Overhauling the Criminal Code/ the Justice System of TNP

I am posting this in the citizens lobby and not the main RA floor - as I feel the main floor of the RA is for when you have language drafted and wish to propose and debate it.

At this stage I would like to raise an issue with the RA - and kick ideas around - and maybe we can find a solution to draft legislation to bring to the main RA floor for futher discussion and a vote.

Recently Mr. Flemingovia filed a criminal complaint against one Mr. McMasterdonia for alleged speechlessness due to reading this thread: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7233919/1/#new

Citing the BOR:

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 WA 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 the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The criminal complaint can be found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7233984/1/#new

*full disclosure* I realize I am not popular with certian members of the established community - and my inital reaction was that flem was pulling a gag/ attempting to troll the AGs office. I am still not convienced he isnt. However trolling or not an important issue arrises:

The Criminal Code states thus:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

Click to expand...

What you astutely can see if you view the full text of the legal code you can see there is no criminal charges for denying someone their rights under the BOR. Perhaps if a government offical was acting in their offical capacity and coerced someone into removing a post then that person could be charged with "Gross Misconduct" - in this instance McM posting delicious kangaroo photos in the "Real life" section - I do not believe he was acting in any governmental capacity -- therefore a gross misconduct charge would be unwarranted.

A strict interpretation of the Criminal Code has thus led me to the position that I can not process Flemingovia's serious or not so serious complaint, whatever the case may be, because under the Criminal Code McM has NOT committed any crimes.

Currently I see Flemingovia's only recourse is to file a request for review with the court.

Since the RA got rid of civil trials in the spring - Mr. Flemingovia does not even have the recourse of a civil suit against Mr. Masterdonia.

Unfortunately, I feel this oversight on the RAs part has weakened the BOR and gives it no real teeth. As it cannot really be enforcable in court of tnp, at least not by the Attorney Generals office.

Currently, I see the options as:

The RA can reinstate Civil Suits and folks who feel their BOR rights have been violated may sue.

Or the RA should overhaul the Criminal Code to expand more offenses in which someone can go to criminal trial for - such as making BOR violations a criminal offense under the criminal code, then the AG could Prosecute complaints filee accusing alleged BOR violations.

Unless my interpretation is too narrow of Ch1 of the Criminal Code - which I don't think it is - and even though BOR violations arent mentioned in the Criminal Code an AG can bring someone to trial for denying someone their rights. (I don't think an AG can)

What does the rest of the RA think?

Do we need to overhaul the Criminal Code, bring back civil suits, both, or neither? Do you have other options? In effort to actually give the BOR some teeth and to make it enforcable in TNP court.

I agree that the kangaroo photos were delicious.

Additionally - bill of rights violations can be handled by court review. With the court providing a ruling on whether or not the rights were violated and providing a direction on how to proceed.

I think the bill of rights quite rightly protects citizens only from the actions of the government, and not private citizens.

Which is why I advised Flemingovia if he sincerely believes his rights were violated to file a request for review with the courts.

In the mean time though, should BOR violations be added to the Criminal code, and the AG be allowed to prosecute alleged violations?

Or is a Review with the courts sufficient?

Crushing Our Enemies:

I think the bill of rights quite rightly protects citizens only from the actions of the government, and not private citizens.

Click to expand...

Yes that is how I feel too. Or Protection from private citizens who are government officals acting in the offical capacity of their role as a government offical.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

*full disclosure* I realize I am not popular with certian members of the established community - and my inital reaction was that flem was pulling a gag/ attempting to troll the AGs office. I am still not convienced he isnt.

Click to expand...

"Troll" is the wrong word. I admit i did not expect my complaint to get far, and part of the reason for bringing it was to see how you would handle it as AG. Call it a test case, for my own curiosity.

The good news is you did not suck. You kept discipline in the thread by splitting out irrelevancies and you came to a decision quickly and decisively. You stuck to your guns in the face of argument. I think your answer was not legally without flaws, but it was well reasoned.

