A second Aproach for some laws of Somerset Legal Corpus

I see these days that some councillors have a great will to change some articles of our Somerset Legal corpus.
I wouldnt mind really for these changes if they had some basis upon the request.

But it seems here we have to do with something else than some changes of a law about participation in a County discussion election.

If we look close in 3.5.7 article ,at the second part of it , says :

Art. 3.5.7.: Only citizens of Somerset, the King and the Regent can participate in any electoral action. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

Definition of electoral action is and not limited to promoting a list or negative advertises of any list, in all Taverns, Somerset hall, Somerset Town Hall, Castle of Bristol, mass mail to Somerset citizens.


So,as a citizen of Somerset, despite the whole discussion about if someone comes to talk to me about Somerset issues and proposals, i like also this part of someone dont use his tavern in the main taverns menu, to advertise his party, his program and his thoughts about the great future we could have with any single party.

So,someone for example like Vana, have to think twice what she wants to propose here, cause in my eyes , looks like i want so fast to get rid of it to do my work in my tavern, and not so much what people out of Somerset will say in an election debate.

At least, this is the impresion to someone.

This is an article made by Hypno for this cause among the others , modified by me also in part , to include your tavern Vana, and i am really happy that exiist and prevail above all who wants to abuse such a position.

No party can use it for election purposes and this give 2 things :

1- The right for people of Somerset to discuss alone with no others out of our county their issues and their needs.

2-The privilege not to abuse a tavern by their owners for personal- party reasons, but only to advertise their meals, their prices and that inhabitants will find inside, a warm and firendly place to drink their beer in peace.

I am satisfied with this article, prevent cheap propaganda from any direction

I didn't quite understand what was being said there. I take it that Justinan feels that outsiders shouldn't be involved in Somerset affairs, but is he also saying that he doesn't think tavern owners should be allowed to speak in their own taverns about their own county or party either?

Vàna Rúndóttir wrote:

I didn't quite understand what was being said there. I take it that Justinan feels that outsiders shouldn't be involved in Somerset affairs, but is he also saying that he doesn't think tavern owners should be allowed to speak in their own taverns about their own county or party either?

In short and Spartian Vana, this article doeasnt allow you to put an advertise in the tavern Label and cheer about your party and call people to vote for you
neither call sonnie to come and spread the old chew story in our debates.

Simple, clean, crystal understandable.

In your tavern,
you can talk to the people whatever you want including that you saved whole Somerset from economy disaster , i frankly dont care ..........

I understand now. And I think that you're talking utter rubbish. Jah help Somerset if anyone votes for you with your level of understanding of the law and your complete disregard of the people's right to freedom of speech.

Although we already discussed and voted for repealing the law you refer to, because it was disciminatory, I should perhaps point out that the law said (redundantly) that citizens of Somerset could participate in any electoral action.

Vana goes to seek a class on speaking crystal Spartian to prepare for the election debate.

So? Having rid Somerset of the evils of SNP, LoF/UWS feels free to turn their acid tongues loose on the general public now?

This is a public discussion area. Lord Justinian a constituent, not a member of council. I would hope he would be accorded more respect and courtesy as all citizens of Somerset should be, when bringing ideas forward to the council.

I offer no courtesy to someone who wishes to prevent all citizens of Somerset from being able to express their political views publicly in a political game. And if this is Patron policy and not just an off-the-cuff crazy rant by their list leader, then I am disappointed that Gregarious would support that too.

This is not the place for levelling derision on others especially the people of Somerset you claim to want to protect by protecting the rights of every citizen other than those of Somerset.

You call others down for them making this an unpleasant and unwelcome place. You want more activity from the citizens but when they come here you ridicule and abuse.

You continue to use abusive terminology and names against those you do not agree with? This is free speech? Then I want none of it.

There are more intelligent ways to get across that you disagree. Perhaps by pointing out flaws in the suggestion as opposed to the use of derogatory terms for the posters.

I have never been more proud of someone being disappointed in me than I am at this moment.

