«12. . .858859860861862863864. . .2,1812,182»
I agree with what MOBB says there's really no "hostile atmosphere" but I don't think that's all of it. I do believe that some of the veterans are getting bored or tired long periods of quietness then large, long and heated discussions about their political ideas. Perhaps we should have more polls to discuss about. Even if the subject of the polls are past news it will keep CP more active and less quite.
Yay ;)
There definition of hostile envirement was from nations "Abusing" the legal system to bully nations around.
May I ask for an example.
From what I've read so far I agree. Unfortunately I'm a long way off from being called a bookworm, and I'm on a bit of a time crunch.
Ok. In that case, define "abuse."
I don't see how you are going to to do that. There is a common rule of law. They say this rule goes back as far as the courts in ancient Rome and Greece. That rule is, "One person's nuisance suit is another person's quest for justice."
Perhaps you do not like the idea that someone sued and won over a free speech vs. Politically Correct Thought police issue?
Ok, what i miss?
Coming soon before the Legislature, an official poll to amend our Constitution!
This proposal is to add the office of Chief Editor under The Executive Branch
*******************************************************************
The proposed text:
Chief Editor
This position is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the WA Delegate. Duties include but are not limited to:
Responsible for content published in the Regional Newspaper
General management of regional roleplays
Mentor new players on how to roleplay properly
Appointment of additional Editors whose duties include but are not limited to:
Assist the Chief Editor in his/her duties
The Chief Editor and/or Editors may be removed from office by a majority vote by the Legislature or at the discretion of the WA Delegate.
This proposal also adds to the duties of the WA Delegate
In Duties of the WA Delegate and CEO add "To approve the appointment of Editors by the Chief Editor"
****************************************************************************************
The poll will officially open at 5:00 PM Wednesday Nov 19 and close at 5:00 PM Sunday Nov 23.
Our vote counters will be The united oman and Regoslavia
Please remember the the one player one vote rule, and the players voting nation must have resided 15 days in Capitalist Paradise by the close of the poll
Could the author (or authors) of this bill state why this is necessary?
Well, if you'd actually look at the forum, this bill has been discussed for a month and a half: http://www.capitalistparadise.com/forums/threads/discussion-roleplay-newspaper-amendment.258/
Indeed there was quite a brouhaha over this not too long ago.
I think I can help here. Lets see now...
- Someone was placed in charge of the regional news paper.
- That person appointed a number of assistants.
- One or more of those people censored a couple articles on Politically Correct grounds.
- The author of those articles sued on freedom of speech grounds.
- The court found his freedom of speech was infringed and ordered the articles restored to the original text.
- While studying the matter the matter, the court further ruled there was no authority in the law to appoint an editor.
- Therefore the court ordered those people to stop their editing.
- The court further recommended that if the WA or anyone else in government wished to delegate that task then there should be a law allowing it.
That pretty much brings us up to date.
I understand this my concern was with no accreditation to an author when LFK made her announcement.
Well they are saying that a nation came to the legal system and used it to be mean to other nations.
Also their defninition of abuse is being mean to other nations constantly.
PS This is not my opinion I am just speaking for other nations who wanted me to.
Post self-deleted by Gresthil.
Do you guys know how to check your influence in CP
On your nation overview page, below the Political Freedoms column of the table, it says Regional Influence. The term given there is a statement on your influence. For you it is Minnow, which is the lowest influence category. 
The-CID wrote a short thread on our forums about it:
http://www.capitalistparadise.com/forums/threads/all-about-regional-influence.82/
Thanks as always Acario.
Wouldn't that be bullying?
No bullying is the repetitive act of intimidation or force with the intent to harm or ridicule an individual or group.
I am amazed so many capitalists here are happy to see the internet go the way of cable. Channelization and the breakup of the free market. Net neutrality enforces free market competition, it ensures all internet providers play on a level footing. Without net neutrality, the internet will turn into what the cable industry is already:
http://www.wordstream.com/images/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.jpg
That image above is what the internet will be if net neutrality loses.
See this is exactly what I'm saying we need a new system. I suggest this model:
Head of Region
-one who approves laws passed up by Legislative Council
-Judge
Legislative Council (3 elected nations)
-Approves laws created by Legislative Committee
Legislative Committee (5 elected nations)
-Creates laws and votes to send them up for approval by Legislative Council
No just no
The court didn't see it that way.
Define "mean."
Perhaps those nations would be better served to speak for themselves. It seems to me that you are taking a grilling in their honor.
Define bullying.
Some people consider support of any conservative candidate to be bullying. Others consider anything less then full approval of what ever lifestyle they choose to be bullying. There are few fascinating people that consider eating meat to be bullying.
Then there is another group that will call any conservative and/or religious individual everything from "ignorant superstitious gun hugging clod-hopper" all the way up to "racists," "Fascist" or "Nazis."[1] But that is not bullying. But if someone refers to Nancy Peolsi as a "pasty-faced communist troll," that is bullying.
