New COPS Treaty

[St George]

This was talked about at the NS World Fair, but no resolution has come of it, so I thought I'd restart the discussion here.

As far as I see it, there's two proposals knocking around. Skizzy Grey's and one that was drafted out of it at the NS World Fair. I, personally, prefer the former, but I'll post both here below.

Spoiler: Skizzy Greys Draft

The Updated Convention on Off Site Property Security


Preamble

WHEREAS, since its adoption in 2007, the Convention on Off Site Property Security (the “existing COPS Treaty”) has expressed the NationStates community’s disgust with the inexcusable practice of forum crashing and its attendant evils;

WHEREAS, the existing COPS Treaty has been ratified by many NationStates regions and organizations, crossing all conceivable ideological or gameplay divisions; and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to adopt this new convention to further the purposes of the existing COPS Treaty, to more effectively combat forum crashing and its attendant evils, and to work tirelessly toward the ultimate goal of eradicating the practice;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Signatories (as defined below) agree as follows:


Section 1. Definitions.

(a) Citizen means, with respect to a Region, any person who has rights that are recognized under the Laws of that Region.

(b) Crashing means any action which could cause Off-Site Property to go out of service or lose information, including the deletion of posts, the deletion of a forum, or any other act of this kind.

(c.) Laws means the rules established by a Region for the conduct of its affairs. In the case of a Region that does not maintain a body of written law, “Laws” shall refer to the consistently enforced customs of that Region.

(d) Off-Site Property means any forums, websites or Wiki pages owned or maintained by or on behalf of a Region.

(e) Phishing means any attempts to gain controls or passwords of Off-Site Property by deception, whether by posing as administrators or moderators, or otherwise.

(f) Region means any NationStates region, any subgroup thereof, or any other nation, group or organization that is primarily devoted to activities related to the game of NationStates. Where the context requires, the term “Region” also includes Off-Site Property related to that Region.

(g) Signatory means a Region that has ratified this convention in accordance with Section 3(a) and has not subsequently withdrawn from this convention in accordance with Section 3(c.).

(h) Spamming means any of (1) posting information to any Off-Site Property in a manner that is likely to cause that Off-Site Property to crash or to breach the terms of service imposed by the service provider that provides hosting services for such Off-Site Property; (2) any attempts to force a DOS error on Off-Site Property; or (3) any attempt to flood the NationStates regional message board of a Region.


Section 2. Covenants and Prohibited Acts.

(a) The Signatories covenant to accept the right of all Regions to create and maintain Off-Site Property without hindrance, annoyance or other behavior that could prevent the free exercise of this right.

(b) Without limiting the generality of (a) above, Signatories shall not participate in or condone Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Region.

(c.) Each Signatory shall ensure that their Laws provide that participation by any Citizen in Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Region is a criminal offense punishable by banishment from that Region. To the extent permitted by the Laws of a Signatory, this Section 2(c.) shall be deemed to be self-executing.

(d) Signatories shall not permit any person to become a Citizen if that person is known to have committed an act of Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing against any Region.

(e) Signatories shall not maintain diplomatic relations with any Region that engages in Crashing, Spamming or Phishing of any Region, or which is knowingly harboring Citizens in a manner that would violate the provisions of this convention if that Region were a Signatory.

(f) The existence of a right under real-life laws to engage in Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Region shall not excuse such behavior for purposes of this convention or under the Laws of any Signatory, unless failure to engage in such conduct would result in criminal or civil liability under such real-life laws.

(g) Nothing in this Section 2 shall be construed or enforced in a manner that punishes any Region for maintaining Laws of general applicability that are designed to guarantee due process, prohibit double jeopardy, or protect other fundamental rights of fairness.


Section 3. Ratification Procedures.

(a) A Region shall become a Signatory when this convention has been duly adopted, ratified, or otherwise approved in accordance with that Region’s Laws.

(b) Following its approval of this convention in accordance with Section 3(a), each Signatory shall post notice on the Off-Site Property of one of The West Pacific, Europeia, or Osiris indicating that it has approved this convention, and those three regions shall cooperate to maintain an updated list of Signatories that will be provided to any Region upon request.

(c.) Any Signatory may withdraw from this convention by posting notice to that effect on the Off-Site Property of one of The West Pacific, Europeia, or Osiris. Although such a decision shall be unfortunate, it shall not be construed as support for Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Region.


