Proposal: No safe refuge for forum griefers.

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
I have been thinking of this for some time now, and seeing a post by Dezzland prompted my thinking.

The raider/defender game is one thing. But sometimes players cross the line by getting themselves into a position of trust then deleting all or part of an opponent's forum.

I do not believe any region should offer a haven for players who do such a thing.

The number of players who do this is small. And I believe that anyone tempted to do such a thing should be made to pause for thought by the knowledge that regions like TWP, Lazarus, and, I hope, TNP would shun them if they did such a thing.

Here is an example of such legislation adopted by Lazarus:

FORUM DEFENSE INITIATIVE OF 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I - Purpose
II - Definitions
III - Crimes of Forum Griefing and Forum Destruction
IV - Sentence for Forum Griefing or Forum Destructrion

Title I. Purpose.

It is the purpose of this Act to condemn the practices of Forum Griefing and Forum Destruction in all their forms and to contribute to the demise of said practices by setting a reasonable standard of responsibility and accountability for members of, and nations associated with, Lazarus.

Title II. Definitions.

A. “Forum Destruction” is the act of intentionally deleting threads or posts in the Forum, or assisting in such deletion, without the free, informed consent of the Forum’s administrators, moderators, and members/users. This includes the deletion of the entire Forum.

B. “Forum Griefing” is the act of usurping Forum administrator or moderator powers, without their free, informed consent, to eject members from the Forum or otherwise silence free expression. Acts that constitute Forum Griefing include, without limitation: deleting members’ accounts, deleting or altering posts, or placing someone’s posts in a preview queue.

Title III.Crimes of Forum Griefing and Forum Destruction.

A. Forum Griefing and Forum Destruction in Lazarus is tantamount to treason and merits impeachment through the procedure outlined in Mandate 5.0. Anyone found guilty by the Council of the Emerald City of such crimes shall be sentenced to the penalty stated in Title IV.

B. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with the authority of the Forum administrators and moderators to perform actions within the Forum’s Terms of Service. This includes routine maintenance, reasonable regulation of the behavior of Forum members, or other actions permitted by the Forum’s registered owner.

C. This Act shall not apply to any crime committed before the date of this Act’s enactment.

Title IV. Sentence for Forum Griefing or Forum Destruction.

Anyone found guilty of Forum Griefing or Forum Destruction by the Council of the Emerald City, shall be permanently banned from the Forum, whether they be found guilty within Lazarus or in any other forum in the world of NationStates.
 
You know, something like this could be turned into a general Agreement/Statement that multiple regions could sign. A Statement of intent against those that carry out forum destruction, that they will have no harbor in signatory regions.

I've always felt that forum destruction goes beyond the game into the realm of the criminal.
 
I'm trying to figure out if this thread belogs here (is Flem asking the RA to enact something?) or over in the Nationstates Discussions, or even the home Cabinet Forum, where everone can read and post.

I like the general idea (I have no problem with this) but I'd like to keep the RA subforums to RA business.
 
In reading the thread up to the point of my earier post, I wasn't exactly sure if we were speaking of enacting a law, or formulating a policy, or starting a diplomatic initiative. .

If it is something you want the RA to adopt; the the usual practice is to start it in Preliminary Discussions until the language is finalized and then bring it forward into formal discussion and then a vote.

Since the side discussion on where this thread belongs seems to have reached a lull, I'm going to go ahead and place this in the preliminary discussions.
 
*light bulb goes on*

I completely forgot about this. There already exists a document that multiple regions have signed.

The Convention on Off Site Property Security

Preamble:

We, the undersigned, disgusted with the inexcusable practice of forum crashing and its attendant evils, wish to use this treaty as a means to work for the eradication of the practice.

Definitions:

Crashing: any action which could cause a forum to go out of service or lose information, including: the deletion of posts, the deletion of the forum, spamming, or any other act of this kind.

Legal: In accordance with the rules of Nationstates as set out on the site.

