The Mod Act

[mr_sniffles]

I feel that given the certain atmosphere, we must enstate a set of rules and guidelines as to how Root Administrators can act and limits to their powers. Can we successfully stop it? No but we can deter it. I'd rather this be in the Constitution but can settle for a bill.

I think these should be key parts:
Public Recusal, where the admin in question should not close a thread in which he/she was partaking in non-mod fashion (like engaging in a debate.)
Political Recusal, elected officials should temporarily surrender their Root Admin powers but remain mods of their own respective sections as delegated by their ministry.
Forum Bans; are subject to legal review. As of now, the only mention of bannings only refer to the North Pacific region. Customs and conventions may say that the forum in a part of our region but a clear legal statement would be better.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Cathyy]

I think this would be a very positive move for TNP although the current Constitution does already refer to forum bans.

I believe that TNP is far too big a region to be held in the grip of one Root Admin - whoever they are.

It has long seemed wrong to me that Admins stand outside the law. In the early part of my Delegacy I suggested the possibility of elected moderators and however it is managed I do believe that Root and other Admins should be held accountable, since there is always the, unpalatable though it may be, option for a forum move should a Root Admin be found to be wanting.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I'd also like to add:

Recall: if a petition of over twenty RA members is brought forth, a public vote will be held as to whether or not an administrator may retain their position with an aye or nay.

Cathyy: well the twoslit thing has been a burden since as long as I can remember but the difference between that situation and this is that this time the mods are spread out pretty evenly. I don't know much about the tech but I think we have about six or five of them, so this way one mod can't overrule all the others. It's a sort of detente but while they are trustworthy I feel we do need some public oversight and at the very least, some regulation.

 

[AlHoma]

I feel that given the certain atmosphere, we must enstate a set of rules and guidelines as to how Root Administrators can act and limits to their powers. Can we successfully stop it? No but we can deter it. I'd rather this be in the Constitution but can settle for a bill.

I think these should be key parts:
Public Recusal, where the admin in question should not close a thread in which he/she was partaking in non-mod fashion (like engaging in a debate.)
Political Recusal, elected officials should temporarily surrender their Root Admin powers but remain mods of their own respective sections as delegated by their ministry.
Forum Bans; are subject to legal review. As of now, the only mention of bannings only refer to the North Pacific region. Customs and conventions may say that the forum in a part of our region but a clear legal statement would be better.

Any other thoughts?

Question: Did you read my porposal in the Moderator forum? (Here)

 

[Cathyy]

I'd also like to add:

Recall: if a petition of over twenty RA members is brought forth, a public vote will be held as to whether or not an administrator may retain their position with an aye or nay.

Cathyy: well the twoslit thing has been a burden since as long as I can remember but the difference between that situation and this is that this time the mods are spread out pretty evenly. I don't know much about the tech but I think we have about six or five of them, so this way one mod can't overrule all the others. It's a sort of detente but while they are trustworthy I feel we do need some public oversight and at the very least, some regulation.

Well, the problem I have is this. I have been placed on a warning for a post which allegedly breached Invisionfree's ToS.

I do not believe it did.

I have been informed that I can appeal the ruling.

But who do I appeal to? The very people who imposed the warning in the first place.

By any standards that's pretty much a non-starter and feels intuitively wrong.

 

[wizardofoz01]

I have a couple of sliiight problems..

Regarding the public recusal.. If Admin X engages in a debate, say, in the RA or wherever, and others push that discussion out of hand so that someone MUST close that thread, should the Admin that was engaging in the debate simply do nothing and wait for another admin to spot the problem?

Regarding the recall.. This is a good idea in theory, but we've had problems finding people willing to be Admins.. Recalling is one thing, but the task of destruction is infinitely easier than the task of creation. In other words, if we recall an admin, then we face the much thornier question of who should take his/her place.. and we should address this if we're going to put in a recall provision.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I have a couple of sliiight problems..

Regarding the public recusal.. If Admin X engages in a debate, say, in the RA or wherever, and others push that discussion out of hand so that someone MUST close that thread, should the Admin that was engaging in the debate simply do nothing and wait for another admin to spot the problem?

exactly, is it inefficient? Yes. But in the interest of accountability, public oversight, and denying conflicts of interests; I feel this is a good move.

Seeing as how admins are appointed, I'm pretty sure lack of interest will be a problem since we've already had so many. The recall motion is one that seeks accountability of those with power above all else.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

I've moderated on about 20 different fora not related to this game. In the capacity as a mod, I have never engaged in closing a thread or any type of censorship unless there is a post that clearly violates TOS of the board host or use of really offensive language or themes that offend common decency (and it takes a lot to offend my sense of common decency).

All that aside, if I was/am personally attacked, I had/have no inclination to close a thread but instead allow the attacker to hang themselves as per TOS. This absolves the Admin of a board of any responsibility in closing threads or banning a board member.

The idea is to keep a certain amount of civility. Closing a thread that is headed for TOS busting posts is an act of self-defense.

IMHO, if an admin acts according to the duty to prevent, etc., TOS violations, the admin is entitled to do so. Someone claiming that closing a thread or deleting a TOS violating post is a personal act has no defense.

R

 

[Flemingovia]

People seem to be losing track of the fact that the root admin of this forum was not apppointed by the government here, and is not answerable to the government here. This is HIS forum, which hosts the government and community of the region.

If the root admin does not agree to recursal or recall (and I do not know whether he would or not), what are you going to do? Your only recourse would be yet another forum move .... and then who would you trust to be root admin next time?

In my own capacity here, I was appointed admin by Hersfold, and serve at his pleasure. He can remove me at any time by a simple mask change. I do not think the government can remove me.




P.S. For the record, there are 20 moderators on this forum.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Including the Cabinet yes, but we're discussing the ones with unlimited access.

Your argument about the futility of policing the mods reminds me of the uselessness of democracy in a feeder. Can we force a delegate out should s/he violate the Constitution? No. But it doesn't mean we're just going to give it all up.

 

[Flemingovia]

Good point.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Constitution:

ARTICLE VI. Expulsions.