Section 4. Effect on Diplomatic Relations.

(a) This convention shall be considered supplementary to and not a replacement for any treaty or other agreement in force between two or more Signatories.

(b) Given the scope of this convention, no inference shall be made that any two Signatories are in political or diplomatic agreement on any matter other than those expressly set forth in this convention.


Section 5. General Provisions.

(a) The Signatories hope that this convention will be signed by as many Regions as possible.

(b) All Signatories are granted the right and encouraged to invite other Regions to become Signatories.

Entered into as of November __, 2012, among the Regions convened at the NationStates World Faire.

Spoiler: NS World Fair Draft

The Updated Convention on Off Site Property Security


Preamble

WHEREAS, since its adoption in 2007, the Convention on Off Site Property Security (the “existing COPS Treaty”) has expressed the NationStates community’s disgust with the inexcusable practice of forum crashing and its attendant evils;

WHEREAS, the existing COPS Treaty has been ratified by many NationStates regions and organizations, crossing all conceivable ideological or gameplay divisions; and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to adopt this new convention to further the purposes of the existing COPS Treaty, to more effectively combat forum crashing and its attendant evils, and to work tirelessly toward the ultimate goal of eradicating the practice;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Signatories (as defined below) agree as follows:


Section 1. Definitions.

(a) Citizen means, with respect to a Organization, any person who has rights that are recognized under the Laws of that Organization.

(b) Crashing means any action which could cause Off-Site Property to go out of service or lose information, including the deletion of posts, the deletion of a forum, or any other act of this kind. Actions taken by administrators to preserve the community, ensure the smooth operation of the forum, and/or ensure compliance with Terms of Service or Use are not defined as crashing.

(c.) Laws means the rules established by a Organization for the conduct of its affairs. In the case of a Organization that does not maintain a body of written law, “Laws” shall refer to the consistently enforced customs of that Organization.

(d) Off-Site Property means any forums, websites or Wiki pages owned or maintained by or on behalf of a Organization.

(e) Organization means any NationStates region, any subgroup thereof, or any other nation, group or organization that is primarily devoted to activities related to the game of NationStates. Where the context requires, the term “Organization” also includes Off-Site Property related to that Organization.

(f) Phishing means any attempts to gain controls or passwords of Off-Site Property by deception, whether by posing as administrators or moderators, or otherwise; provided, however, the term “Phishing” shall not include acts geared at gathering intelligence or obtaining the password to a locked region for the purpose of invasion or liberation, so long as such efforts do not result in gaining administrative powers or similar control over Off-Site Property.

(g) Signatory means a Organization that has ratified this convention in accordance with Section 3(a) and has not subsequently withdrawn from this convention in accordance with Section 3(c.).

(h) Spamming means any of (1) posting information to any Off-Site Property in a manner that is likely to cause that Off-Site Property to crash or to breach the terms of service imposed by the service provider that provides hosting services for such Off-Site Property; (2) any attempts to force a DOS error on Off-Site Property; or (3) any attempt to flood the NationStates regional message board of a Organization.


Section 2. Covenants and Prohibited Acts.

(a) The Signatories agree to accept the right of all Organizations to create and maintain Off-Site Property without hindrance, annoyance or other behavior that could prevent the free exercise of this right.

(b) Without limiting the generality of (a) above, Signatories shall not participate in or condone Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Organization.

(c.) Each Signatory shall ensure that their Laws provide that participation by any Citizen in Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Organization is a criminal offense punishable by banishment from that Organization. To the extent permitted by the Laws of a Signatory, this Section 2(c.) shall be deemed to be self-executing.

(d) Signatories shall not permit any person to become a Citizen if that person is known to have committed an act of Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing against any Organization.

(e) Signatories shall not establish diplomatic relations, and shall terminate any existing diplomatic relations, with any Organization that engages in Crashing, Spamming or Phishing of any Organization, or which is knowingly harboring Citizens in a manner that would violate the provisions of this convention if that Organization were a Signatory.

(f) The existence of a right under real-life laws to engage in Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Organization shall not excuse such behavior for purposes of this convention or under the Laws of any Signatory, unless failure to engage in such conduct would result in criminal or civil liability under such real-life laws.

