DISCUSSION: TNP vs Matt

All citizens are subject to the constitution, and have the same rights, which is why I am willing to be put on trial.

I repeat again, that no "trial" of any sort took place. I took an administration decision concerning the masking of a player, as I have done dozens of times on this forum and S2.

For you to claim that this was, effectively, a judicial process is bizarre and smacks of desperation.
 
I believe i would be found not guilty, yes. But that is because I do not believe I have done anything wrong or illegal. If you think I have some sort of hold over every member of this region who could potentially form a jury I am flattered that you so overestimate my powers.
 
flemingovia:
All citizens are subject to the constitution, and have the same rights, which is why I am willing to be put on trial.

I repeat again, that no "trial" of any sort took place. I took an administration decision concerning the masking of a player, as I have done dozens of times on this forum and S2.

For you to claim that this was, effectively, a judicial process is bizarre and smacks of desperation.
Click to expand...
OOC:

Absolutely not. Unless you can tell me what part of the forum ToS EM violated then your action in removing him from the RA and Cabinet was a punishment for ingame actions, thus IC. Since we are all here playing a game any such actions, again, unless he violated ToS, in which case I would not bother with him further, can be incorporated into the gameplay scenario.

You effectively cleaned out his desk and threw him out of the RA onto the street, without Constitutional justification. So, you can god-mod and continue to post OOC about this or you can play the game like the rest of us. Outside the OOC constructs of the Admin CP what you did amounts to taking a couple of thugs, grabbing EM under the arm and pitching him out the door onto his ass. That is punishment. Since you continue to dance around whether or not you broke the Constitution then from an IC standpoint us on the outside can only interject a reasonable IC situation in which that could legally occur, thus the region being under martial law and EM being punished via de facto military trial. You acted as judge, jury and executioner so unless you can admit that IC you broke the Constitution you should look for a reasonable IC situation that would have allowed it to happen, I have provided that for you.

I am uncertain why you are arguing with me on this. From an OOC standpoint it is borderline juvenile. Obviously I have struck a couple of cords because you are actively posting here in attempts to influence the outcome, which I have stated from the very beginning is a foregone conclusion anyway, so why bother?
 
I say we set a time limit on this trial so EM and his lawyer might be persuaded to come up with some sort of substantive argument instead of wasting all our time.
 
This trial is a sham a kangaroo court if anyone should be held accountable it should be me. I’m the one that moved forces in and I’m the one that was seeking vengeance against the insults hurled against my region. The charges against Matt should be dropped immediately after all he was the peoples choice as the legitimate delegate. If I wanted a Pacific for my personal goals I could take one on any night but that’s not the way Gatesville operates. I must warn you that if he is found guilty for my actions It will not be forgotten.
 
It would appear to me that the the Court may stand in violation of EM's Constitutional Rights.

ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights.

4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding UN member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a UN member.
Click to expand...

EM initially obtained more endorsements that GBM without outside assistance. TNP UN nations merely exercised their right to endorse who they so choose. No nation is required to endorse the elected delegate.

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

The right to free speech allows any nation to request endorsement, should they so choose. So requesting endorsements and obtaining endorsements to achieve the delegacy are within the rights of every TNP UN nation.

3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...

As participation is voluntary, whoever achieves the delegacy of the region is not required to participate in the regional government.

Please note that I do not condone or support EM's actions in taking the delegacy, and I found the support by Gatesville disturbing to say the least. But the existing Constitution is like Swiss Cheese in this matter. Full of holes.

Further, having removed EM's citizenship, as reflected by his masking change, removed him as a 'legal member' as defined by the Constitution. Which means he no longer has standing under the Constitution to stand trial.

All this trial does is distract from our need to reform the region so we can move forward. We should be using our efforts and resources towards that end.
 
That sounds about right.

EM voluntarily left the region, and had been striped of all office. The rest is post-game commentary.

Should he return to the region, under the current Constitution and laws, he would need to apply for the RA to gain citizenship, and I'm sure that his application would be denied.

What more is needed ?
 