I am well aware that many censors in the main forum support the Patrons. I am aware that it is my party which is victimised there. I am aware that discussion of censor actions and game mechanics is not allowed in the main forum so that it is very difficult to overcome the unfairness there. I am aware that you don't like to argue logically to support your fascist ideology and that you will try rather to attack the person than address the issues, for example by trying to get me banned in the main forum to shut me up if I speak up about it there. I do believe a person deserves respect, but ideas such as repression of rights are not worthy of respect, and though you may not be able to distinguish ideas from people, I can. It is your privilege to espouse suggestions of censorship as a way of imposing your will on the people, and it is my right and duty to speak up against such suggestions. I respect your rights as a person. I abhore and reject your philosophy of not doing so.

While I do not agree in the way Vana approached the issue, I do agree with her basis. That the right to free speech for or against any party by anyone must be priority. Limiting the right of a tavern owner to express his or her views on her very own property takes it a little too far. The limit should be that any government site, such as the town hall tavern, cannot post any supportive things. But any private, free thinking citizen, regardless of position, should have the chance to speak out and be heard.

If there is a problem with only a single parties voice being heard in the taverns, then the solution is for the other party to go out and talk to people about their party. This actually can solve two problems; first, the bias nature of one party being heard by the citizens of Somerset, but also, the lack of interest in any government affairs by the citizens. Imagine if every party went out and talked to people about what's going on. This would stimulate interest, as well as greatly increase activity in forums and in game.

The solution to this problem is not to ban it, as that would be unwise and harmful in the end. The solution is to use it as an opportunity to create a stable, creative government focused on the citizens of Somerset. And that, my friends, is my view of the ultimate goal.

Miss Anna Marie Clasp......I applaud you!

Folks,

I'm a bit entertained how this was taken down a path having nothing to do with the intent (this is a sarcastic statement). I know that it is most likely due to slight nuances in language, as I am multi-lingual and sensitive to the meaning moreso than the way it is actually worded, when simple grammatical errors occur. Here is what you are missing, in other words a translation if you will:

Lord Justinan is not saying that promotion of elections and free speech should not be allowed in taverns. This is what he is saying.

Quoting the law: NON-SOMMERSET CITIZENS are forbidden to.......(irrelevant--basically intefere during election season)

Here is where the confusion starts. Lord Justinan is suggesting that beyond the stated law, that tavern owners should not be allowed to advertise politically in tavern descriptions which are seen upon entering the tavern.

That is the proposal, not that tavern owners and citizens not be allowed to discuss politics in taverns. It's hard to conceive anyone ever asking that; neverless enforce it, lol.

I believe this proposal might stem from a prohibition of taverns operated by the mayor of a town not to use their appointed office to propogate their political position or party. I'm sure it is an abuse of power to include political statements in the mayoral message that is afforded to public officials and not private citizens. THIS IS WHERE YOUR DISCUSSION SHOULD FOCUS. Personally, I do not support the proposition to prohibit tavern owners, not town hall taverns for that is an abuse of power, from utilizing their tavern descriptions to promote their political prefereces (amazing how many useful words dealing with politics have the letter p in them, lol).

Now Councilor Vana, you are a public servant and as such you will be put to the test--occupational hazard if you may. It is your duty to acknowledge the ideas put forth and detach the person from it, lest it become a game of bickering which we see way too much of these days. Even if, as Lord Justinan did with the word Spartian, they increase the emphasis; it is required that a public official remain professional. Try and break this viscious cycle. Try and focus on what the constituent is unhappy with. Then allow discussion on that item without insulting them personally. If you respond in that fashion, so shall they.

Ironically, your attack on his views actually supports the idea which you are attacking him about, "Freedom of Speech." This opens up the possibility that you hold the position that Freedom of Speech is afforded only to a select few. That's absurd. I'm certain you agree with me, as does all of Somerset including Lord Justinan.

However, I fear as others might that allowing Non-Somerset citizens of England to intefere with our election is inappropriate. Now this is an item of contention, the place one puts emphasis. I liken this situation to where we English Citizens allow a French or Scottish citizen to berate our Regent candidates in the recent election. How would you feel if Lord Hypno, now a Scottsman entered the House of Parliament and bad mouthed Lord Degas, hmmm (Used purely as an example of a situation elevated to the highest level to emphasize the outcome). I ask you: How would that make you feel? That is how it makes me feel to allow non-Somerset citizens in to influence our Duchal elections.

