We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya
Details
Submitted by[?]: 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 4465
Description[?]:
| 8 March 4458 - Central Tian'an District Court The Pragmatic Institute wishes to sue Wei Zhenya for defamation concerning her comments published in The Kaizhou Inquirer that falsely implied that the Pragmatic Institute had used corporal punishment on children in experiments. The Pragmatic Institute demands that Wei Zhenya post a public retraction and apology for her false statements. In addition, the Pragmatic Institute demands Wei Zhenya pay $261,600 INS in damages to the institute and pay for all legal expenses incurred by the Pragmatic Institute for this case. The institute's reputation has been damaged by her false claims and this has directly impacted its ability to raise funds as a non-profit. Since the institute has been recently founded, this has a particularly negative impact on its first impressions to the public. We had previously asked that Wei Zhenya publicly retract her false statements and apologize. She has refused to do so. Offending comment: "I am horrified by the contents of this study. Not only does it suggest that the corporal punishment, an action that is very much illegal, occurred on adults, but also on children, child abuse is a step way too far for me, and I intend work to investigate this matter if the Pragmatic Institute stands by and does nothing." - Wei Zhenya (11 November 4457 published via The Kaizhou Inquirer) Related release published via The Beizhou Independent on 15 September 4457: [[[The Pragmatic Institute, an Indralan think tank, conducted an analysis on various studies of effects of corporal punishment on children. They found that it may correct undesirable behaviour in the short-term, but overall lead to long-term developmental problems. Negative results in mental health, domestic relations, and increased substance abuse does not paint a promising picture for any future use. Use of corporal punishment on children is also associated with lower academic performance. Even lighter forms of corporal punishment such as spanking has not found any positive long-term results in research.]]] In further clarification: The Pragmatic Institute conducted an *analysis* of studies done in Indrala on domestic abuse cases and overseas in countries that permit and or sanction corporal punishment in schools and or domestic environments. None of these studies sanctioned the use of the punishment in question, only analyzed its effects on existing cases. We remind Wei Zhenya that corporal punishment does occur throughout the world and is legal in several countries. Just because it is illegal in Indrala does not mean it does not happen at all. Ironically the institute's findings painted a negative view of corporal punishment use on children — making her false statements against it ever more puzzling. The institute holds the view that she has misunderstood its press release, but nevertheless made false statements incurring damage to its reputation as a think tank. - Xia Tu Attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute VERDICT: DROPPED |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:04:02, September 25, 2018 CET | From | 葵花聯盟 (Sunflower Coalition) 🌻 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 8 March 4458 (OOC: Postdated) While Wei Zhenya recognizes the claimed comments were published within the Kaizhou Inquirer, she believes that such statements are not enough to be considered defamation, as it was no way made with malicious intent. Instead, Ms. Wei was merely made the comment in good faith and immediate concern for what she at the moment saw as a worrying piece of research by the Pragmatic Institution. This is due to the fact that the release published by the Beizhou Independent in no way clarified the method by which results were achieved in the studying of adults in the judicial system. While it is possible to conclude that this followed a similar path to the children, it isn't hard for one to see it in the opposite perspective. And if one took this into account, the study of children also seems possibly dubious. In clarification of the attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute's statement, Ms. Wei was in no way commenting on the findings of the study, but on the possible ways that the results were found. This stemmed partially from the publication not being entirely clear, which presents the possibility that others who might not be as versed in the scientific style of writing could easily misconstrue the finding. It was this open-endedness on the study's part which elicited such a strong reaction in Wei, who herself has seen the horrors wrecked upon the victims of such illegal activity. In conclusion, Ms. Wei will not at the current moment retract any statements made on her part, or pay the expenses gained by the Pragmatic Institute. Furthermore, if the plaintiff could provide evidence that Wei Zhenya intended to cause harm to the Insitute's reputation and how their own statement isn't in itself easily mistaken, I'd like to hear it. Wu Xian Attorney representing Ms. Wei Zhenya |
| Date | 00:47:23, September 25, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 9 March 4458 The Pragmatic Institute conducted no studies of their own on corporal punishment and never stated otherwise. These studies were conducted independently by various psychologists overseas in countries that permit such use. The institute only conducted an analysis of the studies and found no positive long-term effects of corporal punishment on children. Names of psychologists and locations of study were not released to the press for the sake of preserving diplomatic relations and the safety of the researchers in question. It should be noted that the institute did not find any studies on judicial corporal punishment (adult application) and as stated in The Beizhou Independent only found anecdotal evidence and moral arguments. The intentions of Wei Zhenya are irrelevant and do not make the damages incurred by the institute any less. Her public implication that the institute had sanctioned the use of corporal punishment on adults and children was false. We asked her to retract her false claims and she refused. Such press releases paint a false picture of the institute as an immoral research institute, and since the institute was recently founded, has harmed its first impressions with the public. This has impacted the institute's ability to raise funds from donors. The action of conducting an analysis is not corporal punishment. The oversea studies simply observed the long-term effects of children who had already received corporal punishment as part of those countries' parenting and teaching norms. Yes, the studies were not conducted under perfectly controlled laboratory conditions, but such standards are not required by the scientific community for this kind of psychological research. The demand remains for Wei Zhenya to release a public retraction and apology for her false statements and pay the institute $261,600 INS, including all legal expenses from this case. - Xia Tu Attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute |
