Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Technology Act 2015 (Yukon)
Topic Started: Mar 4 2015, 12:49 PM (274 Views)
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
Technology Act 2015 (Yukon)
 
Preamble:- The intent of this Act is to regulate the development and use of advanced technologies in UCON's role play on Yukon, so as to ensure a reasonable and equitable role-playing environment for all.

Article 1 - Basic Technological Levels
1.1) The default technological level of Yukon is described as Post-Modern with Science Fiction and Far Future elements. Any technologies developed on Enkon may be utilised on Yukon, provided they do not breach the terms of this Act or any other, and can be proven to have existed on Enkon.

  • 1) A person may develop any technology they wish to use provided that it is realistic, does not rely upon 'magic' or fantasy elements and does not breach basic role playing conventions such as god moding.
  • 2) New technologies need not be specifically approved by the RP Moderation Team, however they do have the power to deny their use.
  • 3) Any person may petition the RP Moderation Team for an investigation into a piece of technology which they believe to be unfair or which breaches the rules.
  • 4) While space travel is possible players are discouraged (though not prohibited) from role playing space travel beyond the limits of the Exodite System. Furthermore any events which take place outside the Exodite System cannot be used to influence events within it without the approval of RP Moderation Team .
  • 5) Small colonies, outposts and research stations on any significant body within the Exodite System are allowed but must be fully RPed and approved by the RP Moderation Team.

1.2) Any technology developed or manufactured by a nation must be within the reasonable limits of their ability. A poor nation with no educational infrastructure and a poor scientific advancement level cannot develop or manufacture highly advanced goods.
1.3) Technology need not be military in nature to be subject to the terms of this Act.
1.4) The technological level of the EU as a whole (as of February 2015) is to be considered the basic technological level for all nations. If an item or technology is available to the EU then it is considered widely available.

Article 2 - Proprietary Rights and Distribution
2.1) The creator of a particular item of technology has control over it and its spread; however if an item is considered to be a 'concept' rather than a specific item by the RP Moderation Team then other people may develop technology based upon it, provided they first develop the concept themselves.
2.2) Technological items and advancement can be traded or stolen but only with the permission of the creator. Once traded or stolen the recipient of the technology then gains the same rights to distribute the technology that the creator has. Permission to trade or steal an item of technology should not be refused purely on OOC grounds and the RP Moderation Team has the authority to step in and arbitrate any disagreements which arise.
2.3) A technology cannot be stolen or purchased from a person who does not already have it.
2.4) Selling a tech item such as a car or other device does not count as a transfer of the knowledge of how to create that item. A nation may sell items of technology that they have developed without selling the knowledge of how to produce them. Whenever a transaction such as this is made it should be clearly stated OOC that this is the case otherwise it shall be assumed that all production and distribution rights are transferred.
2.5) If a player sells an item of technology without selling the knowledge of how it is made it is reasonable to assume that the purchaser will need to rely upon the seller for maintenance services.

Article 3 - Technology and a Nation's Statistics
3.1) The strength of a nation's technological developments shall not be based upon its scientific advancement level, but rather the level of detail put into the technology being developed in factbooks and posts.
3.2) Scientific Advancement, Education and Industry indices shall be used as an indicator of a nation's base assumed technological level. A nation with higher indexed stats may claim a greater level of technological advancement than a nation with lower stats provided no specific and detailed tech factbooks and role plays are available.
3.3) Scientific Advancement, Education and Industry indices shall determine how swiftly a nation may develop new technological concepts and items, as well as how swiftly technological and scientific problems are solved.
3.4) Scientific Advancement, Education and Industry indices shall be used to establish an upper limit of a nation's technological ability rather than a direct indicator of actual advancement. Thus a nation with a higher index may achieve greater feats of technology and science than one with a lower index.
3.5) Scientific Advancement, Education and Industry indices are a relative measurement rather than a specific one. Provided a nation's indices in these three areas mostly exceed the world average for those indices they are assumed to have technology equal to our greater than that of the modern EU (1.4). Nations with mostly lower indices are considered to have a technological level equal to or less than that of the EU.


The senate has passed this amended version of the Technology Act back to the Assembly for approval.
Edited by Arcadia, Mar 4 2015, 02:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

While I see that the Act proposal has been changed after the critic of the Senate has been used, I still see some flaws in it, but mainly minor flaws, such as spelling mistakes and things that aren't explained;

1.1a) for instance spells the word ''god modding'' incorrectly as ''god moding''.