Section 1. Expulsion.
Any Nation may be expelled from The North Pacific if found guilty of the following:
1) Violating any of the NationStates rules as provided on the NationStates.net website or as determined by a NationStates Moderator.
2) Violations of The North Pacific Constitution.
3) Violating the Regional membership regulations as outlined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.
4) Violating The North Pacific Legal Code or other laws of the Region.
5) Violating the Rules and Regulations for Cabinet.
6) Violating the rules of forum decorum as stated by Invisionfree

Section 2. Power of Expulsion
4) In the event of explicit spamming or flaming of the Regional offsite forum or the Regional civil headquarters message board at Nationstates.net, a Nation may be ejected by the Delegate without a prior referendum vote if the action is countersigned by the Prime Minister upon the posting of the offense by a Regional Assembly Member, and a second to the immediate expulsion motion by another Regional Assembly Member. However, the subject Nation of the expulsion action shall have the right to a post-ejection referendum vote by the Regional Assembly on a motion to ratify the ejection. The vote shall be to ratify the action to expel, and the expulsion shall be ratified if within seven days, at least 50 per cent of the Regional Assembly with a quorum participating, approve the motion in a referendum.

Article VIII. Moderation Regulation

Section 1: Recusal
a) Any Global Moderators elected to a Cabinet position must surrender their mod powers temporarily for the remainder of time served as an elected official.
b) Threads in which a Global Moderators is involved in a non-moderation fashion cannot be closed by said Moderator.

Section 2: Recall
a)  If a petition of over twenty RA members is brought forth, a public vote will be held as to whether or not an administrator may retain their position with an aye or nay.
b) The terms of the vote is subject to the eligibility requirements stated in Article 2.2 of the North Pacific Constitution. The terms of the recall vote must adhere to the Election Procedures as stated in Article 3.1.b, c, d, e, and f.

Edit - fixed! Again!

 

[AlHoma]

A Note

Root administrator: There is only one. They are ultimateley responsible for keeping the forum running and operating

 

[mr_sniffles]

A Note

Root administrator: There is only one. They are ultimateley responsible for keeping the forum running and operating

So should I just say non-Cabinet Moderators? Or is there some other spiffy name I can use?

 

[Former English Colony]

A Note

Root administrator: There is only one.  They are ultimateley responsible for keeping the forum running and operating

So should I just say non-Cabinet Moderators? Or is there some other spiffy name I can use?

They're called Global Mods.

DD, Gross, and GBM are our 3.

 

[Hersfold]

*Hersfold is not overly pleased with the whole idea, but is willing to work with it.

Public Recusal, where the admin in question should not close a thread in which he/she was partaking in non-mod fashion (like engaging in a debate.)

Ok, this makes sense. I try to encourage people to consult others before acting on something they're involved in - which does happen fairly often, but not always.

Political Recusal, elected officials should temporarily surrender their Root Admin powers but remain mods of their own respective sections as delegated by their ministry.

Eh... this idea I'm not so keen about. When I was MoIIA, it made things extremely easy to be able to approve and mask new RA members with a click of a few buttons. That's not overly important there, but if a massive argument breaks out and someone is deserving of a forum ban, someone's got to be able to exercise that authority. This would also lead to us having to find a new administrator rather often - as Flem said above, not many people are willing to do that, and I'm not willing to let many of those have control of some of the buttons we get to push. If we're going to do this, we need to keep that safety of the forum in mind.

Forum Bans; are subject to legal review. As of now, the only mention of bannings only refer to the North Pacific region. Customs and conventions may say that the forum in a part of our region but a clear legal statement would be better.

Hm. Again, not too thrilled about this, since moderation is supposed to be separate from the political workings for a reason. And if the person who needed to be banned had all his friends on the jury, we would be at extreme risk of having the board deleted due to the ToS violations and the admins appearing to be doing nothing about it.

I believe that TNP is far too big a region to be held in the grip of one Root Admin - whoever they are.

We've got two, FYI... and I can't help but notice how you, IP, and maybe Fulhead and Poltsamaa are the only ones who seem to think I'm a raging tyrant. Maybe I'm wrong, but then...

Recall: if a petition of over twenty RA members is brought forth, a public vote will be held as to whether or not an administrator may retain their position with an aye or nay.

Again, issue of having to find a new admin. That, and the #1 account is not something to be tossing around willy-nilly. Whoever owns it owns the power to do any damn thing they want, including push a little button labelled "Delete Board".

Question: Did you read my porposal in the Moderator forum? (Here)

For those who can't read it, it was asking that Admins and GM's resign all moderation power while holding government office. Of the 4 people who responded, none were in favor of the idea. In fact, I think most were strongly against it.

But who do I appeal to? The very people who imposed the warning in the first place.

If an appeal is brought forth, it is presented to the moderation team as a whole, and placed to a democratic vote. Warnings are one of the few things that moderators and administrators have the authority to dispense without consulting everyone else first.

Regarding the public recusal.. If Admin X engages in a debate, say, in the RA or wherever, and others push that discussion out of hand so that someone MUST close that thread, should the Admin that was engaging in the debate simply do nothing and wait for another admin to spot the problem?

They can send a message to whoever seems on at the moment. The GM's and Admins have mod powers across the whole forum, and usually at least one other person with the right authority is around. If not, then chances are there aren't that many people around anyway and it can afford to stay open a little longer.

Regarding the recall.. This is a good idea in theory, but we've had problems finding people willing to be Admins.. Recalling is one thing, but the task of destruction is infinitely easier than the task of creation. In other words, if we recall an admin, then we face the much thornier question of who should take his/her place.. and we should address this if we're going to put in a recall provision.

Misattribution of quote, sorry. But these are most of my concerns about that.

IMHO, if an admin acts according to the duty to prevent, etc., TOS violations, the admin is entitled to do so. Someone claiming that closing a thread or deleting a TOS violating post is a personal act has no defense.

Exactly.

Flem's post, the whole thing applies and I won't copy it all cuz this is already too long.

If the region decides that the Root Admin does need regulation, I will do all I can to stick within the law. However, if the region decides this, and a crisis occurs in which immediate action is required for whatever reason, I will not hesitate to do what is neccessary in order to keep this forum legal and in existence. It's sort of like the Delegate thing, as sniffles pointed out - you can do this, and I will stick to the law as much as possible, but if I need to break out there is nothing to stop me. I assure you all I'm not turning evil on you, but if I need to act, I will and the laws be dammed.