Responding to Pierconium in the trial thread:

OOC: I don't quite remember what Flem said, but you have to admit that my justification is wholly different from his.

More OOC: I really don't know how administrators fit into the region/government/legal system. Technically, they're not supposed to exist IC. However, that line does appear to get crossed occasionally. I would say that you could try to sue Flem or bring up charges against him, but I imagine that he would just argue that he wouldn't exist. And as far as the Constitution goes, he doesn't (except for one mention in the MoIIA section). It's a weird niche where we pretend that the admins don't exist and make no provisions for it, and we have absolutely no guidance when they do take it upon themselves to do something that has IC implications. I always thought that it was a failing of the current setup, but it's what we have. *shrug*
 
OOC:

That, quite simply, OOC or IC, is unacceptable.

From an IC standpoint this forum is the headquarters of the government of TNP as it is supported by the Delegate and WFE. The administration of this forum pertains to the OOC actions of its registrants.

What Flemingovia did was use his OOC admin power to exact IC retaliation against EM. That is ridiculous.

If EM had violated the Terms of Use or Terms of Service or otherwise OOC-ly violated the community of this forum then any and all actions from the admin team would be justified.

But using the Admin CP to enforce sanction/detention/punishment/whatever for IC actions when it isn't set up for within the confines of the IC governing body is appalling. That is one of the primary reasons you aren't on s2 any longer.

To say that it is acceptable or that someone can press charges against him isn't justified, in my opinion.

As someone that runs a forum several magnitudes larger and more active than this one while also being one of the most controversial IC figures in that game I think I speak with some authority when I say that maintaining a separation of IC and OOC in regards to forum administration is a must for any community that wishes to thrive.

Some may think it is okay but I daresay that more are just putting up with it because they don't know of any currently realistic alternatives.
 
From and IC standpoint the administrators do nothing but act as the enforcement of wills.

From what I can tell, this situation is similar to if police seized evidence through illegal seizure,* in the sense that the administrators (and the police in the example) both take illegal actions.

However, like the police, the administrator's actions are allowed to stand if the end result of the legal process would have been the same, just like how police evidence that was seized illegally would still be admitted if those same police would have found the evidence in due course.

This is not the ends justifying the means, this is the ends being the same regardless of the means, making the questioning of the means moot because even if you were to retract the last action and the go through the normal process then the end would be the same anyway.

So yeah, maybe the admin's should be spanked, but RL law agrees with the prosecution on this one. Sorry, try building a case not based on procedural grounds next time and instead focus on... actually proving your client innocent?


*US only, sorry folks in ...Europe?
 
No, no smart-arsed deflection. I do, however, feel that it would be prudent of me to refrain from further comment in an informal thread about my actions as adminstrator in remasking Emperor Matthuis until such time as I am either accused of a crime or called as a witness. I look forward to either occasion.
 
That's an interesting legalistic pickle. EM's remasking, under the circumstances a completely justified security precaution (Flem's right), cannot effectively be argued to be a purely OOC action (Pieconium's right, and those words don't come over my lips often).

Speaking as a complete novice to virtual government (sometimes I get the feeling that everyone here is either a politician or a lawyer IRL - no offence intended, of course), it would have been far more prudent to legally define the position of the forum administrator in the constitution. The administrator may perhaps be compared to a chamberlain (or even janitor). He holds no constitutional office but has utter power outside it. If the janitor locks an office or revokes a keycard (okay, so he's a security sysadmin too), the politician can't get in and has effectively been impeached without trial.

I know that Flem is a responsible admin and the intervention in EM's mask was justified - but without legal definition of such actions, the law just isn't complete. When all the in-game power is already only technically controlled by the constitution, it is a dangerous imbalance that the forum power is outside its jurisdiction entirely. What I am saying is not that Flemingovia should stand trial for any of this, but that the very concept that he could be made to stand trial for doing something that is necessary shows there is a hole in the constitution - and a hole that threatens to make it hollow.

Not a single year - barely half a year - has passed so far without one of the powers of government withdrawing from the shaky cooperation that the constitution brings. And it is not as if all of these people are sociopaths, or coup d'etat is a virus like the common cold. That is what I call a failed system. What is wrong?
 