This is why I interject: to agree with Lady Vana and Clasp on freedom of speech; but only to the reach of our authority--Somerset. I do not want to pay taxes to another county, and do not want their people affecting our people's election of our representatives. In my opinion, allowing them to do so would encroach on our freedom of speech, devaluing our right to freedom of speech. If they are allowed weight, then it will take weight away from the people of Somerset. Thus it would decrease the value we place on our own people's freedom of speech. It's a simple example of international currency or goods pouring into Somerset--economics 101.

Here is where you start the debate: over NON-SOMERSETIAN CITIZENS' INTERFERENCE DURING ELECTIONS DEVALUING SOMERSETIANS FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the seperate issue of the use of private tavern owner's label for poliltical purposes. Now precede with maturity and leave the bickering and personal attacks in the past where they belong. Grow up.

Small technicality, taverns are not private property. They are Public Houses. That is why the advertisement of the tavern owners political view was previously forbidden in their Public Advertisement of the Public House.

Allowing the tavern owner to advertise their political views in the advertisement area intended for them to promote the tavern allows them an advantage. A place for them to place their personal views that are not available to the average person. Thus creating a preferred class of citizen.

As Dylan states no one is trying to police what is said inside the taverns.

I agree with Dylan, and in my last post, I was addressing freedom of putting what the tavern owner wants on the post of the bar.

Gragarious, I would like to know in what way a tavern is public property, when a person pays 100 pounds for it, and then pays 20 pounds tax on that property. If that was public property, should it not be run by the public? The town hall tavern is public property, and should be restricted as to what it can put on there. But if a citizen of Somerset pays to open up a tavern, the freedoms that go along with owning something should be afforded to that citizen. Simply, citizen owned and operated taverns cannot be considered public property.

While taverns can be seen in game, along with the notices, it in does not make those taverns public property. The tavern owner has the right to post on the outside of the building whatever messages he or she wants, as long as it is not flaming or inappropiate use of language.

I keep an open mind on this, and would like to hear in what way a citizen opened tavern is public property. I haven't quite finished the legal corpus, and it is very possible it could be in there =) That thing is dreadfully long, and I seem to have so little time. Thank you for helping me out!

I know I don't live anymore in Somerset. But has original writter of most of the laws, i want to clarify some point.

First never in the laws they was not advertisement for tavern owner, I even personally advertize there during past election, I always consider private owning tavern, thhat why i fight for the right to speak any language in tavern other then TH because many owner has french and was stupid to make them force to speak in english in a place they paid 100 pounds and weekly 20 pounds tax.

For the mayor and other position, yes the laws about abuse of power have even that has an example, not using mayor mail and other thing. That a big no no no since that place is paid by public funds.

For the rest i will not comment my view since i am not from somerset anymore.

But i think this clarification is pretty neutral considering that defend the position of an LOF, but folks you need to chill out, takes beers together i don't know. Calm down seriously, to answer sure rude, that violate the condition of service you sign when joining this board, don'T force me to enforce it, i know you will said is because I am biase and will start again a fight for soemthing is not. I prefer everyone chill out and talk like adult that have a minimum of etiquette "noblesse oblige" like we said in french.

thank you

Now this is effective communication and perplexing at the same time. Thank you much Lady Clasp and Lord Gregarious for debating the issue. Now I'm unsure, lol. Adding Lord Hypno's unbiased fact also.

I would like to dig further into the fact that Lord Gregarious brought up about creating a class of citizen with an unfar advantage. I mean I'm for freedom, but I also believe that he or she who toils hard enough to be rewarded should be afforded a certain freedom to exercise the fruits of labor. I am undecided here.

This would be an excellent opportunity to have well versed people regarding the Legal corpus to interject. Perhaps Lord Rebo and Lady Ellsbeth who hold judicial positions in council could expound. Both have shown a great knowledge in this area before, and imagine that, they're from differing political parties. perhaps that would afford us more insight from all sides? This is progress, not bickering like little children. Sorry for that last comment, but I'm a bit through with that behaviour. It's the only reason I got involved in all this in the first place.