(g) Nothing in this Section 2 shall be construed or enforced in a manner that punishes any Organization for maintaining Laws of general applicability that are designed to guarantee due process, prohibit double jeopardy, or protect other fundamental rights of fairness.


Section 3. Ratification Procedures.

(a) A Organization shall become a Signatory when this convention has been duly adopted, ratified, or otherwise approved in accordance with that Organization’s Laws.

(b) Following its approval of this convention in accordance with Section 3(a), each Signatory shall post notice on the Off-Site Property of one of The West Pacific, Europeia, or Osiris indicating that it has approved this convention, and those three regions shall cooperate to maintain an updated list of Signatories that will be provided to any Organization upon request. These three regions will also keep track of Organizations that ratify this convention, but do not accept the provisions of Section 5 hereof, but such Organizations shall not be considered Signatories hereunder.

(c.) Any Signatory may withdraw from this convention by posting notice to that effect on the Off-Site Property of one of The West Pacific, Europeia, or Osiris. Although such a decision shall be unfortunate, it shall not be construed as support for Crashing, Spamming, or Phishing of any Organization.


Section 4. Effect on Diplomatic Relations.

(a) This convention shall be considered supplementary to and not a replacement for any treaty or other agreement in force between two or more Signatories.

(b) Given the scope of this convention, no inference shall be made that any two Signatories are in political or diplomatic agreement on any matter other than those expressly set forth in this convention.


Section 5. Creation of Tribunal, Powers

(a) The Tribunal for Investigation and Prosecution of Forum Attacks (the “Tribunal”) is hereby established by the Signatories, consisting of Judges elected in accordance with Section 5(b) and 5(c.), and having the powers set forth elsewhere in this Section 5.

(b) Each Signatory that maintains Off-Site Property with 2,000 or more registered users shall be entitled to designate one Judge on the Tribunal. Each Judge so designated may be removed and replaced from time to time by the designating Signatory by notifying the Tribunal pursuant to procedures established by the Tribunal for this purpose.

(c.) Signatories with fewer than 2,000 registered users on their Off-Site Property may combine with other Signatories to form a group with 2,000 or more registered users, and each such group of Signatories may designate one Judge; provided, however, Signatories with fewer than 50 registered users on their Off-Site Property may not participate in any such group. Each Judge so designated may be removed and replaced from time to time by the designating group of Signatories by notifying the Tribunal pursuant to procedures established by the Tribunal for this purpose.

(d) The Tribunal shall adopt (and amend, as it sees fit) rules of procedure consistent with the provisions of this convention. In addition to any quorum requirements adopted by the Tribunal as part of its rules of procedure, no action taken by the Tribunal with fewer than five Judges present and voting shall be effective.

(e) The Tribunal shall have the power:

(1) to investigate allegations of Crashing, Phishing, and Spamming of Off-Site Property of any Organization;

(2) subject to Section 5(f) below, to hold trials to determine the guilt or innocence of individuals and Organizations accused of Crashing, Phishing, and Spamming of Off-Site Property of any Organization; and

(3) to determine matters relating to the compliance by Signatories with their obligations under Sections 2(c.), 2(d), 2(e), and 5(f) of this convention.

(f) Any Signatory may, by notice to the Tribunal, take responsibility for resolving accusations described in Section 5(e)(2) above against its own Citizens in accordance with its own Laws, and the Tribunal shall defer to such proceedings unless it determines that such proceedings are lacking in due diligence or fundamental fairness. Any Signatory that avails itself of its right under this Section 5(f) must permit a representative of the Tribunal to attend such proceedings to confirm the Signatory’s compliance with its obligations under this Section 5(f). If proceedings held by a Signatory in compliance with this Section 5(f) reach a conclusion that is not in harmony with the conclusion of proceedings held by the Tribunal, then that Signatory shall be bound only by its own proceedings, but other Signatories shall abide by the conclusion of the Tribunal.

(g) Any action or determination by the Tribunal shall require a two-thirds vote of Judges present and voting, in addition to the quorum required by section 5(d). The Tribunal may, by rule, require a greater supermajority or quorum to approve action.

(h) All Signatories agree to be bound by determinations of the Tribunal pursuant to the powers vested in it pursuant to Sections 5(e)(2) and 5(e)(3) of this convention.


