Second IRC Officializing Act

Iro

Iro

TNPer
In light of the discussion on Alvino's IRC act, I agree with the discussion that the basic officialization of #tnp is necessary. That said, I put this out there:
Section 6.8: Second Internet Relay Channel Officializing Act:
36. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp on esper.net as the channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific.

37. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp-cabinet on esper.net as channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific government.

38. The Regional Government of The North Pacific acknowledges that it has no jurisdiction over #tnp and #tnp-cabinet.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure if this holds up, but feedback appreciated.
 
Clause 39 kills this proposal, for me and for many others. Furthermore, by establishing it as part of the region, you subject its moderation and ban list (despite clause 38). Legislation should never contradict itself; clauses 38 and 39 don't. The only way I could support such a bill is if it were explicit regarding the separation of channel administration from regional affairs, in the same was as Moderation on this forum is constitutionally separate.
 
That is in fact what I was attempting to do, Gaspo. However, you seem to be more able to articulate the situation than I.

As a (new :) ) Court Justice, it is perhaps you that could help me understand the ramifications of excluding these channels from TNP law. Here is my position: I am for the separation of channel administration from regional administration, yet if we distinguish the channel as separate, we relinquish the power to use IRC evidence, which I will never do. I also do not wish to make the channel without structure, although it already exists so this may be a problem.

How can we make a distinction that brings all our wishes together?
 
Why do we need an official IRC channel? All this is going to do is open a Pandora's Box of civil and criminal complaints, and prevent the community from switching channels if #tnp goes to shit someday.

I say put this one to bed. If anything, we need a law establishing that we DON'T have an official IRC channel...

EDIT: Also, IRC evidence is already admissible in court, as I understand it. IRC logs are currently admitted at evidence in TNP v JAL anyway...
 
Logs are already admissible; there need be nothing done to include them in the law. That's already allowed.

Something like:
  • The administration and moderation of #tnp is wholly separate from the governance of the region. All decisions will be made by the moderation team appointed by the channel owner.
  • No element of The North Pacific's government, including the courts, has jurisdiction over #tnp, or may enact any law to compel changes to #tnp in any way.
By limiting jurisdiction, you create an environment where the courts cannot exert control, nor can the government. Jurisdiction doesn't exclude evidence, though; simply limits control or ability to hear a case. This prevents people from appealing moderation decisions, prevents the courts from affecting #tnp bans through court cases, and prevents the government from in any way impacting the operation of the channel.[/list]
 
We need an official IRC channel to end discussion about an official IRC channel, which has persistently nagged at the RA and government for a while, cough cough Gov.

I fear that if we completely disavow #tnp as TNP turf, the ability to use IRC evidence could be contested. EDIT: whoops, posted right with gaspo
 
My only worry is; what if we need to exert control? In a situation where someone does something meriting a total ban and the government needs to exert control, this could turn very unwell.

EDIT: Also, how does one appeal a ban if it already exists? It doesn't seem quite.... fair... and if this is the official channel of TNP...
 
Iro:
My only worry is; what if we need to exert control? In a situation where someone does something meriting a total ban and the government needs to exert control, this could turn very unwell.
Click to expand...
I don't think such a thing should be possible. The only type of person I can think of who's ever warranted a total ban, honestly, was banned from #TNP long before any forum bans ever came their way.
 
Jurisdiction is the key. #TNP shouldn't be within the jurisdiction of the government of The North Pacific. If you can separate jurisdiction, then making any channel the 'official' channel of TNP is basically ceremonial.

But, I now have the question others have, what's the point of this legislation? What problem does it solve? In my years of being in TNP, #TNP has been THE IRC channel.
 
I still consider this to be unnecessary.

My concern would be for challenges under the bill of rights to arise because of this. I prefer flems suggestion in the other thread, that we move with our feet if we have to. There is no need for this.
 
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on necessity - arguably everything we do is unnecessary, and I'd rather have some content that causes no harm rather than us all sitting around doing nothing. I hate inactivity.

As PunkD stated, jurisdiction is in fact the key to this legislation being acceptable.
 
Gaspo:
Logs are already admissible; there need be nothing done to include them in the law. That's already allowed.

Something like:
  • The administration and moderation of #tnp is wholly separate from the governance of the region. All decisions will be made by the moderation team appointed by the channel owner.
  • No element of The North Pacific's government, including the courts, has jurisdiction over #tnp, or may enact any law to compel changes to #tnp in any way.
By limiting jurisdiction, you create an environment where the courts cannot exert control, nor can the government. Jurisdiction doesn't exclude evidence, though; simply limits control or ability to hear a case. This prevents people from appealing moderation decisions, prevents the courts from affecting #tnp bans through court cases, and prevents the government from in any way impacting the operation of the channel.[/list]
Click to expand...
So there is nothing that will prevent IRC op abuse or Owner op abuse.