Southwest Asia:
From and IC standpoint the administrators do nothing but act as the enforcement of wills.

From what I can tell, this situation is similar to if police seized evidence through illegal seizure,* in the sense that the administrators (and the police in the example) both take illegal actions.

However, like the police, the administrator's actions are allowed to stand if the end result of the legal process would have been the same, just like how police evidence that was seized illegally would still be admitted if those same police would have found the evidence in due course.

This is not the ends justifying the means, this is the ends being the same regardless of the means, making the questioning of the means moot because even if you were to retract the last action and the go through the normal process then the end would be the same anyway.

So yeah, maybe the admin's should be spanked, but RL law agrees with the prosecution on this one. Sorry, try building a case not based on procedural grounds next time and instead focus on... actually proving your client innocent?


*US only, sorry folks in ...Europe?
Click to expand...
OOC:

"Police" are a defined government entity in US jurisdictions charged with enforcing the law, etc. etc.

Please feel free to point out in the Constitution where the forum Admins are granted the right to enforce IC law and I will accept your point.

Since no such clarification exists you are mixing metaphors and therefore post in error.

Also, Flemingovia, the abuse of the Admin CP isn't a defined crime under the Constitution. It is simply an abuse of privilege. If the Court attempted to put you on trial for it you could simply place them all into a "rogue nation" usergroup and abuse your power again.
 
indeed, you are right. There are many things I could do with the Admin CP. I could, for example, put in an autoedit so that every time someone typed in "Pierconium" it changed it to "Fuckwit".

The reason that does not happen, and the reason i would not put everyone into a "rogue nation" group (which does not exist, by the way) is because, as Twoslit found, that sort of abuse results in the community voting with it's feet and moving to a new board.

i repeat, I do not consider that I abused my admin power, and constant repetition of the accusation does not make it fact. Although Admin powers are not mentioned in the constitution, I would happily voluntarily submit my actions to judicial review.
 
flemingovia:
indeed, you are right. There are many things I could do with the Admin CP. I could, for example, put in an autoedit so that every time someone typed in "Pierconium" it changed it to "Fuckwit".

The reason that does not happen, and the reason i would not put everyone into a "rogue nation" group (which does not exist, by the way) is because, as Twoslit found, that sort of abuse results in the community voting with it's feet and moving to a new board.

i repeat, I do not consider that I abused my admin power, and constant repetition of the accusation does not make it fact. Although Admin powers are not mentioned in the constitution, I would happily voluntarily submit my actions to judicial review.
Click to expand...
Fuckwit for the win.
 
flemingovia:
indeed, you are right. There are many things I could do with the Admin CP. I could, for example, put in an autoedit so that every time someone typed in "Pierconium" it changed it to "Fuckwit".

The reason that does not happen, and the reason i would not put everyone into a "rogue nation" group (which does not exist, by the way) is because, as Twoslit found, that sort of abuse results in the community voting with it's feet and moving to a new board.

i repeat, I do not consider that I abused my admin power, and constant repetition of the accusation does not make it fact. Although Admin powers are not mentioned in the constitution, I would happily voluntarily submit my actions to judicial review.
Click to expand...
OOC:

How very Christian of you.
 
flemingovia:
My north pacific persona is neo-pagan.
Click to expand...
OOC:

The Admin requested I remove possible indications of hypocrisy from this post so I have done so.

IC:

Since you are eager to change my usergroup, perhaps you could place me into the appropriate Envoy category as was requested within The Pacific embassy some time ago. :)
 
me neither, its an Americanism I think. We should try it. We'd be quite safe, its not like we're going to hit anything important
 
Outer Kharkistania:
If I was in charge, there wouldn't even be a trial. I mean we already know you're guilty and you've already been punished for it.
Click to expand...
And if Gracius Maximus was still a member of the Regional Assembly you would be up on charges of willful disregard of the Law if any such actions from you took place.

I find it amusing that you maintain membership in a body of governance that you obviously have no respect for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top