1.1d) has the word ''Exodite System'' in it. It can be assumed out of the context that with the word is meant the space between the air and the real space. But the word does not exist, according to Google Translate. What is meant with it? There is no definition.

1.1e) spells the word ''by'' after ''within the Exodite system are allowed''. It looks like the intent was to spell the word ''but''. Is that right?


In Article 3, there is a point 1.4) . That should be 3.6) , I think.


If all these would be changed into their correct form or explained fully, then I would approve it. :)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Wolfeinstein
Member Avatar

Approved
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

I will accept as-is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
Herargon
Mar 4 2015, 01:19 PM
While I see that the Act proposal has been changed after the critic of the Senate has been used, I still see some flaws in it, but mainly minor flaws, such as spelling mistakes and things that aren't explained;

1.1a) for instance spells the word ''god modding'' incorrectly as ''god moding''.

1.1d) has the word ''Exodite System'' in it. It can be assumed out of the context that with the word is meant the space between the air and the real space. But the word does not exist, according to Google Translate. What is meant with it? There is no definition.

1.1e) spells the word ''by'' after ''within the Exodite system are allowed''. It looks like the intent was to spell the word ''but''. Is that right?


In Article 3, there is a point 1.4) . That should be 3.6) , I think.


If all these would be changed into their correct form or explained fully, then I would approve it. :)
God Moding is the grammatically correct term, God Mode referring to the cheats on old video games which made one indestructible. I know a large number of people use two Ds in the spelling however I prefer to use the more sensible version.

An exodite is one who participates in an exodus. It is a very rarely used and archaic word so it is hardly surprising it isn't on Google translate. The Exodite System is the name of the Star System in which Yukon is located.

Your issue (1.1e) has been remedied.

The section in Article 3 is correct; the bracketed number is a reference to Article 1 Section 4, meaning that in relation the 3.5 one should refer to 1.4.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

I kind of think the possibility of stealing tech should better be left based around the law and order index. While most people probably be okay with people stealing minor techs and the like but any WMDs or something that gives them a advantage will be almost a sure no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

46566
Mar 4 2015, 03:17 PM
I kind of think the possibility of stealing tech should better be left based around the law and order index. While most people probably be okay with people stealing minor techs and the like but any WMDs or something that gives them a advantage will be almost a sure no.
I disagree. Then the nation with the highest value of Law & Order could easily bcome too overpowered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Herargon
Mar 4 2015, 03:55 PM
46566
Mar 4 2015, 03:17 PM
I kind of think the possibility of stealing tech should better be left based around the law and order index. While most people probably be okay with people stealing minor techs and the like but any WMDs or something that gives them a advantage will be almost a sure no.
I disagree. Then the nation with the highest value of Law & Order could easily bcome too overpowered.
Well the way we have it now is that a simple saying it'stop secret in a military base protect by a huge army is reason enough to say that's the reason why it's notable to be stolen.If it's just initially based on stats and we "reward" rp then a well thought out plan could steal Tech.You could have youth rebelliousness play a negative role on law and order.What's stopping someone getting overpowered in the current system?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

Why is the EU the example for technology? The USA is more advanced in many criterias.

Lol, nvm, this was a stpid question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
The EU is as advanced and more advanced in other areas than the US. The reason it is being used is because it represents a quantifiable average since the EU consists of multiple nations with differing cultures.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

Oh, that makes sense. Alright, but I have another question. As Ned said once before, small nations can have more advanced tech by just using fancy words and adding some details.. I think that part (article 3.1) should be scrapped. I don't agree with it, Ned doesn't agree with it. I know it might encourage and help smaller Nations but, it's really time consuming and now to create new tech, we have to be specific. I came here to Rp, not to have to google everything to be able to make a valid argument on my tech or have to right super detailed to have my tech more legitimate. Sci-adv is the easiest way to see how advanced a piece of tech is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
3.1 works in tandem with the rest of the act, thus RPed tech has priority over stats, but stats are used as a baseline. Only if one RPs high tech do they exceed their stat level.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Maybe have concepts free to create for any nation. If someone wants to create Neutrino or Anti-matter bombs they should be able to. While the inital creator has the right to say what the weapon is capable of, i think that other nations should have the option to develop the weapons themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
This Act largely speaking allows for that; if a piece of technology is deemed to be a concept rather than a specific item then anyone can develop it in their own time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ajerrin

