Reference Questions on the subject of Proxying, Fraud and Election Fraud

[unibot]

In the coming weeks, the Cabinet is planning to run an election for Guardian of the Regional Message Board. Bearing this in mind, it is necessary to ensure that violators of our strict “one vote per player” policy can be criminally charged.

It should be noted that the ballot system will be hosted on a separate server to the North Pacific forum.

All ballots will include a disclaimer similar to this:

Any attempt to vote multiple times using multiple nation accounts is forbidden – we allow only one vote per player. By voting, you acknowledge that the government of the North Pacific may investigate any violations of this policy and may prosecuted violators in this regard.​

Our cabinet is curious if a violator of the “one vote per player” policy can be charged on criminal grounds already available in our existing legal code.

More specifically, we motion four reference questions to the Judiciary:

1. If a player uses a proxy to hide his identity and attempt to subvert our ballot system, would this be covered by the crime of “proxying”?
   
   Proxying, which is defined as the “use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts”, arguably, includes the use of proxies in a non-forum setting.
   
2. In the event that the answer to the first reference question is “nay”, would said use of proxies to undermine the ballot system count as “proxying” if the ballot system shared its URL address with the North Pacific forum?
   
   Viz. the ballot could be a “Zetaboards page” like our Laws directory.
   
3. If a player attempts to subvert our ballot system and vote multiple times, would this be covered by the crime of “fraud”?
   
   It can be argued that such deception benefits or damages the candidates, via electoral support, even if they have not conspired with the alleged fraudster.
   
4. If a player attempts to subvert our ballot system and vote multiple times, would this be covered by the crime of “election fraud”?
   
   It can be argued that such “willful deception of citizens” (with the government comprised of citizens) is “in regards” to the “requirements […] by which one may be eligible to vote”; bearing in mind the vagueness of “in regards”, which may not require the deception’s content to be specifically the subject, but the backdrop of the subject.

Thank you in advance for your time and deliberation,
Unibot, Minister of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific.

 

[unibot]

Is the court aware of this reference questioning?

 

[Hileville]

Yes we are and currently discussing these.

 

[Hileville]

Opinion of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the questions submitted by Unibot on Proxying and and Fraud​

The Court Opines the following:

On the first question:

If a player uses a proxy to hide his identity and attempt to subvert our ballot system, would this be covered by the crime of “proxying”?

The text of the law is clear on this matter and it is the opinion of the Court that said law was meant to only apply to forum users. This law can only apply to offenses committed on this forum and its related sites that share the same domain.

Section 1.6: Proxying
17. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.
18. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.[/b]

On the second question:

In the event that the answer to the first reference question is “nay”, would said use of proxies to undermine the ballot system count as “proxying” if the ballot system shared its URL address with the North Pacific forum?

The Court feels that this could be applied to the proxying law as it would render a forum user anonymous. Again the Court feels the text of the law is pretty clear on said stipulation.


On the third and forth questions:

If a player attempts to subvert our ballot system and vote multiple times, would this be covered by the crime of “fraud”?

If a player attempts to subvert our ballot system and vote multiple times, would this be covered by the crime of “election fraud”?

Section 1.4: Fraud
9. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

The Court believes that if a player does attempt to subvert the ballot system and vote multiple times it would be covered under both Fraud and Election fraud. The Court opines that in this specific case the broader charge of "Fraud" would most certainly apply and if a strong enough case can be made for "Election Fraud" it would apply as well.

 

[unibot]

Excellent news, thank you, Justice Hileville.