Section 6. General Provisions.

(a) The Signatories hereby express their hope that this convention will be signed by as many Organizations as possible.

(b) All Signatories are granted the right and are encouraged to invite other Organizations to become Signatories.

Entered into as of November __, 2012, among the Organizations convened at the NationStates World Faire.

 

[Cormac]

I also prefer the Skizzy Grey draft, primarily due to the absence of the section on tribunals that is found in the NS World Fair draft (Section 5). I don't believe it's in the interests of The North Pacific or any region to surrender its citizens to decisions made by an interregional tribunal -- which is exactly what Section 5(e)(2) and 5(f) would require -- and I'm also concerned that the requirements of Section 5(c) are unjustly and needlessly complex for smaller regions. Anything that becomes too burdensome for smaller regions will lead many to simply not ratify this, which is also contrary to the interests of larger regions which should be seeking ratification from as many regions as possible.

In regard to both drafts, I have some other concerns:

(f) Region means any NationStates region, any subgroup thereof, or any other nation, group or organization that is primarily devoted to activities related to the game of NationStates. Where the context requires, the term “Region” also includes Off-Site Property related to that Region.

(e) Organization means any NationStates region, any subgroup thereof, or any other nation, group or organization that is primarily devoted to activities related to the game of NationStates. Where the context requires, the term “Organization” also includes Off-Site Property related to that Organization.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, wouldn't the language I've highlighted allow individual nations to ratify this treaty? If so, I find that to be problematic; having individual nations as signatories would make monitoring and enforcement of this treaty chaotic, to say the least.

(a) Citizen means, with respect to a Region, any person who has rights that are recognized under the Laws of that Region.

(a) Citizen means, with respect to a Organization, any person who has rights that are recognized under the Laws of that Organization.

I have a couple of concerns with this language, one that is specific to The North Pacific and another that is more general.

1. Our Bill of Rights protects nations in The North Pacific and does not provide an alternative definition of citizenship. If I'm understanding the above language correctly, the treaty would thus require us to enforce its provisions against any nation in The North Pacific -- whereas in most regions, due to more restrictive definitions of citizenship, enforcement would be limited to forum participants. I'm also concerned about the possible ramifications this could have for The North Pacific's concept of duality, but I'll let someone with better knowledge of that (perhaps Grosse or Eluvatar?) comment on that.

2. The other problem I see with this language is that there are large and significant organizations that may have no citizens according to this definition. If a citizen is "any person who has rights that are recognized under the Laws of that Region (Organization)," any region that doesn't extend rights to anyone -- and such organizations do exist, particularly organizations that are military-oriented only -- would have no citizens except for perhaps the Founder. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a problem.

I'm very opposed to forum destruction, but to be honest I'm not convinced that either draft of this treaty would a) solve that problem; b) benefit the interests of The North Pacific. Either draft of this treaty does have stronger enforcement mechanisms than COPS 1.0, but the bottom line is that those who want to destroy forums are going to do it. At the end of the day I don't see how this treaty can better enforce punishment against forum destroyers and those who harbor them than laws made by each individual region, and I tend to think that a specific law tailored to The North Pacific and its legal traditions would be more beneficial to our interests than an interregional treaty that erodes our sovereignty and applies legal definitions and standards that may apply to other regions but don't apply to us.

 

[Funkadelia]

Well, I was going to write a response to this, but I noticed Cormac said everything I wanted to say. I totally agree that the NS World Fair draft certainly is not in our interests as a region, and the other draft is not really adequate.

 

[Gaspo]

The issues already raised are indeed important. One other note I'd add is that, when considering the cumulative history of forum destructions, the majority of individuals or groups perpretrating such actions, are not of the type who would ever belong to any of the groups who would sign this, or would be in a position to actually be subject to it, if it were to be signed or ratified. With that in mind, what's the point? It's not actually going to prevent forum destructions, because the people who would do such things would either not be subject to a document of this type, nor would they give two shits about it even if they were.

It's an attempt to solve a problem through legislation, which only concerns individuals who do not consider themselves subject to this legislation, and whom we cannot force to subject themselves to this legislation. As such, it seems pointless.

 

[unibot]

The tribunal was suggested because without a universalized method for factfinding regarding forum destruction, there doesn't seem to be any factfinding at all -- people just throw accusations to people.