Go figure.
Not according the Politically Correct Inquisition. See above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] And by doing so demonstrating a profound lack of knowledge about the definition of Fascism, the history of the Nazi party or the history of Democrats and the KKK in the United States.
**Frowns at the computer and Nation States...**
Ok, not sure why Nation States did an uncommanded post. Perhaps the cat did it when I stepped away from the computer. But I can pick up where I left off...
Not according to the Politically Incorrect Inquisition. See last post.
Net neutrality does not set well with Capitalists because it interferes with the free market. These companies are private property. Unlike what Nancy and her ilk will tell you, there is no constitutional right to internet access. Internet access is not vital to health and welfare. The government has no right to tell these operators what data they will carry, how they will carry it or what they will charge for it.
Cable does not apply here because cable is a different business with different properties. Cable (and satellite) delivers exactly the same content to an unlimited number of viewers, but each viewer gets the same copy of the signal as their neighbor gets. Bandwidth usage and capacity is easily predicted in advance.
Internet access is a system that delivers and accepts individual content to and from each device connected to the system. Engineers can use historical data to guess at capacity requirements per subscriber. But the fact is that with each new service that comes on line, every new online game, every high interest sporting event, every big news event and even every rowdy weather event, that usage is going to go up.
It is up to the system owners and their engineers to decide what and how they will provide that content and keep their subscribers connected at reasonable speeds. And even at that, many systems are choking on the demands placed on them. See the life lesson AT&T learned when the first iPhones hit their towers. Or try to watch a Netfilx movie right after your local high school lets out for the afternoon.
One other thing that is far more dark and sinister no one is talking about here. Once the government gets a foothold on the internet, any form of regulation will do, that will be the beginning of the end. It will be tried in the courts. (No a simple regulation from the FCC will not be the end of it.) If the courts uphold the government's regulation of the internet, the entire net will soon be buried in mind numbing regulation.
From there the government may start requiring forums to get positive identification of posters and maintain those records for a certain length of time. Perhaps a regulation that requires every devices to provide something like "caller ID" on all traffic which ends privacy on the net as we know it. Then look for "fairness doctrine" style regulations along with imposition of "hate speech" rules and "speech codes."
Keep always in your heart two of the basic laws of government that apply in this case.
- Government screws up every private sector operation it touches.
- To ensure a problem lasts forever, put a government agency in charge of it.
The FCC has their had on the latch to Pandora's box. Hopefully they do not open it.
Got to go with Kaputer on this one. Too much power in too few hands.
1. So, you're for more government control? Regulation of the Internet, which is one of the freest and most successful operations of private commerce the world has seen, is pleasing in your mind?
2. This could lead to cable companies, if I would have to guess, forcing bandwidth to be reduced significantly as the demand on the system would go up. Due to the lack of means to make a profit, (you know, that bad thing companies have to make in order to stay in business?), costs won't go to innovating or improving the network, it will be focused on maintaining what already exists... Of course, unless the government winds up being the agent of maintenance of the network, we would know how that would go...
3. I would see far less choice down the road, smaller companies would most likely be gobbled up by larger companies due to rising costs in network maintenance, customer service would be moot, and what would stop the bigger corporations just buying off politicians and FCC regulators to allow them to slow the network speeds to a crawl? I mean the people would have little choice in where they could go for an alternative. That alternative being pretty much the same kind of company with another name slapped on it. It's like the health insurance plans, the government decides what is fair, equal and what is to be included.
4. On that note: This would increase costs for the consumer to get the same product or it would force consumers to get less bang for what bucks they're spending. Think about it this way...
Person A wants to purchase the premium version of Product A and has 40,000 dollars to spend on it.
Person B wants to purchase the basic version Product A but only has 20,000 dollars but needs 5,000 more to afford it.
The government comes in and says: "That's not fair, lets make it equal"
The government then regulates Product A, therefore raising the cost of Product A to 45,000 dollars. The Government then offers a slightly worse version of Product A, priced at the original price of Product A.
Person A scoffs and takes the deal for the slightly worse version.
The government then takes the 5,000 dollars and gives it to Person B, who in then turn, purchases the basic version of Product A.
While both people were able to purchase versions of the products they wanted, person A was forced to accept a slightly worse version for the original amount because the government rose the cost in order to allow person B to get the basic version of the product.
However, Person A's costs didn't go down but the quality of the product available did. This was done to benefit person B, of which person A had say on whether or not person B got the money.
The cost of equalizing the 'market' through distorted prices is not capitalistic in nature, nor is it a free-market idea. It's just redistribution disguised as an idea to benefit the masses.
I pay 90 bucks a month for 10 gigs of data usage and it's 4G capable. Now, either my gigs are going to remain the same and the price will go up to 120 dollars a month or the gigs will be less for the same price I'm paying now so someone else can get the 3 gig version of the plan for a 'lowered' price.
See how that works?
«12. . .858859860861862863864. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