I like this much better. Thank you for revising.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Arcadia
Mar 6 2015, 01:29 PM
This Act largely speaking allows for that; if a piece of technology is deemed to be a concept rather than a specific item then anyone can develop it in their own time.
So basically no one can claim a entire tech tree.So i in theory could create my own anti matter bomb or people could create Neutrino tech?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
46566
Mar 7 2015, 04:44 PM
Arcadia
Mar 6 2015, 01:29 PM
This Act largely speaking allows for that; if a piece of technology is deemed to be a concept rather than a specific item then anyone can develop it in their own time.
So basically no one can claim a entire tech tree.So i in theory could create my own anti matter bomb or people could create Neutrino tech?
That is correct. In the same way that nations have developed Nuclear technology independently IRL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Arcadia
Mar 7 2015, 06:38 PM
46566
Mar 7 2015, 04:44 PM
Arcadia
Mar 6 2015, 01:29 PM
This Act largely speaking allows for that; if a piece of technology is deemed to be a concept rather than a specific item then anyone can develop it in their own time.
So basically no one can claim a entire tech tree.So i in theory could create my own anti matter bomb or people could create Neutrino tech?
That is correct. In the same way that nations have developed Nuclear technology independently IRL.
That is not true. Anti-matter and neutrino weapons are an entirely different category.
They both may be WMDs. That is one tech tree. Since anti matter technology is not an entire branch or a tree, as is neutrino technology, it is not possible to develop neutrino/anti-matter weapons without consent of the original creators if you are not the person that has control over its spread.


Thus you could argue that.

Of course, you have hydrogen/nuclear nukes. But since anti-matter essentially destroys matter while neutron weapons destroys another thing; people and military vehicles while keeping infrastructure roughly intact; thus they are both WMDs but not based from the same source; making them parts of an tech tree.
Thus other people can't create new techs based on one of/these two techs, but they may develop other things from their common tree; (atomic-based) WMDs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Herargon
Mar 8 2015, 02:32 PM
Arcadia
Mar 7 2015, 06:38 PM
46566
Mar 7 2015, 04:44 PM
Arcadia
Mar 6 2015, 01:29 PM
This Act largely speaking allows for that; if a piece of technology is deemed to be a concept rather than a specific item then anyone can develop it in their own time.
So basically no one can claim a entire tech tree.So i in theory could create my own anti matter bomb or people could create Neutrino tech?
That is correct. In the same way that nations have developed Nuclear technology independently IRL.
That is not true. Anti-matter and neutrino weapons are an entirely different category.
They both may be WMDs. That is one tech tree. Since anti matter technology is not an entire branch or a tree, as is neutrino technology, it is not possible to develop neutrino/anti-matter weapons without consent of the original creators if you are not the person that has control over its spread.


Thus you could argue that.

Of course, you have hydrogen/nuclear nukes. But since anti-matter essentially destroys matter while neutron weapons destroys another thing; people and military vehicles while keeping infrastructure roughly intact; thus they are both WMDs but not based from the same source; making them parts of an tech tree.
Thus other people can't create new techs based on one of/these two techs, but they may develop other things from their common tree; (atomic-based) WMDs.
You also have to think about the stats we are using.I fell that Sci-advancement Should now play a role in development.I'm 5 times your sci advancement. Why can't i develop this technology sense in stats this huge gap exists.Tech itself should be open but specific thing shouldn't be. My missile isn't going to be like yours.(it might be stronger due to my advancement and arms industry)

I would like a addition to add a line maybe in the bill making a specific techs have a sci advancement based on the users sci advancement of the creator at time of the first rp. To consider a actual tech level then a country has to send his Tech level to a list maker stating the persons tech level. At this time what ever tech level the new tech is gives the ability to any nation with the same or greater Tech level to create the Tech.(at least harness the fundamentals of the tech) Like i stated on the RMB while developing a new tech especially a military tech you have to figure that there going to be a decision on the best form of usage of the new tech.Missiles are the best usage of anti-matter.(as Neutrino is)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
It wouldn't be my call to make as I am not an RP Moderator, however as the author of this bill I can say from the point of view of intent that this bill is not intended to prevent people from researching a technological concept. Anti-Matter weapons are a technological concept and therefore would not be restricted to one person.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Onza
Member Avatar

Pardon my ignorance in legalese, as this may not be suitable for the law's current format, but I'm curious as to if we could specify that petitions made to the RP moderation council must be limited in number for the same technology. For example, I could petition for a review of 4's antimatter technology, and the council finds it to be legal, and then petition again for another review under the belief that the last review was not sufficient.