If this law is to make things official, the channel moderation has to be under TNP law and criminal jurisdiction.
 
I like how Gov says "has to be" without providing any reason why, other than that he apparently has decreed that it must be so. I suppose we should all do as he says.
 
Gaspo:
I like how Gov says "has to be" without providing any reason why, other than that he apparently has decreed that it must be so. I suppose we should all do as he says.
Click to expand...
Please knock it off with the personal attacks and sarcasm.
 
Govindia:
Gaspo:
I like how Gov says "has to be" without providing any reason why, other than that he apparently has decreed that it must be so. I suppose we should all do as he says.
Click to expand...
Please knock it off with the personal attacks and sarcasm.
Click to expand...
There was sarcasm, but there wasn't a personal attack.

The point I believe Gaspo was trying to make was that you made a comment that didn't provide additional reasoning for that comment. You said:
If this law is to make things official, the channel moderation has to be under TNP law and criminal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

This was despite the fact that most of the preceding comments talked about making the channel 'official' but beyond the jurisdictional reach of TNP. I think what Gaspo was trying to say was, why does the channel have to fall under the jurisdiction of TNP if it is the official channel?

There may have been sarcasm in his point, but I think you should address the actual content of the issue he is raising.
 
Govindia:
Blue Wolf II:
What do you suggest this OP law be, Gov? What does it look like?
Click to expand...
What are you asking?
Click to expand...
I'm asking you to show us what you want. You've been proclaiming that these Act must have an anti-OP abuse law but have declined to present one. What did you think, that someone else would make it for you simply because you want it?

So, what is this Anti-OP abuse clause you want to propose with this Act? What's it look like, Gov? Or, for that matter what does the clause that forces channel moderation to be under TNP law and criminal jurisdiction look like?
 
I agree with most of the points that have come up; it does get unnecessary from a certain perspective.

I think, in the end, it was clearly to finish off all the talk, especially on Gov's end, about making a channel designated.

I've revised it to make it less controlling. If it still seems wrong, I may withdraw it.
 
:P In addition, a law declaring no official channel would be 1. incorrect, because #tnp-cabinet is used for official business and 2. it could get real messy.
 
Iro:
Section 6.8: Second Internet Relay Channel Officializing Act:
36. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp on esper.net as the channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific.

37. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp-cabinet on esper.net as channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific government.

38. The Regional Government of The North Pacific acknowledges that its laws, Constitution, and legal code have jurisdiction over #tnp and #tnp-cabinet.
A. Appointments made through either #tnp or #tnp-cabinet must be posted in a separate announcement thread on the forum.

39. Moderators, referred on IRC as Ops, shall be only from Members of the Regional Government, with voice given only to those who are Members of the Regional Assembly (MRA) or Citizens of The North Pacific.
A. The owner of the channel must be either a MRA or a Citizen of TNP.
B. Should a moderator abuse his powers for whatever reason towards another, they shall lose them and be subject to a criminal trial in TNP, with the punishment handed down by the Court of The North Pacific.
C. Should someone lose their voice or be banned from the channel (with sufficient, reasonable, and explicit warning beforehand), a clear reason must be given to the Attorney General's office, with the opportunity to appeal the ban to the Court. If the Court finds the ban to be unwarranted, the ban must be removed by either a SuperOp, AssistantOp, or the Channel Owner within 48 hours of the ruling.

40. Logs from #tnp may be posted freely, but logs from #tnp-cabinet may be posted by a majority vote of the cabinet present, with the vote being recorded.

41. All prior bans and penalties prior to the passage of this law are hereby rendered null and void, and everyone will be allowed to start with a clean slate, with the guarantee that as long as good behaviour and laws are followed, they are allowed to stay in the channel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My suggestions are in bold.
 
edit: at the prompting of a mod, the image that was in this post has been removed.

apparrently tnp has very delicate sensibilities.
 
Govindia:
Iro:
Section 6.8: Second Internet Relay Channel Officializing Act:
36. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp on esper.net as the channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific.

37. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp-cabinet on esper.net as channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific government.

38. The Regional Government of The North Pacific acknowledges that its laws, Constitution, and legal code have jurisdiction over #tnp and #tnp-cabinet.
A. Appointments made through either #tnp or #tnp-cabinet must be posted in a separate announcement thread on the forum.

