…2.2.3. The griefing prohibition set out herein shall not apply to regions displaying nazism, fascism or other such ideologies, regions with a history of griefing other regions, regions at war with The East Pacific or an ally of it, regions that have or attempted to overthrow legitimate government of The East Pacific or damage its community, Warzones which do not hold official relations with the East Pacific, or regions being liberated from raider control., or regions deemed an Administrative exception by The East Pacific Administration, as defined by Article G of the Concordat.
I like this
I’m not sure I like this.
I understand the practical effect of it - but this feels like we’re mixing up the powers of the government and Administration too much when it isn’t nessecary. I feel we could theoretically create a totally IC-system which could cover more broad situations - and thus we wouldn’t have to rely on Administration to do that kind of stuff for us. Because yes, while this is targetting OOC things and Admin are the OOC guys… this is asking permission to utilize IC powers. Which doesn’t really make sense - we shouldn’t ask Administration for an exemption to our own laws, we should just make our laws to give us the exemption without defaulting to an authority whose job isn’t this in the first place.
Something like trying to broaden the situations anti-griefing applies, and maybe having a Magisterium vote for further region-specific exemptions is one idea. Most griefing ops last months, so it isn’t like we wouldn’t have the time to discuss for a few days and put it to vote.
— Begin quote from ____
I’m not sure I like this.
I understand the practical effect of it - but this feels like we’re mixing up the powers of the government and Administration too much when it isn’t nessecary. I feel we could theoretically create a totally IC-system which could cover more broad situations - and thus we wouldn’t have to rely on Administration to do that kind of stuff for us. Because yes, while this is targetting OOC things and Admin are the OOC guys… this is asking permission to utilize IC powers. Which doesn’t really make sense - we shouldn’t ask Administration for an exemption to our own laws, we should just make our laws to give us the exemption without defaulting to an authority whose job isn’t this in the first place.
Something like trying to broaden the situations anti-griefing applies, and maybe having a Magisterium vote for further region-specific exemptions is one idea. Most griefing ops last months, so it isn’t like we wouldn’t have the time to discuss for a few days and put it to vote.
— End quote
I feel like making it more IC will defeat the purpose. For that reason I’m against the Magisterium vote. I am open to defining “OOC bad” as itself an exception tho. Just didn’t think of any immediately.
bump
Bump!
I’m still of the opinion that Administration should have no business influencing how the government utilizes a totally IC power. I am now against this.
The government should not delegate the decision of whom it can attack or not to a non-government entity.
Potential alternate way:
“regions which have shown an unwillingness to address harmful Out-of-Character activity within their region, including, but not limited to, repeated ignored violations of The East Pacific’s own community rules”
Another way of doing it:
“regions which have permitted harmful behavior outside the scope of politics and roleplay”
Please give feedback, this exception is highly necessary and it’s important we get it right
you should define OOC somewhere, but otherwise i like the first one i think
How should I define OOC?
on second thought you could just say something like "regions which have shown an unwillingness to address harmful activity within their region. Harmful activity shall be defined as repeated violations of The East Pacific’s own community rules or actions that harm individuals directly in a similar manner.”