mr_sniffles
TNPer
There's nothing to stop debate but once again flaming is never an option.
Cathyy's petition
- Thread starter mr_sniffles
- Start date
mr_sniffles
TNPer
My Decision:
I feel we're opening a giant vat of worms because the Constitution and our entire legal system polices the realm of actions within the RP, while the forum or IF rules fall under "reality." However I am hard pressed to allow anybody let alone a set of self-appointed mods have unvarnished control over this forum. The law requires free constructive speech to be endorsed by the members of our government but I have seen no evidence that Hersfold has abused his position as Prime Minister. In fact as Prime Minister, he with or without the delegate have had the power to ban you on the spot with the only recourse happening later within the Regional Assembly. Since that has not happened and since all I have seen are mod actions, I cannot in good faith question the integrity of the office of the Prime Minister.
So where does the mod tyranny end? Well to successfully challenge their power, we would need an example of a corrupt action. Action which has yet to be exhibited. I would more than gladly review your case should a banning occur. This whole situation of Cathy and Insane Power having the same IP address however falls into a mire of proxy servers and security risks and undue harm to Cathy for IP's punishment.
In short, I need to see some real harm before I can take up your case. But I feel regulation is needed in terms to how our region relates to these Mods with god like powers.
I feel we're opening a giant vat of worms because the Constitution and our entire legal system polices the realm of actions within the RP, while the forum or IF rules fall under "reality." However I am hard pressed to allow anybody let alone a set of self-appointed mods have unvarnished control over this forum. The law requires free constructive speech to be endorsed by the members of our government but I have seen no evidence that Hersfold has abused his position as Prime Minister. In fact as Prime Minister, he with or without the delegate have had the power to ban you on the spot with the only recourse happening later within the Regional Assembly. Since that has not happened and since all I have seen are mod actions, I cannot in good faith question the integrity of the office of the Prime Minister.
So where does the mod tyranny end? Well to successfully challenge their power, we would need an example of a corrupt action. Action which has yet to be exhibited. I would more than gladly review your case should a banning occur. This whole situation of Cathy and Insane Power having the same IP address however falls into a mire of proxy servers and security risks and undue harm to Cathy for IP's punishment.
In short, I need to see some real harm before I can take up your case. But I feel regulation is needed in terms to how our region relates to these Mods with god like powers.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry
Cathyy
TNPer
My initial request and my reqeust to rebut Hersfold's statements was specifically and only directed to the Court, not the Office of The Attorney General.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Well to petition to review government action, the Attorney General must find the case worthy to proceed where I will then become chief prosecutor against the defandant (hersfold). To ask for legal clarification then you ask a judge. As I can't find any government action to review, I've asked the court to clarify how mods fit into our legal system. If you'd like me to withdraw my help and simply back off, just say the word.
Other courses of action are:
Hope your mood lightens up!
Other courses of action are:
Hope your mood lightens up!
Cathyy
TNPer
I ask the Court to note that I have not applied for Judicial Review of Hersfold's actions as PM but specifically I have asked for measures which will ensure that my rights under the Constitution are maintained.
In line with previous rulings by the Court in relation to matters not brought through the Attorney General (for example, the ruling requested by Dalimbar in regard to the recent elections) I request that the Court does not require this petition to be brought via the Office of the Attorney General.
I further ask the Court to note that the particular actions I am requesting protection from would if enacted prevent me presenting supplication or petition to the Court at the time they were enacted, therefore, as with most injunctions, it is a request to deter future action (which I have evidence has been strongly indicated is possible by the Root Admin) to prevent such action.
In line with previous rulings by the Court in relation to matters not brought through the Attorney General (for example, the ruling requested by Dalimbar in regard to the recent elections) I request that the Court does not require this petition to be brought via the Office of the Attorney General.
I further ask the Court to note that the particular actions I am requesting protection from would if enacted prevent me presenting supplication or petition to the Court at the time they were enacted, therefore, as with most injunctions, it is a request to deter future action (which I have evidence has been strongly indicated is possible by the Root Admin) to prevent such action.
Cathyy
TNPer
I now further ask the Court to note this post made by Hersfold, acting in his capacity as Root Admin.
In this post he makes clear that should IP attempt to circumvent his ban that his IP address will be banned.
This again would leave me no recourse to the Court at the time it was undertaken, which means it is necessary for me to petition the Court in advance.
I therefore ask that the Court rules that such action, if taken, would be in clear breach of my rights under the Constitution with regard to these sections of Article I:
In this post he makes clear that should IP attempt to circumvent his ban that his IP address will be banned.