What I would suggest is not to have a tribunal that enforces judgements, but a factfinding bureau -- whose conclusions need not be adopted, but they serve as a factfinding mission nonetheless to give C.O.P.S some teeth and not be mindless mobs.

I think people adopted the tribunal method to deliberately cause the idea to be unpopular. When all you need is a factfinding mission to tide angry mobs.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Hey look, it's COPS, my least favorite treaty to ever be forced down the NS community's throat.

 

[Gaspo]

So, unibot, you're suggesting changing it to a fact-finding mission...that noone is obligated to go along with, in terms of conclusions? And this, in the name of giving it teeth?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

It really doesn't matter. Of all the forums destruction I have ever seen, nothing has ever come that has amounted to a real punishment for the perpetrators of the forum griefing, on either the raider or defender side.

COPS is a useless piece of paper that will never be signed by those who really need to sign it.

 

[Gaspo]

It really doesn't matter. Of all the forums destruction I have ever seen, nothing has ever come that has amounted to a real punishment for the perpetrators of the forum griefing, on either the raider or defender side.

COPS is a useless piece of paper that will never be signed by those who really need to sign it.

Precisely correct, as I said previously. The people who are pushing this are people who wouldn't do it anyways, and the people who will listen to them wouldn't do it, either.

 

[Hileville]

I don't believe either of these are sufficient. I certainly don't like the tribunal in the NSWF version. While a standardized process may be nice this is taking a lot of power off the region. I personally don't care for the current draft of COPS either.

 

[King Durk the Awesome]

Against the COPS treaty - it accomplishes virtually nothing as others have said.

 

[unibot]

So, unibot, you're suggesting changing it to a fact-finding mission...that noone is obligated to go along with, in terms of conclusions? And this, in the name of giving it teeth?

Do you know anything about how nations function in real life? The UNGA is not mandatory for compliance, but non-compliance is very rare and very controversial; states rarely like to non-comply and you need to carry a lot of political capital to "get away" with non-compliance.

I think a fact-finding mission would do the job perfectly: it would cause the legitimate pariah-ization of those that destroy forums.

 

[Gaspo]

That already happens through societal pressure. It's been happening for a decade now. And with regard to the UNGA, how effective has the UN's pariah-ization of repeatedly sanctioned RL countries such as Iran, actually been? As Blue Wolf has said, the individuals and organizations who have a history of, or a proclivity for, the actions prohibited by this treaty, will show no regard for the actions of any fact-finding mission. It would make us all feel good, for "doing something" in response to a forum destruction, but other than giving ourselves a pat on the back, it would neither deter nor meaningfully punish those who would engage in such activity.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

There is an individual seeking foreign envoy status who apparently is one of the draftsmen of the proposed new treaty. Once that happens, this thread may be moved so they can participate in this discussion. Just giving y'all a heads up.

 

[Cormac]

That already happens through societal pressure. It's been happening for a decade now. And with regard to the UNGA, how effective has the UN's pariah-ization of repeatedly sanctioned RL countries such as Iran, actually been? As Blue Wolf has said, the individuals and organizations who have a history of, or a proclivity for, the actions prohibited by this treaty, will show no regard for the actions of any fact-finding mission. It would make us all feel good, for "doing something" in response to a forum destruction, but other than giving ourselves a pat on the back, it would neither deter nor meaningfully punish those who would engage in such activity.

I tend to agree with Gaspo and others in this thread who have expressed similar views. I don't think that any COPS treaty -- no matter how much bite it is given -- will be effective against those intent on destroying forums or those who would intentionally harbor them. We've recently seen that the current COPS treaty hasn't been particularly effective; some are arguing that's precisely why we need a stronger treaty, but I don't see any evidence that a treaty of any level of strength will actually be effective.

What I do see potential for is abuse of a stronger treaty, particularly the NSWF version, to carry out interregional grudges and force regions to conform to other regions' legal standards. And by that I don't mean standards on forum destruction, but standards like who is a citizen, who has rights and who doesn't, etc. I don't think a one size fits all treaty is appropriate, effective or necessary here.

That said, I look forward to hearing from Skizzy Grey in regard to his draft. Of the two drafts his is certainly the one that I would prefer, but at this time I remain unconvinced by either version.