---

Response to draft:

Article VI sounds ok to me. Not much that applies to the forum there, that's just allowing the Delegate to kick people out of the region when they get pissy here.

Article VIII. Oh goody, another one. Recusal clause 2 has an error - you say Global Mod, then switch to admin. Is it one, or both?
The Recusal bit sounds ok to me, although I'm still not thrilled about the GM's resigning powers. You realize that if this passes, we lose one straight off?
I am still opposed to the recall bit. If we're going to do it, I think the petition number has to be higher, or a super-majority (66%, 75%, something) is required.

It's not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it still ain't great, IMO.

 

[Heft]

I agree with Hersfold in that neither of us seem to like this proposal too much, though our reasoning may be somewhat different. While there may be problems with Administration (IMO, the main problem is spending too much time attempting to justify inherently tyrannical actions with democratic principles), I'm reluctant to agree that adding yet more Constitutional Regulation (especially to something that is truly OOC, and therefore arguably outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution) is the way to resolve the problem.

Perhaps a set of general guidelines drafted and approved by the membership with the agreement of the Administrators and Moderators and posted within the the moderation section of the forum would be better? Either way, regulating forum rules in any form is not my preferred solution. Also, I do not see any issue with government officials (with the sole exception of a Delegate being the Root) having moderation or administration powers.

The issue is not a lack of oversight, but a matter of confidence.

 

[mr_sniffles]

While I do trust the people who are currently Mods, so much so that I not only vote but nominate them, the fact of the matter is that I don't agree that anyone has a carte blanche authority over something as vital and essential as this forum. Yes, it's that age old North Pacific paranoia but it is something I feel should be addressed especially after two-slit and the vocal minority of loud and rambunctious dissenters.

Also a guidelines were already set out by Al-Homa, which were rejected by the GM.

The arguments on both sides have merit but my personal values are against unlimited power, especially power that is unchecked no matter who is at the helm.

 

[Fulhead Land]

I like that Sniffles, it seems ok. Only thing i would like to see added is something clearing up who people appeal to on mod/admin decisions, as Cath mentioned

 

[Poltsamaa]

I don't think the number of moderators or Admins or how they are appointed/elected matters!!

With moderation I believe less is better!! I honestly do not know what it is with TNP forums and the administrators' anal obsession with TOS and "forum rules" violations!! No other forum I know of has so much fuss over so little!!

Calling "TOS violation" on in-character debates/arguments is completely bogus!! TOS does not cover in-character arguments or insults towards an in-game character!! As for forum rules, they are applied in a manner that is so selective that they are a running joke!!

We do not need more legislation, elected moderators/admins or any more rules!! Admins and Mods, take a deep breath, step down from your ivory tower and give us all a break!! Now, this is not directed at all mods/admins as most do a fine job and I think that a moderator that you do not notice is doing a good job!! Those you see blowing their own trumpet all the time should lighten up or give up the job to someon with a bot more of an idea on what the job really is about!! It is not about making a spectacle of yourself, it is about making the forums run smoothly and to allow the processes that take place on the forum to flow!!

We moved away from the s2 because the root admin was killing the place!! Learn from his mistakes, don't repeat them!!

 

[Cathyy]

While I do agree with you Polts, given the climate TNP operate in I think the following reflects more readily the same sorts of procedures which are already in place concerning Government officials.

What I've written may look long but it hopefully is simple in operation, covers most eventualities and puts more responsibility and power into the hands of a collective group, rather than one or a few peoiple.

The Constitution already makes reference to the fact that a nation may not be banned from the forum except as explicitly authorised ini the Constitution.

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code.

I would prefer to see amendments as follows:

Constitutional

Article VIII - Forum Moderation & Administration
Section 1 - Root Administration

a) The player designated as the Root Administrator for TNP's off-site forum may not hold Government position of any kind. Furthermore they may not be appointed to the Judiciary.

b) The Root Administrator must at all times seek to uphold the rights of member nations as defined in this Constitution and may be subject to impeachment, as though they were a member of the Government, following the procedures laid down for such impeachment.

Section 2 - Non-Root Administration & Global Moderation

a) The Root Administrator may appoint players to these positions on an as required basis.
b) These appointments will be subject to a confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
c) Admins and Global Mods must at all times seek to uphold the rights of member nations in the Constitution and may be subject to impeachment, as though they were a member of the Government, following procedures laid down for such impeachment.
d) The Root Administrator may dismiss an Admin or Global Moderator.

Section 3 - Moderators

a) The Root Administrator must grant to all elected government positions and members of the Judiciary moderator powers necessary for the proper fulfilment of their responsibilities.
b) Should the Root Administrator find it necessary to remove such moderator powers, temporarily or permanently, this must be reported to the Regional Assembly and is subject to confirmation vote of that body.

Laws - The Passing of a new TNP law

Section 1 – Forum Maintenance & Forum Rules

a) The Root Admin, Admins and Global Moderators are responsible for the maintenance of the forum in line with Invisionfree's Terms of Service.

b) The Regional Assembly will be responsible for the adoption and amending of any forum rules additional to the Invisionfree Terms of Service.

Section 2 - Forum Warning & Post Moderation

a) The Root Admin, Admins or Global Moderators are authorised to issue warnings to players who breach forum rules as passed by the Regional Assembly or Invisionfree's Terms of Service.

b) The Root Admin, Admins or Global Moderators are authorised to place players on pre-moderation of posts. Should this last or be intended to last for a period of greater than 24 hours this must be reported to the Regional Assembly and is subject to confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.

Section 3 – Forum Ban of Players not found Guilty of a Crime

a) If the Moderation team decide that forum banning is necessary for a player who has not been found guilty of a crime then they must initially place the player on pre-moderation of posts.

b) The player concerned must be contacted with a full copy of any relevant ruling. They must also be advised of their right to seek legal assistance to appeal the ruling.

c) Notice of the intention to ban a non-convicted player must be served on the Regional Assembly.

d) The decision to ban must be supported by a 2/3 majority vote of the Regional Assembly before it can be upheld. The player will be kept on moderator preview until the vote is concluded.

e) At the conclusion of the vote if the player is to be forum banned they should be advised of the result by the Moderation team and informed of their right to seek Judicial Review.

f) The player must either be contacted with this information by non-forum means or be allowed a continued 48 hour period in which to access the forum.

