I feel like Polls count as an example of gameside mass communication since it is publicly visible on the in-game region page, and this amendment codifies this.
1. Scope
(1) Modes of mass communication covered include:
Mass Telegrams to the region using Regional Officer powers or otherwise made for official government purposes,
Dispatches pinned to the regional World Factbook Entry,
changes to the regional World Factbook Entry, and
4. Polls created using Regional Officer powers, and
54. any other form of communication, apart from the Regional Message Board and embassies, that is made through the in-game regional administration page and directly visible on the NationStates website by the in-game region at large.
True, but people with polls powers are definitely capable of communicating through polls, which makes it necessary to add it to the Regional Communications Act.
Polls, while not immediately apparent as a method of communication, do serve that role. They have the same capabilities of influence that a pinned dispatch or WFE change might have, and I can say with certainty I have used them in a communicative capacity as PM and previously as a MoC. Communication with polls may not be as obvious or explicit, but they are absolutely a method of mass communication.
Also they’re technically already covered by the act per
any other form of communication, apart from the Regional Message Board, that is directly visible on the NationStates website by the in-game region at large.
As an additional note, Article 1(1)d currently covers:
Polls
Display of the most supported Map
Banner & Flag
Tags
If you were to stretch the definition you could argue that these are also covered:
Pretitles and Flags of ROs displayed in the WFE and of the Delegate
Embassies and their ordering
I don’t think those two should be covered though.
Also, another additional note, Article 1(1)a “Mass Telegrams to the region using Regional Officer powers,” covers regional telegrams and welcome telegrams, those where the recipient is region:the south pacific or tag:welcome, but does not cover if a official of the coalition were to send a telegram to any other group (which would cost stamps), such as WA nations in TSP (region:the south pacific, tag:wa) or non-WA nations in TSP (region:the south pacific, -tag:wa), even if that telegram is sent for government purposes.
As a third additional note, I’d like to air some grievance against Article 2(1)d, “neutral with respect to political ideology or debate.”
While I understand the intention, and that intention is good, it could be used to argue that that current regional flag as well as the Anti-Fascist, Feminist, and LGBT region tags are illegal under this act. Which is stupid that someone could reasonably argue that.
All just generally government-related telegrams, no. All telegrams made for official government purposes, absolutely.
That I, and likely many others, believe that official government TGs should be subject to the same restrictions of regional TGs as there are cases where they do not overlap. We do not need to wait for problems to occur in order to place appropriate restrictions on things that should not happen.
This act has always been geared towards on-site mass regional communications, which in the vast majority of cases (but not all) are restricted to regional officer powers. I don’t see how this argument is relevant unless the amendment is unreasonable or inappropriate to impose upon official regional communications by the government.
Given that debate does not seem to have ceased, I will not immediately bring this measure to a vote in order to allow legislators to discuss all possible implications.