The game itself goes at cross purposes on the issue of free speech.

It has established forum posting laws and TOS and registration agreements each player must abide by that limit free speech to what the owners say is allowable but then it provides the scroller along with an option for "libel and rumors" so that political parties can wage campaigns against one another.

The game owners were counting on the RP of the game to remain in that realm and not to affect so many players OOC with OOC emotions coming into play. Unfortunately as is proven daily that is not so. RP and RL become one for many players and the hurt and harm from this mix becomes a way of life.

It comes down to ethics in my opinion. CAN a tavern owner use their signage as they choose. LEGALLY yes.

SHOULD a tavern owner use their signage to detract, make false allegation against or harm another with insult or lies? ETHICALLY AND MORALLY no.

So the question is for the citizens to decide. Do they want moral and ethical leaders?

if so vote for the party who does not employ such tactics.



Legally if they use their signage to post curse words or sexual content or RL political or Religious material they will find it removed by LJS as has happened before via complaints passed to him from censor council as that is not lawful in game or on the forum.

Otherwise material will be left to stand and it is up to the will and want of the players to decide what sort of people they identify with and want to be representative of them in Goverment.

If the players find that it does not bother their ethical or moral compass to endorse a party who will use any means available to achieve a win then other players can live with that or move to a place that has a larger population that relfects their morals, values and character.

Well, ok then. So much for that . I maintain that a tavern is public property. It is covered under many laws that refer to public areas, but perhaps not in Somerset. But I bow to Lord Hypno's vast knowledge in this area.

Allow the advertisement of what ever the owner wishes. There is a reason that a Pub (Public House) is named such though

I believe we have come to an agreement. Legally, they are allowed to post whatever they want to the limit of the things Ellsbeth mentioned, yet morally, it is unwise to post publically anything against another party.

Gregarious, I am interested in the taverns as public property issue. Perhaps you could inform me more through a message? It only seems to be a point of question between you and me, and I am interested in learning more. Are there specific laws that refer to a private tavern as public property? Thank you!

Greg dear the player uses his or her own money to buy the tavern, stock it, etc. so they own it and all opportunity it presents them.

You and I shop at Walmart but we cannot dictate what they post on their walls as advertisement.

WOULD Walmart post advertisement that is inflammatory or negative about a Presidential candidate? heck no. They know who pays the bills and they are smarter than to endorse or crucify any candidate as they want business from ALL citizens not just Citizens who want to see this or that candidate in office.

There just is not a rule anywhere that says they cannot use signage for RK RP political use, I researched it the last time this arose in the past election.

Now if it is used to personally target one player and make harassing or insulting remarks about one player I do know of one instance where that was removed in game by LJS but he has not stepped in for any group promotion or negation that I have seen.

Miladies Ellsbeth and Clasp, and Milord Gregarious,

You three are the epitomy of political negotiators. Reading through your posts leaves me with nothng to do but read and enjoy the debate. I thank ye, and could not add anything more; other than I miss Lord Rebo--even councilors should have a weekend, lol.

OK first off my wife shops there, it's not my fault . Second what are these presidents you speak of .

We here may not have any laws about signage. But you can be sure that in many jurisdictions there are such laws. Should we not be able to bring charges against a tavern owner that does spread hate and bias and bigotry? We should be able to do something to someone like that in game. Not just have to cry to the King to send in his men to rip it down. Freedom of speech, thus freedom of advertising goes only so far. It should be certailed by law once it surpassed acceptable bounds.

I would not want a tavern to be built on my block that then proceded to put up a 300 foot sign blocking my view of my lovely neighbours and the river. I am sure others must agree. There must be an acceptable limit put on such things.

Now this may have straighed a little from where I started, and may have nothing to do with the original agrument. But I hate to lose so easily in a debate .

Hate speech on a tavern sign would be a violation of the RK TOU. A declaration that the tavern owner supports a given political party would be legal.

I understand that and the person could have action taken against them on teh forums. But the county would not be able to bring charges against them. I think we should be able to so that there would be not only forum consequences but in game consequences as well.