EDIT: Spelling and incorrect section numbering...oh and rogue tags!

 

[Fulhead Land]

looks good, what happened to the code though?

 

[Cathyy]

Lol wish I knew Fulhead!

I keep looking through it trying to find a rogue tag!

(Gah! Rogue tag found and executed. It was not informed of its rights before execution and it was not given the right of appeal )

 

[mr_sniffles]

Lol wish I knew Fulhead!

I keep looking through it trying to find a rogue tag!

Do you think only the root admin should held liable? I feel all Global Mods should be held accountable.

 

[Cathyy]

Yeah....line them all up against the wall and sh....err. no (note: humour intended)

EDITGah! Rogue tag found and executed. It was not informed of its rights before execution and it was not given the right of appeal )

 

[mr_sniffles]

I think your version is a little too tough and blurs the line between Moderators and public officials, which I feel this will actually make them. Invisionfree, like it or not, exists outside of the game and moderation as a whole should be seperate from politics or else it'll just denigrate into the usual partisan trash bash.

And as such, making plans for a forum ban subject to Assembly review opens us up to a lot of harassment while the Assembly makes their decision (especially since votes can last from three to over a week) though it will protect you quite nicely. I still prefer having reviews after the fact, lets face it whatever your views on our current Moderators, we have experienced abrasive outright flaming and spamming.

 

[Cthul Murgos]

Cathyy's proposal: How to re-create Twoslit, alienating the Administration, and giving all that much more reason to gripe at them.

 

[Hersfold]

Article VIII - Forum Moderation & Administration
Section 1 - Root Administration

a) The player designated as the Root Administrator for TNP's off-site forum may not hold Government position of any kind. Furthermore they may not be appointed to the Judiciary.

Most certaintly not. This violates my rights as a TNP citizen.

b) The Root Administrator must at all times seek to uphold the rights of member nations as defined in this Constitution and may be subject to impeachment, as though they were a member of the Government, following the procedures laid down for such impeachment.

As said before, this would be potentially very hazardous. If any sort of recall system should be put into place, it should involve a petition of many members of the RA, not set up like this so that a few people with a personal vendetta (coughs loudly) can jeopardize the forum's safety.

Section 2 - Non-Root Administration & Global Moderation

a) The Root Administrator may appoint players to these positions on an as required basis.
b) These appointments will be subject to a confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
c) Admins and Global Mods must at all times seek to uphold the rights of member nations in the Constitution and may be subject to impeachment, as though they were a member of the Government, following procedures laid down for such impeachment.
d) The Root Administrator may dismiss an Admin or Global Moderator.

Most of this does not really need to be codified, and again we have the issue of the dangerous recall system.

Section 3 - Moderators

a) The Root Administrator must grant to all elected government positions and members of the Judiciary moderator powers necessary for the proper fulfilment of their responsibilities.
b) Should the Root Administrator find it necessary to remove such moderator powers, temporarily or permanently, this must be reported to the Regional Assembly and is subject to confirmation vote of that body.

Again, already happens and does not need to be codified. Also, if a moderator (gov't member) is abusing their powers, you can simply have them impeached through the existing system.

Section 1 – Forum Maintenance & Forum Rules

a) The Root Admin, Admins and Global Moderators are responsible for the maintenance of the forum in line with Invisionfree's Terms of Service.

b) The Regional Assembly will be responsible for the adoption and amending of any forum rules additional to the Invisionfree Terms of Service.

A is completely unneccessary, as that is stated by Invisionfree already. As for B, all forum rules are decided by majority vote of the moderators - the government members elected by the Regional Assembly. There is no need to over complicate the process.

Section 2 - Forum Warning & Post Moderation

a) The Root Admin, Admins or Global Moderators are authorised to issue warnings to players who breach forum rules as passed by the Regional Assembly or Invisionfree's Terms of Service.

b) The Root Admin, Admins or Global Moderators are authorised to place players on pre-moderation of posts. Should this last or be intended to last for a period of greater than 24 hours this must be reported to the Regional Assembly and is subject to confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.

You are greatly hindering the ability of the moderators to function as they should by doing this. Such a vote could take up to a week, and probably would be required to last at least five days by the Constituition. By that time, someone like Tweedy could have plastered offensive material all over the board at least ten times.

Section 3 – Forum Ban of Players not found Guilty of a Crime

a) If the Moderation team decide that forum banning is necessary for a player who has not been found guilty of a crime then they must initially place the player on pre-moderation of posts.

Which we would have to report and have voted on, which would waste time...

b) The player concerned must be contacted with a full copy of any relevant ruling. They must also be advised of their right to seek legal assistance to appeal the ruling.

They're already informed, and they have the right to appeal, as was already mentioned...

c) Notice of the intention to ban a non-convicted player must be served on the Regional Assembly.

d) The decision to ban must be supported by a 2/3 majority vote of the Regional Assembly before it can be upheld. The player will be kept on moderator preview until the vote is concluded.

Which again wastes time and risks wide-spread abuse of the ToS....

e) At the conclusion of the vote if the player is to be forum banned they should be advised of the result by the Moderation team and informed of their right to seek Judicial Review.

Which they are, and they have the right to appeal, which was, again, already stated...

f) The player must either be contacted with this information by non-forum means or be allowed a continued 48 hour period in which to access the forum.

Anyone who gets banned is contacted via e-mail with the terms of the ban, as I'm sure Insane Power has shown you by now. Allowing them to hang around for another two days unhindered is again endangering the forum.

I'm sorry, but this version of the proposal is in my opinion completely ridiculous and highly dangerous to the forum's safety, considering how passionate (for lack of a more diplomatic word) our debates (arguments, most often) can get. This would completely disable the moderator's authority, if they were to stay within the confines of the law. The judicary would be caught up in constant trials due to these laws, and the government would be completely unable to function.

Cathyy, if you truly have this little faith in us, then I suggest as courteously as possible that you find somewhere else to post.