39. Moderators, referred on IRC as Ops, shall be only from Members of the Regional Government, with voice given only to those who are Members of the Regional Assembly (MRA) or Citizens of The North Pacific.
A. The owner of the channel must be either a MRA or a Citizen of TNP.
B. Should a moderator abuse his powers for whatever reason towards another, they shall lose them and be subject to a criminal trial in TNP, with the punishment handed down by the Court of The North Pacific.
C. Should someone lose their voice or be banned from the channel (with sufficient, reasonable, and explicit warning beforehand), a clear reason must be given to the Attorney General's office, with the opportunity to appeal the ban to the Court. If the Court finds the ban to be unwarranted, the ban must be removed by either a SuperOp, AssistantOp, or the Channel Owner within 48 hours of the ruling.

40. Logs from #tnp may be posted freely, but logs from #tnp-cabinet may be posted by a majority vote of the cabinet present, with the vote being recorded.

41. All prior bans and penalties prior to the passage of this law are hereby rendered null and void, and everyone will be allowed to start with a clean slate, with the guarantee that as long as good behaviour and laws are followed, they are allowed to stay in the channel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My suggestions are in bold.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. I dislike every single one of the clauses you have suggested. The last clause the most - many of the bans we have in place are permanent and will not be reversed, least of not because of the idea of a 'clean slate' - there are good reasons the bans are permanent. Also, I'm an operator, yet I'm not a government member, but I have contributed to the region in some form and have served in the government in the past, why on earth because I'm not currently in the government should I lose OP? I'm active and on IRC most of the time and able to perform operator tasks asked of me. Also, that suggestion would leave us vastly understaffed in moderating the channel.
 
Your proposal is awful, and "fixes" a system noone but you thinks is broken. I cannot in any way support it.
 
I don't care for this proposal either. Removing all bans will never pass and should not pass. Not even mentioning you there are several bans that need not be reversed for various reasons.
 
Hmmm Gov proposed solutions which would help his own case :P

In this matter Gov, I don't think you are an expert.
 
Govindia:
Iro:
Section 6.8: Second Internet Relay Channel Officializing Act:
36. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp on esper.net as the channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific.

37. The Regional Government of the North Pacific recognizes the Internet Relay Channel #tnp-cabinet on esper.net as channel designated for conversation about the North Pacific government.

38. The Regional Government of The North Pacific acknowledges that its laws, Constitution, and legal code have jurisdiction over #tnp and #tnp-cabinet.
A. Appointments made through either #tnp or #tnp-cabinet must be posted in a separate announcement thread on the forum.

39. Moderators, referred on IRC as Ops, shall be only from Members of the Regional Government, with voice given only to those who are Members of the Regional Assembly (MRA) or Citizens of The North Pacific.
A. The owner of the channel must be either a MRA or a Citizen of TNP.
B. Should a moderator abuse his powers for whatever reason towards another, they shall lose them and be subject to a criminal trial in TNP, with the punishment handed down by the Court of The North Pacific.
C. Should someone lose their voice or be banned from the channel (with sufficient, reasonable, and explicit warning beforehand), a clear reason must be given to the Attorney General's office, with the opportunity to appeal the ban to the Court. If the Court finds the ban to be unwarranted, the ban must be removed by either a SuperOp, AssistantOp, or the Channel Owner within 48 hours of the ruling.

40. Logs from #tnp may be posted freely, but logs from #tnp-cabinet may be posted by a majority vote of the cabinet present, with the vote being recorded.

41. All prior bans and penalties prior to the passage of this law are hereby rendered null and void, and everyone will be allowed to start with a clean slate, with the guarantee that as long as good behaviour and laws are followed, they are allowed to stay in the channel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My suggestions are in bold.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. These are all terrible suggestions. Not only are we then hijacking a person's channel, but then forcing our will upon it as well. On top of that, you want the slate to be entirely cleared off, but why? So that spammers and repeat offenders who couldn't be bothered to learn the rules of the channel and pay attention to the OPs of the channel have a shot to once again cause trouble and controversy? No thanks. Like I said, it is not our chat and it is privately owned. We should not be telling Wham what to do.

This was not my intention when I first created this bill and nor is this Iro's intention. If Govindia's proposal somehow comes to a vote, I will be voting against and actively campaigning for its destruction... because by that point, if this bill could talk, it would be begging all of us for a merciful death.
 
Then I'd like to see you find a better way to combat op abuse, as op abuse and misuse was the reason I got banned from IRC. The op present at the time Dali, allowed myself to get flamed and attacked by both Wham and Biyah and nothing was done to them because he's friends with them. They got off the hook, I was banned. Even Thel, the owner of the channel at the time, saw the logs and found they were wrong to treat me like that. You can't say that all of the bans that Eluvatar listed were legitimate, because mine certainly wasn't.