It's minor, but I recall us including a similar restriction in a past piece of legislation that involved petitioning for a change.

Other than that, I think that this is a great act, even though I supported it in its original form as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
I understand your concern here, however since the RP Moderation team is considered to be self regulating it would be up to them to make that decision. I really don't want the RA to get into the habit of dictating to the RPMT how it should do things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Arcadia
Mar 8 2015, 03:03 PM
It wouldn't be my call to make as I am not an RP Moderator, however as the author of this bill I can say from the point of view of intent that this bill is not intended to prevent people from researching a technological concept. Anti-Matter weapons are a technological concept and therefore would not be restricted to one person.
I'll be polite on this question there.
Excuse me, but have you read my post, or not? It does not seem like you have read the post, thus missing the point. Since I've already explained the situation regarding that technology you, 46566 and I mentioned.
Edited by Herargon, Mar 8 2015, 07:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
I did read your argument and I countered it; my view is that Anti-Matter technology is a concept and thus anyone can research it, no ifs or buts about it Nuclear technology is a concept, Combustion technology is a concept, so too in my view is Anti-Matter technology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Arcadia
Mar 8 2015, 08:19 PM
I did read your argument and I countered it; my view is that Anti-Matter technology is a concept and thus anyone can research it, no ifs or buts about it Nuclear technology is a concept, Combustion technology is a concept, so too in my view is Anti-Matter technology.
Actually, I was not talking about concepts, but things such as 'tech trees' and their branches. How is it a concept, if I may ask?
Edited by Herargon, Mar 8 2015, 08:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

Herargon
Mar 8 2015, 08:23 PM
Arcadia
Mar 8 2015, 08:19 PM
I did read your argument and I countered it; my view is that Anti-Matter technology is a concept and thus anyone can research it, no ifs or buts about it Nuclear technology is a concept, Combustion technology is a concept, so too in my view is Anti-Matter technology.
Actually, I was not talking about concepts, but things such as 'tech trees' and their branches. How is it a concept, if I may ask?
This is my try at explaining this.


So, we all know my nation has a world famous alcohol industry right? Does that mean I am the only one who can make alcohol? No, because it is a well known practice but I, me, Unibearia, am the only one who can manufacture Howler Vodka because, it is vary specific.

You are just saying it is an antimatter bomb. Cool but you would have to go into detail like yield, size, color, how it is produced, model... Ect. That is specific. There isn't one type of bomb in the world nor is there one type of Vodka.

Hope this helps.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Unibearia
Mar 9 2015, 04:50 AM
Herargon
Mar 8 2015, 08:23 PM
Arcadia
Mar 8 2015, 08:19 PM
I did read your argument and I countered it; my view is that Anti-Matter technology is a concept and thus anyone can research it, no ifs or buts about it Nuclear technology is a concept, Combustion technology is a concept, so too in my view is Anti-Matter technology.
Actually, I was not talking about concepts, but things such as 'tech trees' and their branches. How is it a concept, if I may ask?
This is my try at explaining this.


So, we all know my nation has a world famous alcohol industry right? Does that mean I am the only one who can make alcohol? No, because it is a well known practice but I, me, Unibearia, am the only one who can manufacture Howler Vodka because, it is vary specific.

You are just saying it is an antimatter bomb. Cool but you would have to go into detail like yield, size, color, how it is produced, model... Ect. That is specific. There isn't one type of bomb in the world nor is there one type of Vodka.

Hope this helps.
So I'll have to explain it further? Hmm... wait, how can anti-matter have a colour? XD

Haha, but seriously: so I'll have to explain the weapon better, give more information about it? Ok, I'll do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Herargon
Mar 9 2015, 07:46 PM
Unibearia
Mar 9 2015, 04:50 AM
Herargon
Mar 8 2015, 08:23 PM
Arcadia
Mar 8 2015, 08:19 PM
I did read your argument and I countered it; my view is that Anti-Matter technology is a concept and thus anyone can research it, no ifs or buts about it Nuclear technology is a concept, Combustion technology is a concept, so too in my view is Anti-Matter technology.
Actually, I was not talking about concepts, but things such as 'tech trees' and their branches. How is it a concept, if I may ask?
This is my try at explaining this.


So, we all know my nation has a world famous alcohol industry right? Does that mean I am the only one who can make alcohol? No, because it is a well known practice but I, me, Unibearia, am the only one who can manufacture Howler Vodka because, it is vary specific.

