NationStates Jolt Archive

Am i correct in the assumption that plagiarism of previously passed resolutions is covered in the rule of "Proposal Stealing" in the rules for proposals?

If so, the proposal "Repeal: Artistic Freedom" is illegal as it is simply a copy of the first few clauses of my proposal, then with 2 clauses of the author's own. I ask the mods to review this proposal for its legality.

Thank you.

EDIT: Proposal in question:

Argument: (Mine) NOTING Article II of Resolution #26, “The Universal Bill of Rights,” which states that “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

ACKNOWLEDGING that artistic freedom should be protected and promoted throughout the world; (/Mine)

UNDERSTANDING that the resolution protecting Artistic Freedom targets only a very narrow definition of art which does not include literature or any artistic piece created with an intent other than aesthetic value and is therefor biased and incomplete

REPEALS Artistic Freedom."

At first glance, I don't see it as plagiarism. The author is agreeing with two clauses of UN law, while disagreeing with the conclusion reached and asking for a repeal. He's not stealing your argument, he's using your argument against your intent.

Had he copied from a proposal-at-approval and posted it as his own, you'd have a case. However, since it is enshrined as NS law, it can now be quoted without attribution as part of the canon of law that applies to all UN nations. Had I been writing this I would have incorporated it as a quote or paraphrase, but I can't say that it's infringement, as you placed this law into the NS public domain once it went on the floor.

I'll seek reinforcement of this opinion before it becomes enshrined itself as precedent, but to me this looks legal.

At first glance, I don't see it as plagiarism. The author is agreeing with two clauses of UN law, while disagreeing with the conclusion reached and asking for a repeal. He's not stealing your argument, he's using your argument against your intent.

Had he copied from a proposal-at-approval and posted it as his own, you'd have a case. However, since it is enshrined as NS law, it can now be quoted without attribution as part of the canon of law that applies to all UN nations. Had I been writing this I would have incorporated it as a quote or paraphrase, but I can't say that it's infringement, as you placed this law into the NS public domain once it went on the floor.

I'll seek reinforcement of this opinion before it becomes enshrined itself as precedent, but to me this looks legal.

This was my intent in writing the repeal, in the first place. Fey and Fonzoland have found wording that is solid and works. There's precedent for it, so I figured why reinvent the wheel. If an argument is a valid argument for repealing a proposal, it seems natural that same argument would be used to repeal any proposal to which it applies.

However, I'd be perfectly happy to change the wording if this is necessary. It seems though that in three years of NS that given the limited scope of the UN, much of the ideas and possible effective wordings of said ideas have been used at one time or another. They're not novels or poems, they're resolutions. If someone found an effective way to write and pass a resolution, using their wording to make future resolutions more effective should be encouraged, one would think.

EDIT: Whoops, this thread isn't about my repeal. However, I'll mention that Fonzoland accused me of the same thing so I'm interested to see what you decide.

Am i correct in the assumption that plagiarism of previously passed resolutions is covered in the rule of "Proposal Stealing" in the rules for proposals?

If so, the proposal "Repeal: Artistic Freedom" is illegal as it is simply a copy of the first few clauses of my proposal, then with 2 clauses of the author's own. I ask the mods to review this proposal for its legality.

Thank you.
Frisbeeteria's interpretation is correct. I'll add: that's the nature of law. Every law borrows from some prior law, and most written opinions quote extensively from prior opinions. In this case, it would be impossible to refute the prior law without quoting it verbatim - had the author merely alluded to the prior law, people voting on it may have been misled as to what it actually said.