[size0]Disclaimer: I realize I have somewhat lost my temper here, for which I apologize. However, I am extremely offended by the fact that Cathyy is willing to so openly show this complete lack of faith and trust and then have the audacity to pass it as law. To me, that is the epitome of rudeness. I will make an effort to be more moderate in future posts.[/size]

 

[Former English Colony]

You know... I find this new set of laws to be just a little ironic, given that it's coming from someone who, unless I'm gravely misktaken, believes the Constitution is already too long.

Administration/moderation of this forum comes down to trust. One person with absolute control. One with near absolute control. 3 that can read all posts everywhere. And the government that can moderate their governmental areas. Those (I think 20 total) people collectively decide on matters of banning and serious moderation. Yes, Hersfold holds the reins, but he doesn't just take action because he feels like it.

The North Pacific community decided that Hersfold and Flemingovia were trusted enough to administrate our region's community. If community members believe there are problems that should be addressed in a concrete manner, then they should be directed to Flem and Hers.

[minirant]Frankly, I feel like I'm watching a bunch of rules lawyers on NS try to create things and read things in certain ways to attain their goals. And no, that comment is not directed at one person, it's directed at quite a few, regardless of where such discussion took place. The goal of this region, this government, this game is to have fun. To enjoy what we enjoy without hampering the enjoyment of others. The actual "spirit" of things in TNP seems to be decreasing the more and more arguments we have about meaning and interpretation. [/minirant]

 

[AlHoma]

Can we at least agree that the current line between The Government and The Moderation is fuzzy at best. If one of the admins takes a action against a member of the community because of a grudge, who should the member appeal to if they think they were wrong? The refrences in the constution do include forum administration as part of the government. We either need to have a hands off administration (excluded from the government) or a integrated administration (subject to the same requirements as the government).

I know that this will offend the current administration, but see this as an oppurtunity to disprove the naysayers as to the implied (or real) bias against them.

 

[Poltsamaa]

AlHoma, the bias is very real and heavily ingrained into our current Admins!!

And Eras' minirant is spot on!! This is not a police state so lighten up and let people express themselves freely whether it be in the OOC section or the government/political sections of the forum!!

 

[mr_sniffles]

Ummm Al Homa aren't you part of this current administration? Or are you flabbergasted by your comments and have steadfastly opposed yourself?

 

[Hersfold]

The refrences in the constution do include forum administration as part of the government.

Could you point out where the Constitution holds Administration as part of the government? We are separate for a reason.

If one of the admins takes a action against a member of the community because of a grudge, who should the member appeal to if they think they were wrong?

I already said to Cathyy - all members, warned for any offense, have the right to appeal. All appeals are presented to the Moderation Team as a whole, and subject to majority vote. It is not the sole decision of whoever issued the warning, which I agree would be autocratic and unfair.

---

OOC STATEMENT - ALL INVOLVED PLEASE READ

Believe it or not, everyone, I am a person. An actual person with feelings and emotions just like everyone else. I am not some autocratic, dictatorial bastard who decides that since I have the ability to exercise total control, I will. And quite frankly, reading posts that indicate that - "The bias is very real and heavily ingrained", for example - is very taxing on someone who really, believe it or not, is TRYING TO BE FAIR AND UNBIASED TOWARDS ALL.

I am not twoslit. I am not someone who feels that since this is technically "my forum", I have the right to do as I will. I try to be fair, I try to be openminded... but to be completely honest, it is goddammed hard to do that when I have people like Cathyy, Insane Power, Poltsamaa, constantly harassing me for every little thing I do every damn day of the week. So maybe I am just a little biased towards you three. It's not intended, but that's why I have the rest of the mod team, that's why we do things democratically - to counter any bias that may be implied by any moderator, to make sure everything is fair and unbiased.

Either way, please keep in mind that there are people behind you computer screens - they may live thousands of miles away, they may live right next door... either way, they're still people, they can still be hurt by the words of others. Let's please make this a place everyone can enjoy.

 

[Cathyy]

Article VIII - Forum Moderation & Administration
Section 1 - Root Administration

a) The player designated as the Root Administrator for TNP's off-site forum may not hold Government position of any kind. Furthermore they may not be appointed to the Judiciary.

Most certaintly not. This violates my rights as a TNP citizen.

No, it doesn't. It is not different to the Delegate being prevented from being part of the Government.

In the current scenario you would have 2 choices as far as I can see. You could give up your Government role (as the Delegate eseentially does) or you could hand the Root Account to someone else.

Furthermore it would be entirely possible to build into this a means of ensuring that your current role is protected for its duration since this would be being enacted after the start of your term.

As said before, this would be potentially very hazardous. If any sort of recall system should be put into place, it should involve a petition of many members of the RA, not set up like this so that a few people with a personal vendetta (coughs loudly) can jeopardize the forum's safety.

In other words you have no faith in the legall system.

Section 2 - Non-Root Administration & Global Moderation

a) The Root Administrator may appoint players to these positions on an as required basis.
b) These appointments will be subject to a confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
c) Admins and Global Mods must at all times seek to uphold the rights of member nations in the Constitution and may be subject to impeachment, as though they were a member of the Government, following procedures laid down for such impeachment.
d) The Root Administrator may dismiss an Admin or Global Moderator.

Most of this does not really need to be codified, and again we have the issue of the dangerous recall system.

If it was unnecessary to codify this then the system would be working. It is clearly not when I can be on a forum warning for a 3 word post, which while not 'nice' was certainly not 'libel' (try reading some definitions of libel).

Also, if a moderator (gov't member) is abusing their powers, you can simply have them impeached through the existing system.

If that were true then why, in my recent petition to the Court, did you repeatedly ask for charges (not that I'd suggested charges!) be dropped because you were acting in your admin not governmental position?

Section 1 – Forum Maintenance & Forum Rules

a) The Root Admin, Admins and Global Moderators are responsible for the maintenance of the forum in line with Invisionfree's Terms of Service.

b) The Regional Assembly will be responsible for the adoption and amending of any forum rules additional to the Invisionfree Terms of Service.

A is completely unneccessary, as that is stated by Invisionfree already. As for B, all forum rules are decided by majority vote of the moderators - the government members elected by the Regional Assembly. There is no need to over complicate the process.

In a forum which should rightly be seen as 'belonging' to all members of The North Pacific the forum rules should be set by the community not by a group of Admin selected mods.

