hereby requires that any and all official websites, social networking pages, and any other future form of Internet group be run by an assigned Ministry from the Prime Minister, assigned member of the government, a representative there of, or when explicit permission is granted to a citizen by the Prime Minister;
Therefore; citizen web sites in relation to Talossa, including social networking sites, must have clear and visible text that says the page is an UNOFFICIAL website;
Therefore; the Government of Talossa has the right to require the transfer of a website or a deletion of website if the it is not made clear that the existing site is UNOFFICIAL.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 12:09:20 GMT -6
...must have clear and visible text that says the page is an UNOFFICIAL website... I support, and would happily co-sponsor this proposal. I'd like the text quoted above to be expanded a bit, to either (1) stipulate what will be accepted as "clear and visible," or (2) stipulate that this evaluation will be made by the PM or his designee.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jan 29, 2009 13:45:55 GMT -6
Hmm, I wonder if this is in response to something specific...
I like this bill, but agree that it needs a couple of additions.
1.) Like S:reu Forestal said - What constitutes clear and visible? I think if the requirements are outlined, then it shouldn't require anybody to sign-off or approve; the page's owner should be able to figure it out.
2.) Specific consequences for violations: - what happens if the site is not clearly marked, after being informed of non-compliance - what happens if the citizen(s) refuse to transfer ownership of the site - other situations not mentioned I'm not trying to instruct the Cort, but rather stating possible consequences for would-be offenders, to inform them of the risk.
3.) Who monitors and investigates each site? The PM's office, or the specific Ministry to which the website most applies.
4.) Will a black list of unofficial/unauthorized sites be maintained? It might lead to more hits on those bad sites, but if some prospective is doing research and happens across unofficial/unauthorized sites, it might be helpful if there was a corresponding list on the Kingdom's page to at least name the bad sites. That way the researching prospective won't show up more messed up and confused than they already are.
I don't want to hijack your bill V, but I'd be happy to answer the questions I just asked if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 13:48:13 GMT -6
Brad,
By all means, tweak away! I think both yours and Danihel's input are valuable and I believe you both have ideas to make it a stronger bill.
~V
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jan 29, 2009 14:02:18 GMT -6
Brad, By all means, tweak away! I think both yours and Danihel's input are valuable and I believe you both have ideas to make it a stronger bill. ~V Rog-o! 1.) I think that if the requirements for "clear and visible" are outlined, then it would just require a compliance check after the site is created, and after each General Election/change of government. Maybe not all of this needs to be in the Bill, but I'm just thinking out loud. 2.) Willful and non-timely compliance could/should be considered treason, or undermining the elected government. Should a citizen set up an illegal site and then refuse to amend, delete, or transfer ownership, that citizen should not be a citizen any longer. Any prospective found doing these activities should be denied citizenship. 3.) I think the PM should figure out how to monitor or take reports of unauthorized sites. Whether he keeps the task himself, delegates it to an existing Ministry, or creates a new specific Ministry is his choice. 4.) It's more work for somebody (as I am one of the few that has no clue how to make or maintain a web page, I have no idea how much work), but I think a black list would help those prospectives doing research, that happen across an illegal site. The prospectives might even be able to assist in reporting new illegal sites.
|
|
|
Post by Istefan Lorentzescu on Jan 29, 2009 14:15:07 GMT -6
This might be one such site www.talossa1979.com. I was more than a bit confused on finding this.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jan 29, 2009 15:24:17 GMT -6
I would gladly co-sponsor that - with some rewriting, though -, including the things Danihel and Brad have proposed.
Excellent text, V, but please correct 'there of' to read 'thereof'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 15:24:51 GMT -6
Brad, if you wouldn't mind writing up a draft. I believe your bill writing skills are more finally tuned than mine.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 29, 2009 19:28:52 GMT -6
Please eliminate the requirement to transfer ownership, and instead merely require either "UNOFFICIAL" or the shutdown of the site. I think it would be entirely improper for the state to seize the efforts of someone else.
Sanctions do not actually legally need to be included in the bill; the Cort would have free reign to assign whatever punishment they saw fit if this law were broken. However, it is indeed a good guideline to have something like that. I would suggest the following procedure: an initial official warning, a second warning, a third warning of certifiable deliverance (registered email/mail, phone call, etc.), and then a token fine for the first month. For every month thereafter, the fine should increase (if it is one lou to begin with, it should be a lou and a half, then two lous, and so on) up to a limit (say, five louis). But perhaps the legislators can figure out the systematics of that better, these are simply my suggestions.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jan 29, 2009 19:29:14 GMT -6
I wish to cosponsor this act. As long as the proposed amendments by Brad and Danihel are added.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jan 29, 2009 20:45:00 GMT -6
Brad, if you wouldn't mind writing up a draft. I believe your bill writing skills are more finally tuned than mine. Sure thing. I'll aim for tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Ellsworth on Jan 29, 2009 21:55:57 GMT -6
Lol, I guess you were serious when I was talking to you over that "social network", Viteu Toctviac'hteir. If you didn't add in the part where they can be unofficial, this very well could have been one of the worst bills ever passed in Talossa. Just because it would severely stunt the potential growth of Talossa. But you did, so bravo. I agree. Although... the official website hasn't had much done. It hasn't been logged on in about half a year, and hasn't gotten any exposure. Check it out. www.myspace.com/talossaNow take a look at the one I made. It's only been in operation for 2 or 3 days and has already had decent progress. www.myspace.com/ThekingdomoftalossaI had actually already let people know in the "about Talossa" section that this was an unofficial myspace before this bill was even thought up. Common sense dictated to me that I should before any of this happened. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 23:18:59 GMT -6
Irrelevant Cody. You found a loophole and it is now being addressed. I do not see why one might wish to exploit loopholes when they're trying to gain access to a new group of people, but that is just me. Although your page is nice, it is not immediately noticeable that it is unofficial.
S:reu Davis,
There is a clause in there that would allow the person to continue to operate a site with explicit permission. If, down the line, someone makes an awesome page on a new networking site and is willing to maintain it, permission may be granted (that is, if they do not know about the law.) The person in this regard actually has two options: delete the page or allow it to live in. I think it would be nice to give a third possible action:
Transfer Ownership; Delete Page; Ask for Permission to keep the page and go through the right channels.
The person can either have their work seized or delete it. The three options would be entirely theirs! (And hey, if they were denied permission, they could still delete the page.)
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 30, 2009 14:55:26 GMT -6
Query:
given that this forum (and indeed the wider website) is not the "official" online instrument of the Talossan state, but rather a private organ which, effectively, acts on its behalf, should these two websites have an UNOFFICIAL status added?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2009 16:33:12 GMT -6
A query which blurs the line between "official" and "unofficial," which suddenly seems very relevant to me. In my mind, I consider Witt to be "official," albeit not "The Kingdom In And Of Itself." Clearly, Owen doesn't agree with that assessment, and I confess, I don't know where I developed it.
|
|