And honestly, I don't agree with Wham being channel owner as he's not contributed to this region really, and is more loyal to everything regarding Equilism than here. This channel should be for TNPers first and others second.

If you're going to put this under TNP law to get it recognised, it has to be under TNP's legal jurisdiction. You can't keep them separate, it's not logical.

The Op clause is also designed to make sure the ops are TNP members and not foreigners from other regions. So far most of the ops in the channel have been very prone to treating their duties like a joke and don't take it seriously, and also punish people if they disagree with someone or dislike them. I've seen it happen more than once in feeder channels.

If you think my proposal is rubbish, I'd like to see you come up with a better way to combat op abuse, or with a way to handle people's bans who felt that they were wrongly banned - like in my case.

And Ms. di Laurentis, I never proclaimed myself to be an expert on anything.
 
Govindia:
Then I'd like to see you find a better way to combat op abuse, as op abuse and misuse was the reason I got banned from IRC.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I was not around in person when the ban was instituted, you see, but I am interested to hear how it occurred, Gov.

What OP abuses occurred? Why do you feel they are abuses? Who committed them and, in your opinion, why?

Perhaps answering these questions will help us in understanding why you were banned, Gov, and help construct a better way of combating abuse that we all agree with.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I still consider this to be unnecessary.

My concern would be for challenges under the bill of rights to arise because of this. I prefer flems suggestion in the other thread, that we move with our feet if we have to. There is no need for this.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. :yes:
 
Blue Wolf II:
Govindia:
Then I'd like to see you find a better way to combat op abuse, as op abuse and misuse was the reason I got banned from IRC.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I was not around in person when the ban was instituted, you see, but I am interested to hear how it occurred, Gov.

What OP abuses occurred? Why do you feel they are abuses? Who committed them and, in your opinion, why?

Perhaps answering these questions will help us in understanding why you were banned, Gov, and help construct a better way of combating abuse that we all agree with.
Click to expand...
Are you actually asking me in a serious manner or are you trying to mock / patronise me ?
 
I'm opposed to the original proposal because I find it unnecessary. It seems that the only reason this legislation is being brought forth is because a certain member of TNP keeps shouting that the logs of #tnp-cabinet shouldn't count because it's not an "official" Cabinet channel. In my mind, if the Delegate says that #tnp-cabinet is the Cabinet channel.. Then by Flemgod, #tnp-cabinet is the Cabinet channel.

Keeping in mind that I think the entire act is unnecessary, the additions proposed by Govindia seem extreme. I don't believe OP should necessarily be decided by Government Position. Every single member of the #tnp OP team is a capable Moderator and are great to work with. It's a privilege to be on the same Moderation team as those awesome folks. I've especially got a problem with Clause 41. Whether harassment, spamming, flaming, or something else, every single person banned from #tnp did earn that ban. I see no point in removing justly given punishments.

I see no point to any of these changes, except to overcomplicate how #tnp is run.
 
What's wrong with #tnp being the unofficial TNP channel, and #tnp-cabinet being the unofficial government channel?

If everyone's acknowledging that these places are outside the realm of the TNP government and TNP law, then why are we trying to legislate about them?
 
Tim:
I'm opposed to the original proposal because I find it unnecessary. It seems that the only reason this legislation is being brought forth is because a certain member of TNP keeps shouting that the logs of #tnp-cabinet shouldn't count because it's not an "official" Cabinet channel. In my mind, if the Delegate says that #tnp-cabinet is the Cabinet channel.. Then by Flemgod, #tnp-cabinet is the Cabinet channel.

Keeping in mind that I think the entire act is unnecessary, the additions proposed by Govindia seem extreme. I don't believe OP should necessarily be decided by Government Position. Every single member of the #tnp OP team is a capable Moderator and are great to work with. It's a privilege to be on the same Moderation team as those awesome folks. I've especially got a problem with Clause 41. Whether harassment, spamming, flaming, or something else, every single person banned from #tnp did earn that ban. I see no point in removing justly given punishments.

I see no point to any of these changes, except to overcomplicate how #tnp is run.
Click to expand...
No, not every single member on that ban list earned that ban. I certainly did not, and Thel believed that the ban was wrong or just.
 
Gov, your explanation of your demand for oversight boils down to "it's not logical." Unfortunately for you, noone else thinks it's illogical. One of the tenets of our constitution suggests that moderation and administration must be separate from political influence; why should IRC be any different? And before you argue that the Constitution is also wrong, I would remind you that you are neither Galileo nor Christopher Columbus - you would be foolish to argue that you're simply ahead of your time and the only one who understands it. You're noone's "victim" but your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top