Section 2 - Forum Warning & Post Moderation

a) The Root Admin, Admins or Global Moderators are authorised to issue warnings to players who breach forum rules as passed by the Regional Assembly or Invisionfree's Terms of Service.

b) The Root Admin, Admins or Global Moderators are authorised to place players on pre-moderation of posts. Should this last or be intended to last for a period of greater than 24 hours this must be reported to the Regional Assembly and is subject to confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.

You are greatly hindering the ability of the moderators to function as they should by doing this. Such a vote could take up to a week, and probably would be required to last at least five days by the Constituition. By that time, someone like Tweedy could have plastered offensive material all over the board at least ten times.

Good point. I was aware when I was posting it that it was a draft. I didn't expect that it wouldn't need changing. My aim was to find a balance between the right to free speech as determined in the Constitution and the need to protect the forum. I'd cocede this section, provided indefinite pre-moderation didn't become a way for the mods to circumvent the rules this legislation would put in place for bannings.

Section 3 – Forum Ban of Players not found Guilty of a Crime

a) If the Moderation team decide that forum banning is necessary for a player who has not been found guilty of a crime then they must initially place the player on pre-moderation of posts.

Which we would have to report and have voted on, which would waste time...

How easily you write off people's rights under the Constitution, which you not I, actually had a hand in shaping. It is a VERY serious matter if you are going to ban someone whose rights are protected by the Constitution. So, a little time gets 'wasted'.

d) The decision to ban must be supported by a 2/3 majority vote of the Regional Assembly before it can be upheld. The player will be kept on moderator preview until the vote is concluded.

Which again wastes time and risks wide-spread abuse of the ToS....

How does it risk ToS violations when this section already indicates that the player who is to be potentially banned is kept on pre-moderation for the whole duration of the process. You as mods therefore can easily prevent ToS violations.

f) The player must either be contacted with this information by non-forum means or be allowed a continued 48 hour period in which to access the forum.

Anyone who gets banned is contacted via e-mail with the terms of the ban, as I'm sure Insane Power has shown you by now. Allowing them to hang around for another two days unhindered is again endangering the forum.

Then if you already contact by email the 48 hours would be unnecessary. In any case there would be no risk of ToS violations since the player would be on pre-moderation. And no, contrary to what you may believe IP and I are not only not the same player but we play quite separately. I've not seen your email. Not asked to. Don't want to.

I'm sorry, but this version of the proposal is in my opinion completely ridiculous and highly dangerous to the forum's safety, considering how passionate (for lack of a more diplomatic word) our debates (arguments, most often) can get. This would completely disable the moderator's authority, if they were to stay within the confines of the law. The judicary would be caught up in constant trials due to these laws, and the government would be completely unable to function.

Well thank you for your expert opinion - it's perhaps no wonder that there's so little RA activity.

This proposal is not highly dangerous for the forum's safety - that's just an attempt to over-dramatise what should be a simple set of procedures.

It would not disable moderators authority at all. It would simply make them accountable - which they ought to be and are currently not.

It would not cause further trials unless the admins/mods behaved in ways which were against the Constitution. It actually helps the moderation team by giving you recourse to a proper procedure for the banning of non-convicted nations with RA backing - without having to involve the judiciary at all!

 

[Cathyy]

You know... I find this new set of laws to be just a little ironic, given that it's coming from someone who, unless I'm gravely misktaken, believes the Constitution is already too long.

Lol of course I think it's too long. I've said so often enough. That's why I put most of this into a law and not the Constitution.

I would prefer to see the Constitution shortened but until or unless it is it seems ludicrous to me that we require accountability from everyone but the people who...I believe it was Crazy Girl said a long time ago...so I'll quote her 'have much more power than the Delegate'.

Administration/moderation of this forum comes down to trust.  One person with absolute control.  One with near absolute control.  3 that can read all posts everywhere.  And the government that can moderate their governmental areas.  Those (I think 20 total) people collectively decide on matters of banning and serious moderation.  Yes, Hersfold holds the reins, but he doesn't just take action because he feels like it. 

You can say that from where you sit. Try saying that when you're a forum warning for absolutely nothing, accused of violating Invisionfree's ToS and committing libel.

The North Pacific community decided that Hersfold and Flemingovia were trusted enough to administrate our region's community.  If community members believe there are problems that should be addressed in a concrete manner, then they should be directed to Flem and Hers. 

I've tried. It doesn't work.

 

[Hersfold]

Rogue tags again. Edit: Nvm. You fixed them.

In the current scenario you would have 2 choices as far as I can see. You could give up your Government role (as the Delegate eseentially does) or you could hand the Root Account to someone else.

Something which I've already said is not easily done.

In other words you have no faith in the legall system.

Not so, and you are incorrect to think that. However, putting it through the legal system means far less people are making the decision, a decision which should involve the entire community. Also, with less people, those with personal vendettas are heard much easier and can more easily bias the decision in their favor.

If it was necessary to codify this then the system would be working. It is clearly not when I can be on a forum warning for a 3 line post, which while not 'nice' was certainly not 'libel' (try reading some definitions of libel).

That was not the only post which influenced the warning you recieved - it was simply the one I chose to quote in the warning. And you have the option to appeal, which I have said numerous times now.

If that were true then why, in my recent petition to the Court, did you repeatedly ask for charges (not that I'd suggested charges!) be dropped because you were acting in your admin not governmental position?

Because a) the case in question was not contained solely within the Prime Minister's Office, the area which I would have control over were I not an administrator, and b) choosing to ban someone from the forum for ToS violations is not a governmental decision. Most of the other Ministers are only able to excercise their mod powers in certain areas of the forum specific to their duties - abuse of their powers in these areas would constitute an abuse of their authority as a Minister.

In a forum which should rightly be seen as 'belonging' to all members of The North Pacific the forum rules should be set by the community not by a group of Admin selected mods.

Um... I'm not the only one who votes in these elections. I only appoint the Admins and Global Mods, and I didn't do that alone either. If you can point out where I have single-handedly chosen each and every one of the current moderators, please do so.