This again would leave me no recourse to the Court at the time it was undertaken, which means it is necessary for me to petition the Court in advance.
I therefore ask that the Court rules that such action, if taken, would be in clear breach of my rights under the Constitution with regard to these sections of Article I:
Hersfold
TNPer
I again request for dismissal of these charges on the following grounds:
It is the duty of a Root Administrator on any Invisionfree Forum to ensure that their forum is kept within the Terms of Service set forward by Invisionfree. If a member who has repeatedly violated the Terms of Service is banned for those offenses, and then subsequently circumvents that ban, further measures must be taken to ensure the board remains free of prohibited content. If a board is found by Invisionfree to contain an excessive amount of prohibited content, the board may be subject to deletion without warning. Should Insane Power carry out his earlier threats in an attempt to do this, he will be risking the existence of this forum. If the ability to end this risk exists, it must be taken for the good of the forum and region as a whole.
Other members of our forum have made the extra effort to reach the forum when their own internet access has been interrupted. I am sure that this ability exists for Cathyy, should she wish to do so. Let us hope that Insane Power shows enough responsibility that such an event would not have to occur.
It is the duty of a Root Administrator on any Invisionfree Forum to ensure that their forum is kept within the Terms of Service set forward by Invisionfree. If a member who has repeatedly violated the Terms of Service is banned for those offenses, and then subsequently circumvents that ban, further measures must be taken to ensure the board remains free of prohibited content. If a board is found by Invisionfree to contain an excessive amount of prohibited content, the board may be subject to deletion without warning. Should Insane Power carry out his earlier threats in an attempt to do this, he will be risking the existence of this forum. If the ability to end this risk exists, it must be taken for the good of the forum and region as a whole.
Other members of our forum have made the extra effort to reach the forum when their own internet access has been interrupted. I am sure that this ability exists for Cathyy, should she wish to do so. Let us hope that Insane Power shows enough responsibility that such an event would not have to occur.
Cathyy
TNPer
I would like to point out again that I have specifically NOT asked the Court to bring charges against Hersfold. I'm not sure why he persists in thinking that I have. Nevertheless I have not done so.
The matters of which Hersfold speaks relate to things which appear to be extra-constitutional. Indeed I can find no reference in the Constitution for banning anyone from the forum because of the actions of another player. But I can find evidence from it that a nation should not be banned except as specifically prescribed in the Constitution. (One might think IP's banning contravenes that but I suspect it would be the Court's view if such a case were brought that as IP is not a member of the RA he receives no protection from the Constitution).
I maintain however that it is the Court's duty to uphold my rights under the Constitution.
IP is not a member of the RA, I am. Therefore I do not believe his case can in any way relate to my own request for the protection from being banned.
As to the matter of me purchasing a separate internet connection I doubt that many players in the region would feel it acceptable for example that should it become necessary for a player with an IP address linked to the AOL domain to be banned that any players who were currently playing via that domain to be required to purchase additional/alternative ISP's, to maintain their forum access. (Since it is my understanding that the only way to ban an AOL IP address is by banning the whole domain).
Hersfold seems determined that his rights as root admin are separate from and additional to the Constitution. Nevertheless it is my rights under the Constitution that I seek to protect from a course of action he has indidcated is possible.
If the Constitution is to mean anything it seems to me that this issue must be resolved.
The matters of which Hersfold speaks relate to things which appear to be extra-constitutional. Indeed I can find no reference in the Constitution for banning anyone from the forum because of the actions of another player. But I can find evidence from it that a nation should not be banned except as specifically prescribed in the Constitution. (One might think IP's banning contravenes that but I suspect it would be the Court's view if such a case were brought that as IP is not a member of the RA he receives no protection from the Constitution).
I maintain however that it is the Court's duty to uphold my rights under the Constitution.
IP is not a member of the RA, I am. Therefore I do not believe his case can in any way relate to my own request for the protection from being banned.
As to the matter of me purchasing a separate internet connection I doubt that many players in the region would feel it acceptable for example that should it become necessary for a player with an IP address linked to the AOL domain to be banned that any players who were currently playing via that domain to be required to purchase additional/alternative ISP's, to maintain their forum access. (Since it is my understanding that the only way to ban an AOL IP address is by banning the whole domain).
Hersfold seems determined that his rights as root admin are separate from and additional to the Constitution. Nevertheless it is my rights under the Constitution that I seek to protect from a course of action he has indidcated is possible.
If the Constitution is to mean anything it seems to me that this issue must be resolved.