It is my intent to push for, among other changes we are contemplating in referendum. A change to the verbage of the Basic rights bill, that more clearly defines what is being protected by "ethical playstyles". Before this case and the ticket that preceeded it, I would never have imagined it to include prohibiting the killing of electronic animals on personal property based on ethical concerns. It is plain as day once pointed out, but without that it is imprecise and requires a hunt for meaning that should not go further than the footnotes of the constitution. What say the MPs?
#Constitution Referendum
late ore
harsh turtle
<@&807619796924497940>
That clause is vague for a reason and covers more than just animal rights activists. The clause at issue in the case is property rights clause in that court case. I do not see a need to refine or further restrict the language related to "Ethical playstyles"
late ore
Ethical playstyles can still be given an example or made more clear as to the KIND of thing it is protecting. After the fact its clear, but first reading it is not, and I should not need to file a ticket for an interpretation.
a foot note with an example or explination is all I am really looking for here
Foot note: persons who are role playing certain ethical concerns such as but not limited to protecting animals on their property from being hunted, or other such similar concerns.
Additionally this is more for the benefit of future governments, not my own as I already now understand this, as well as supporting it.
lament grotto
I agree with Valreya that it is vague for a reason. I also think that you don't need a full explanation for everything and if it's vague you can also just go with how you interpret it until told otherwise.
rocky cosmos
it's not limited to rp scenario's. it's also for people that play 30 mins per day. for people that want to avoid all contact. for people that want to 0 star. to hardcore 24/7 players. it encompasses everything.
late ore
ethical playstyles are intended for people who want to 24//7 or zero star?
I would be curious how those are ethically involved
because I didn't have trouble imagining those other scenerios, I had trouble imagining what an ethical playstyle was
the thought that came to my head is people who don't over charge because its against their ethics
and again in retrospective its clear, but on first reading it is not, not until it was explained
all I am seeking is to encode the explanations you are all giving me into the text as a footnote, nothing more.
but if you all feel strongly at leaving it vague and murky we can simply pay the fine, and let the next government worry about what it means and go through this whole cycle again at another time
sounds like an easy way to score 1000 euro on future playthroughs when I am not the pm
and for clarification I am not trying to narrow the scope of the clause
I yield the balance of my time to the other members if they wish to make closing arguments, but unless someone changes their opinion or wants to comment I amd fine with tabling the discussion