| Date | 05:48:13, September 29, 2018 CET | From | 葵花聯盟 (Sunflower Coalition) 🌻 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 9 March 4458 (OOC: Postdated) I would like to remind the attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute that Ms. Wei had no intended malice towards the plaintiff. That on its own eliminates the charge of defamation against my client, as defamation requires bad will towards the subject itself to constitute a charge. The statement by Ms. Wei clearly wasn\'t meant to harm the Pragmatic Insitute\'s reputation, but merely to comment on the perceived idea of corporal punishment even occurring, which as I mentioned caused a personal reaction within Ms. Wei. Furthermore, I'd like to return to the fact that Ms. Wei\'s statement said the following: "I am horrified by the contents of this study. Not only does it suggest that the corporal punishment, an action that is very much illegal, occurred on adults, but also on children" - Wei Zhenya (11 November 4457 published by the Kaizhou Inquirer) This statement never actually says that the Pragmatic Institute inflicted corporal punishment on anyone, but just says that it occurred. It neither specifies a place or a person and thus can\'t be linked as a blame on the Pragmatic Insitute. She just had the thought pop up in her mind that corporal punishment had occurred in Indrala, or anywhere on Terra, at all on anyone, and reacted how I\'m sure any human being would\'ve, but she most certainly did not say by the institution in question.\r\n\r\nIf the charge isn\'t truly considered defamation and the statement not what the Pragmatic Insitute believes it to be, perhaps we should wrap up on this case. Unless we should further devolve this into a situation where we are both suing each other for claimed falsehoods. Wu Xian Attorney representing Ms. Wei Zhenya |
| Date | 12:50:56, September 29, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 11 March 4458 If Wei did not intend to imply the institute had engaged in unethical research practices involving the sanctioned use of corporal punishment, then why did she call for the board members and president of the institute to step down? If Wei had contacted the institute before making her false and defamatory remarks, she may have avoided this entire lawsuit by clearing up any misunderstanding. Instead, Wei went directly to the press, attacked the institute, implied it had used corporal punishment during a research study, and demanded the institute's leaders resign. This has had a negative result on the institute's reputation. Once her false and defamatory remarks were published in The Kaizhou Inquirer, the institute contacted her to demand she retract her statements and post a public apology with a correction. She has refused to do so. Wei clearly intended to harm the institute's reputation with her actions by publicly attacking it on false grounds and calling for its leadership to resign. Regardless of her intentions, the institute's reputation has been harmed as a result of her false and defamatory comments. - Xia Tu Attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute |
| Date | 07:32:18, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 8 May 4462 The Plaintiff would like this case to be dropped on grounds that a verdict ruling in its favour would be rendered fruitless by parliamentary immunity. If this is agreed upon, the Plaintiff agrees not to lodge any further lawsuits against the Defendant for as long as they are protected by parliamentary immunity. - Xia Tu Attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute |
| Date | 15:13:54, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 葵花聯盟 (Sunflower Coalition) 🌻 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 8 May 4462 Ms. Wei is willing to accept the dropping of this case. The defence is glad that we were able to reach an amicable conclusion to our dispute. Wu Xian Attorney representing Ms. Wei Zhenya |
| Date | 23:03:43, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 8 May 4462 All parties present agree to the case being dismissed, all demands made against Wei Zhenya be dropped immediately and that no further lawsuits be brought against her by the Pragmatic Institute for the duration of Wei's protection under parliamentary immunity. The Plaintiff further adds no intention to bring this issue up in the future. Unless the Defence has any additional comments, this is our final statement. - Xia Tu Attorney representing the Pragmatic Institute |
| Date | 00:09:02, October 05, 2018 CET | From | Drania Cívica 🏴 시민당 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Institute v. Wei Zhenya |
| Message | 8 May 4462 Based upon the laws on parliamentary immunity, the Pragmatic Institute should not have been able to bring a lawsuit against Ms. Wei. The agreement made between the Plaintiff and Defendant will be accepted by this Court and this case will be thrown out due to the procedural errors that brought it to a hearing. To reiterate, under current national law of the State of Indrala, Ms. Wei Zhenya is protected under parliamentary immunity from these defamation charges. Guan Tai Justice |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 668 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "A racially integrated community is a chronological term timed from the entrance of the first black family to the exit of the last white family." - Saul Alinsky |