Good point. I was aware when I was posting it that it was a draft. I didn't expect that it wouldn't need changing. My aim was to find a balance between the right to free speech as determined in the Constitution and the need to protect the forum. I'd cocede this section, provided indefinite pre-moderation didn't become a way for the mods to circumvent the rules this legislation would put in place for bannings.

Hm. Some progress.

How easily you write off people's rights under the Constitution, which you not I, actually had a hand in shaping. It is a VERY serious matter if you are going to ban someone whose rights are protected by the Constitution. So, a little time gets 'wasted'.

Again, I'm not the only one who wrote the Constitution. (believe it or not, I'm not all-powerful ) And again, it's not as if we don't give them plenty of chances to wise up and behave. If they've violated the rules to the point deserving of a ban, they have violated other people's right to having a forum free of abuses such as their own.

How does it risk ToS violations when this section already indicates that the player who is to be potentially banned is kept on pre-moderation for the whole duration of the process. You as mods therefore can easily prevent ToS violations.

Because we've got to wait a bloody week before we can turn the mod preview on. And even then it's not guaranteed that we'd be allowed to do so.

Then if you already contact by email the 48 hours would be unnecessary. In any case there would be no risk of ToS violations since the player would be on pre-moderation. And no, contrary to what you may believe IP and I are not only not the same player but we play quite separately. I've not seen your email. Not asked to. Don't want to.

Please point out where I've said you and IP are the same. I really dislike having words put in my mouth, just as much as you do. In any case, since it is a well-publicized fact that the two of you live together and obviously connect to the internet from the same connection, I thought it safe to assume he would have told you. Silly me.

Well thank you for your expert opinion - it's perhaps no wonder that there's so little RA activity.

This proposal is not highly dangerous for the forum's safety - that's just an attempt to over-dramatise what should be a simple set of procedures.

It would not disable moderators authority at all. It would simply make them accountable - which they ought to be and are currently not.

Funny, I didn't know I controlled who posted what in the Regional Assembly. Must be this all-powerful thing I didn't know about again.

You are effectively making the decisions of the moderation team be made by a gigantic committee that is not known for being the most active. At best, I would say we have only about a 50-60% activity rate in the RA at any given time, due to new people who post once to register and then vanish, old people who get sick of crap like this and leave like Fedele is doing, and people who just sign up so they can vote every three months but otherwise hide in the OOC. That's not active enough to deal with something that could put us at risk of getting the forum deleted.

It would not cause further trials unless the admins/mods behaved in ways which were against the Constitution. It actually helps the moderation team by giving you recourse to a proper procedure for the banning of non-convicted nations with RA backing - without having to involve the judiciary at all!

If we were to do our jobs, we would be forced to break these laws. Vigilantes like yourself would be on our backs in an instant, clamoring for impeachment over the slightest violation.

If it helps, I'll try to post a version of my own in a little while.

 

[Cathyy]

Rogue tags again. Edit: Nvm. You fixed them.

In the current scenario you would have 2 choices as far as I can see. You could give up your Government role (as the Delegate eseentially does) or you could hand the Root Account to someone else.

Something which I've already said is not easily done.

A small matter of handing over the password and changing the email as far as I'm aware.

Not so, and you are incorrect to think that. However, putting it through the legal system means far less people are making the decision, a decision which should involve the entire community. Also, with less people, those with personal vendettas are heard much easier and can more easily bias the decision in their favor.

So decisions about whether moderators are doing the job they shouldd do in the manner they are supposed to should go to the (to quote you) inactive Regional Assembly. Whereas those who are to be banned from the forum should be judged by a small group of people who may equally have a personal vendetta?

That was not the only post which influenced the warning you recieved - it was simply the one I chose to quote in the warning. And you have the option to appeal, which I have said numerous times now.

And as I have said numerous times, why would I appeal to those who imposed the warning in the first place?

How does it risk ToS violations when this section already indicates that the player who is to be potentially banned is kept on pre-moderation for the whole duration of the process. You as mods therefore can easily prevent ToS violations.

Because we've got to wait a bloody week before we can turn the mod preview on. And even then it's not guaranteed that we'd be allowed to do so.

Nope the section concerning a potential forum ban of a non-convicted player says right at the very beginning that the player should be put on moderator preview while the vote is held and indeed up until they're either banned or the ban is not upheld.

Please point out where I've said you and IP are the same. I really dislike having words put in my mouth, just as much as you do.

In point 4 of your response to my petition to the Court, you said that it was impossible to tell if IP and I were the same player. And in my post in this thread I used these words 'Contrary to what you may believe. I think it's quite reasonable that you 'may' believe what you wrote in Court!

You are effectively making the decisions of the moderation team be made by a gigantic committee that is not known for being the most active. At best, I would say we have only about a 50-60% activity rate in the RA at any given time, due to new people who post once to register and then vanish, old people who get sick of crap like this

(bolding mine)

Crap like this is what is known as democracy. I'm a member of the RA. Last time I checked that meant I can make proposals, comment on them and vote on them.

Calling a proposal crap just because you don't like it is actually a very poor form of debate and is essentially what stifles the RA and leads to inactivity. Oh and the people who think they have a 'veto' on proposals and the minute they post 'I can't accept this' feel that everyone should back off.

Regardless of what you or I may think personally of my proposal if enough members of the RA support it, you will have to accept it. You also don't have a veto here.

If we were to do our jobs, we would be forced to break these laws. Vigilantes like yourself would be on our backs in an instant, clamoring for impeachment over the slightest violation.

Show me how you would have to break laws. I've already conceded that the section on pre-moderation needs changing. If you want to ban someone my proposal sanctions that person being put on pre-moderation from the moment you decide to ban to the point at which they are actually banned.

And why are you so worried about breaking rules now when you've happily posted intent to break them in relation to me, should you see fit.

 

[Hersfold]

Ok, here's the draft: Italics show edits made after original draft.