Off-site property: Any forums, websites or Wiki pages owned or maintained by a Nationstates nation, organization or region.

Signatories: The regions and nations who sign and the organizations on whose behalf they sign the treaty.

Spamming: Any action undertaken by non-region nationals to waste space on forums or to cause forums to crash. This includes any attempts to force a DOS error on forums and any attempts to flood the RMB of a region which is not your normal abode.

Phishing: Any attempts to gain forum controls or passwords by deception, especially by posing as administrators or moderators.


I

We, the undersigned, do agree to adhere to all the regulations set out below and do hereby accept the right of all nations, regions and alliances to create and maintain off-site property without hindrance, annoyance or any behaviour which could prevent the free exercise of this right. We commit to specifically refrain from all forms of forums crashing, spamming and phishing and condemn these acts as illegal and destructive. We also agree that no such act shall be ordered, condoned or accepted as legal by us or those nations and regions whom we represent and influence.

II

We agree that proper geopolitical requirements and cooperation are a key to preventing those who engage in acts proscribed in this treaty from continuing to do so. Signatories to this treaty agree to multilateral cooperation and further agree to enact laws against acts proscribed in this Treaty on a regional or organisational basis as one of the requirements for full membership. To fulfill the second requirement of membership we further agree that nations and entities that engage in these acts will gain no safe haven in member regions and organizations. To that effect we assert the right of all members to bring charges and try those that engage in these acts within their court system.

III

In order to be a member of this Treaty, a prospective member region or organization must meet the above requirements of Section II, ratify it within their region or organization and send a legal signatory to post their acceptance of the Treaty terms within the ACCEL and TWP areas where the original Treaty will be held in trust for all member regions and organizations. This treaty shall be binding and shall remain in effect from the time a signatory is added to the list, to the time they post a request to leave the Treaty. While the decision of a signatory to leave this treaty shall be unfortunate, it shall not be construed as support for, or intention to commit any of the acts condemned in this treaty. This treaty shall be considered supplementary to and not a replacement for any treaty in force between any and all of the signatories.

IV

Given the scope and purpose of this treaty, signing the treaty does not necessarily mean that signatories are in political or diplomatic agreement on any other matter bar the matters attended to in the text of this treaty. It is the hope of the signatories that, given that forum crashing may affect regions of all sizes and political views, this treaty shall be signed by as many regions and organizations as possible. Any and all signatories are hereby granted the right and encouraged to invite others to sign this treaty.

Founding Regions and Primary Signatories:

ACCEL

The West Pacific

Signatories:

Lazarus (qualified. Signed on 08/19/2007)

I would be happy to sign this Treaty and present it to the RA in accordance with the Constitution.

Flem's proposal would then provide our compliance with this Treaty.
 
Far, far better for us to join an international treaty. I would fully support this Convention being adopted by the North Pacific.
 
Lewis and Clark, would TNP need to adopt any implemeting legislation in connection with the approval of this Convention? If so, then you could present the Convention for approval of the RA, and such legislation could be developed and then moved forward when, and if, the Convention is approved.
 
Yes, we would need enabling legislation, and proscribe legal remedy. This would be the pertainent section of the Treaty:

Signatories to this treaty agree to multilateral cooperation and further agree to enact laws against acts proscribed in this Treaty on a regional or organisational basis as one of the requirements for full membership. To fulfill the second requirement of membership we further agree that nations and entities that engage in these acts will gain no safe haven in member regions and organizations. To that effect we assert the right of all members to bring charges and try those that engage in these acts within their court system.

So I believe the process you outlined would be correct. Signature of the treaty, and presentation to the RA. Then the RA would consider and enact the enabling legislation that would secure our full membership in the Treaty.

In regards to Treaties and Agreements, the Constitution states:

Any agreement or treaty signed with a foreign region or organization must be introduced to the Assembly by the Minister of External Affairs or Delegate.
 
Since it appears that the treaty is headed for approval by the RA, maybe this thread could be used now to draft the implementing legislation?
 
Back
Top