You are just saying it is an antimatter bomb. Cool but you would have to go into detail like yield, size, color, how it is produced, model... Ect. That is specific. There isn't one type of bomb in the world nor is there one type of Vodka.

Hope this helps.
So I'll have to explain it further? Hmm... wait, how can anti-matter have a colour? XD

Haha, but seriously: so I'll have to explain the weapon better, give more information about it? Ok, I'll do that.
It's more in the line of creating a vary specific thing that you can claim that is yours.I have plasma tech already but i'm not complaining that uni is trying to develop it.Mainly because i have just a standard rifle and pistol. Claiming the whole idea of Tech and any potential is impossible to do. Though you can claim a specific design of a weapon or Anti matter missile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Onza
Mar 8 2015, 03:29 PM
Pardon my ignorance in legalese, as this may not be suitable for the law's current format, but I'm curious as to if we could specify that petitions made to the RP moderation council must be limited in number for the same technology. For example, I could petition for a review of 4's antimatter technology, and the council finds it to be legal, and then petition again for another review under the belief that the last review was not sufficient.

It's minor, but I recall us including a similar restriction in a past piece of legislation that involved petitioning for a change.

Other than that, I think that this is a great act, even though I supported it in its original form as well.
I agree with Prime, it's not generally a good idea to write restrictions of the RPMT into other law "just to be safe". The RPMT is especially important to keep separate, so that it can feel free to operate without any more political pressure than is necessary.

If I have a say in the RPMT rules, and I think it's fair to say that I likely will, if the initial appeal were to be unsatisfactory, or to fail there would need to be a substantial reason given to justify a second review (regardless of the topic). What "substantial" means is unknowable until we get actual rules in place (which I've requested a meeting from the other two members), so hopefully we can get some framework it soon.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
This has had more than the 5 day debating period therefore I call it to vote; please could the members of the Assembly declare their votes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Wolfeinstein
Member Avatar

Aye
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

46566
Mar 9 2015, 08:22 PM
Herargon
Mar 9 2015, 07:46 PM
Unibearia
Mar 9 2015, 04:50 AM
Herargon
Mar 8 2015, 08:23 PM
Arcadia
Mar 8 2015, 08:19 PM
I did read your argument and I countered it; my view is that Anti-Matter technology is a concept and thus anyone can research it, no ifs or buts about it Nuclear technology is a concept, Combustion technology is a concept, so too in my view is Anti-Matter technology.
Actually, I was not talking about concepts, but things such as 'tech trees' and their branches. How is it a concept, if I may ask?
This is my try at explaining this.


So, we all know my nation has a world famous alcohol industry right? Does that mean I am the only one who can make alcohol? No, because it is a well known practice but I, me, Unibearia, am the only one who can manufacture Howler Vodka because, it is vary specific.

You are just saying it is an antimatter bomb. Cool but you would have to go into detail like yield, size, color, how it is produced, model... Ect. That is specific. There isn't one type of bomb in the world nor is there one type of Vodka.

Hope this helps.
So I'll have to explain it further? Hmm... wait, how can anti-matter have a colour? XD

Haha, but seriously: so I'll have to explain the weapon better, give more information about it? Ok, I'll do that.
It's more in the line of creating a vary specific thing that you can claim that is yours.I have plasma tech already but i'm not complaining that uni is trying to develop it.Mainly because i have just a standard rifle and pistol. Claiming the whole idea of Tech and any potential is impossible to do. Though you can claim a specific design of a weapon or Anti matter missile.
Nope, I don't claim the whole idea of tech. I claimed anti-matter missiles, and have further edited it.

I vote Nay, by the way.

Reasoning: Article 1.3) should preferably be removed. Otherwise everyone could claim other people's military tech. I thus now could recreate 46566's tech anytime, or Onza's tech, even without having to research or steal it. That is unlogical. Military tech thus also should be subject under that law.

EDIT: Since it has been clarified on the RMB by Prime himself that the military also is subject under this, I could change my vote. But it should be clear when a technology can be claimed or not. Since I do not have heard any voice from the RP mods or such that my tech was bad, I vote Aye.
Edited by Herargon, Mar 11 2015, 09:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

Aye
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Onza
Member Avatar

Aye
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Yea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

nay
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
Voting is now complete and with a 3-1-0 majority the Act passes to the Senate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Theme created by vcd of the ZetaBoards Theme ZoneStyle District