Article VIII. – Moderation

Section 1: Authority

a) The Administrators, Global Moderators, and Government Officials (collectively, “Mod Team”) shall be responsible for the moderation of the regional forum, in such a way described by Invisionfree or other forum service provider as applicable.
b) The Mod Team shall have the authority to vote upon and pass additional forum rules beyond the terms of service set forth by the forum service provider, in an effort to ensure the safety and enjoyment of all forum members. Such rules must be passed by a 50% majority. (Under debate)
c) The Mod Team shall have the authority to administer warnings to members for violations of the Terms of Service or forum rules, provided the moderator is able to provide sufficient reasoning for the warning.
i) Moderators should make an effort to caution members concerning behavior prior to issuing a full warning.
ii) When issuing a warning, Moderators should make a public post listing the reasoning for the warning as specified above, and send a PM to the warned member via the warning system listing the same reasoning, the appropriate moderation measures being taken as described by the forum rules, and the procedures to take to protest the warning (described below).

Section 2: Accountability

a) Members of the forum who are warned for a Terms of Service violation have the right to protest the warning. Such protests should be posted in the Moderation Discussion forum. All protests shall be reviewed by the Mod Team, which shall vote to decide if the ruling given should be upheld or dismissed. Such votes shall take place in a publicly viewable forum and will require a 50% majority in order to pass or fail.
b) If a member of the Mod Team is involved in a discussion in which they believe a Terms of Service or forum rules violation has occurred, they are required to consult at least one three other members of the Mod Team before taking action.
c) Should a member of the Mod Team be found to be abusing the powers issued to them as a result of government position, any Regional Assembly member may request the removal of their moderator power for the duration of their term. Such requests should be addressed to the Court of The North Pacific. In cases of severe abuse, this may serve as grounds for impeachment of the government officer.
d) Should an Administrator or Global Moderator be found to be abusing moderator powers that do not come as a result of holding government office, any member of the forum may request a temporary removal of their position, for a period not to last longer than one week. Such requests should be addressed to the Court of The North Pacific.
e) In cases of severe or repeated abuse of an Administrator’s or Global Moderator’s non-governmental power, any member of the forum may file a petition, to be signed by at least 50%+1 of the Regional Assembly, to remove permanently or temporarily the Administrator or Global Moderator from their position. Once 50%+1 of the Regional Assembly has signed the petition, the remaining Administrator(s) are to immediately remove the Administrator or Global Moderator from power.
f) Should the Root Administrator be recalled through the procedures set forth in clause e), the Root Administrator will be required to give the password to their account to the remaining Administrator. This Administrator is then to log onto the account, change the password, and disable all posting rights of that account. The recalled Root Administrator may register a new account at that time.
g) Should at any time an Administrator or Global Moderator be removed from their position, the Mod Team shall be responsible for finding a suitable replacement within one week.

Section 3: Forum Bans

Should a member of the forum repeatedly violate the Terms of Service set forth by Invisionfree, or other forum service provider as applicable, or violate them in such a way that is illegal under United States Federal law or international law, the Mod Team has the authority to issue a permanent ban by the following procedures:
a) The member must first be publicly and privately informed of the potential for a forum ban.
b) The member is to be placed on moderator preview for the duration of the remainder of the proceedings.
c) The Mod Team must provide sufficient evidence to support the forum ban in a public area.
d) The Mod Team must provide a period of at least three days in which the accused member may post a defense. They retain the right to have another member represent them.
e) The Mod Team must hold a vote in a publicly viewable forum to determine if the accused member should be banned. The vote must possess a 2/3 majority if the ban is to be imposed.
f) The Regional Assembly is to then hold a vote confirming the ban based on the evidence and defense provided. If 50%+1 of the Regional Assembly is in favor of the ban, the ban will be immediately imposed.
g) No member is to be banned via IP address unless they have attempted to circumvent a ban placed upon them by the procedures outlined above. In this event, the Mod Team need only provide proof of the circumvention to enforce the IP address ban.

In it, I have tried to include the following:

Acknologing (spelling off, I know) the authority of the Mod Team to enforce the ToS and forum rules.
Allowing the Mod Team to create new rules for the safety and enjoyment of members by majority vote.
Giving the authority of the Mod Team to issue warnings as needed, provided they can back it up.
Giving the members of the forum full right to appeal their warnings, with discussion and voting taking place publically.
Requiring mods and admins to consult others before taking action in a topic they are involved in.
Allowing a recall system through the Courts, or through the Regional Assembly when permanently removing an Admin's or GM's authority.
A specific procedure for forum bans that involves the inclusion of the Regional Assembly.

Again, I'm not happy about some of this, but I will be willing to stand by it should this be passed.

 

[Cathyy]

I suspect that parts of this would be in violation of the Constitution such as that memebrs may not be held to account for a crime in a manner not prescribed under the constitution.

As such I would have thought it would require a constitutional amendment also.

In Section 3 you appear to be trying to set the Moderating team up as an 'alternative Court'.

Also, who is to decide on the applicability of US or International Law? Do we have anyone in the moderation team sufficient well versed as a lawyer to make such a determination?

Additionaly you have complicated the procedure to ban someone when you seemed to think my version was too complicated anyway.

I couldd go on but I really don't have the time right now.

 

[Hersfold]

I suspect that parts of this would be in violation of the Constitution such as that memebrs may not be held to account for a crime in a manner not prescribed under the constitution.

As such I would have thought it would require a constitutional amendment also.

This is a Constitutional Amendment, which is why the proposal has "Article VIII" up at the top. So violating any rights wouldn't be an issue.

Edit: Even if this was in the Legal Code, I'm pretty sure the Constitution says "not prescribed in the Constitution or Legal Code", so we'd probably be ok there anyway.

In Section 3 you appear to be trying to set the Moderating team up as an 'alternative Court'.

Well, they are the ones responsible for moderating the forum, aren't they? It only makes sense that they should be the ones to decide if someone should be banned or not. That's also why I involved the RA, so that it's not just them making the decision.

Also, who is to decide on the applicability of US or International Law? Do we have anyone in the moderation team sufficient well versed as a lawyer to make such a determination?

I can remove that if you really want me to. But Schnauzer has studied Constitutional Law, so would probably be able to help us out there.

BTW, I specified US law since IF is based in Maryland. I can edit that to the more vague "national" if anyone would like.

Additionaly you have complicated the procedure to ban someone when you seemed to think my version was too complicated anyway.

My problem with your procedure was that it hindered the mod team to do as they needed to do. Since complicated is apparently what people want, I made it somewhat complicated, so that it wasn't just the mod team deciding the bans.

I couldd go on but I really don't have the time right now.

Take your time.