| Technology Act 2015 (Yukon) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 4 2015, 12:49 PM (274 Views) | |
| Arcadia | Mar 4 2015, 12:49 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 4 2015, 01:19 PM Post #2 |
![]()
|
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. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| New Wolfeinstein | Mar 4 2015, 01:40 PM Post #3 |
|
Approved |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Mar 4 2015, 02:08 PM Post #4 |
|
I will accept as-is. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 4 2015, 02:30 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Administrator
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 4 2015, 03:17 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 4 2015, 03:55 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
I disagree. Then the nation with the highest value of Law & Order could easily bcome too overpowered. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 4 2015, 11:24 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Mar 5 2015, 04:10 AM Post #9 |
|
Why is the EU the example for technology? The USA is more advanced in many criterias. Lol, nvm, this was a stpid question. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 5 2015, 12:03 PM Post #10 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Mar 5 2015, 12:53 PM Post #11 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 5 2015, 02:03 PM Post #12 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 5 2015, 11:07 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 6 2015, 01:29 PM Post #14 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Ajerrin | Mar 7 2015, 07:06 AM Post #15 |
|
I like this much better. Thank you for revising. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 7 2015, 04:44 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 7 2015, 06:38 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Administrator
|
That is correct. In the same way that nations have developed Nuclear technology independently IRL. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 8 2015, 02:32 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 8 2015, 02:46 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
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) |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 8 2015, 03:03 PM Post #20 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Onza | Mar 8 2015, 03:29 PM Post #21 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 8 2015, 05:31 PM Post #22 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 8 2015, 07:49 PM Post #23 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 8 2015, 08:19 PM Post #24 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 8 2015, 08:23 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Mar 9 2015, 04:50 AM Post #26 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 9 2015, 07:46 PM Post #27 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 9 2015, 08:22 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Mar 10 2015, 05:28 PM Post #29 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 11 2015, 01:13 PM Post #30 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| New Wolfeinstein | Mar 11 2015, 04:04 PM Post #31 |
|
Aye |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Mar 11 2015, 04:29 PM Post #32 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Mar 11 2015, 07:20 PM Post #33 |
|
Aye |
![]() |
|
| Onza | Mar 11 2015, 08:34 PM Post #34 |
![]()
|
Aye |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Mar 11 2015, 11:53 PM Post #35 |
|
Yea. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Mar 14 2015, 06:23 PM Post #36 |
![]()
|
nay |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Mar 15 2015, 10:15 AM Post #37 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Voting is now complete and with a 3-1-0 majority the Act passes to the Senate. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:21 PM Jul 11
|











7:21 PM Jul 11