TBH, a solid start and better than i anticipated.

The bad news is that your Assistant Attorney General did not show the same steady hand in office. He let his sense of humour get the better of him. He is a liability, and could easily drag down your administration in public recollection. If you want your department to handle things professionally and you want to be remembered as a sound AG - replace him.

I will take it under advisement. I would love to have Punk D but due to the laws of the region he cannot be appointed as an AAG due to the fact he is not in the RA and cannot be a government offical.

If you are interrested please apply. I encourage anyone who is interrested to please apply. As I have said before I would like my office to be open and welcoming to those who seek to get prosecutor experience. Mall would even be welcome to apply - however with the request for review procedings I do not know how that would be profeasionally recieved.
Also I am trying a different style of letting people express intrests by filling an application out rather then approach in a back door nepotistic manner.

Roman filled an app out. And had experience in the judical branch of tnp. And is suppose to be some kangaroo court judge in RL or something IDK...so at the time he was the most qualified candidate. So I accepted his application. His humor does get the better of him, but honestly I do feel he has value by having prior court room experience abeit from the bench.

Honestly. I lost it at the Al Bundy Gif image. Call it trolling, satire, humor, a "test" complaint if you will. But clearly it was not a serious complaint and I could see why Roman would let his humor get to them. I even attempted to be humorus with it to a point. I am sure if a SERIOUS criminal complaint were filed on a real alleged criminal code violation Romanoffia would act with professionalism in dealing with it.

But again, I will take your comments/critisms under advisement.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

Roman filled an app out. And had experience in the judical branch of tnp. And is suppose to be some kangaroo court judge in RL or something IDK...so at the time he was the most qualified candidate. So I accepted his application. His humor does get the better of him, but honestly I do feel he has value by having prior court room experience abeit from the bench.

Click to expand...

Uh...he resigned in disgrace from that position pending removal from office by the RA. He threw a positive hissy fit when he found himself unable to control the court room during a trial, and proceeded to blame the entire region for his own personal failings in office. You and I have very different visions of what "qualified" entails.

He served on the court before that. The last time, yeah it didnt go so good. I also was not around much during that time as I was on vacation and hadnt checked the forum for three or four days. And upon returning the drama was in full swing. And I tried to simply stay out of it. From what I did read of it though - I did feel the JAL Defense got a bit rowdy and out of hand and their strategy was to have different defense counsel file the same motions over and over in attempt to fluster the presiding justice.

One good thing we got out of it was the New CJ SillyString amending the court rules approprately.

I don't remember you trying to stay out of it at all...........

I beleive I stayed out of most of it. I only commented that I thought the defense was purposely trying to bait the court. By proposing the motions, havinf them denied, then having another defense counsel propose the very same motion. To me it appeared clearly the defense tactis was to stall and fluster the courts. And I expressed intrests in creating contempt of court rules (up until the point CJ String added them into the court rules - there wasnt any just provisons for handling contempt of court.) Did Roman act unprofessionally in that situation..to a point...but I didnt think he should have had to resign from the bench..up until that point he had acted with decorum with the H&H trial and etc.

I do believe I did come back. Try to read some threads on the matter. I did not read them all. Then said my piece and championed contempt of court rules. After that I am fairly certain I did not keep up with it. Then tried to run for justice on the special election under the platform of adopting contempt rules. Then CJ string addressed them in the updated court rules.

That was several months ago. I cant remember every single action or word I typed. I was simply making a general comment to the best of my recollection. Now I did not create this thread to rehash old drama.

Flem raised some concerns in his test complaint:

On the wider issue, effectively PaulWall has concluded that violations of the Bill of Rights cannot be prosecuted by the Attorney General's office because such violations are not listed as "crimes" in the Legal Code.

Effectively, then, the BOR is meaningless, as is any law that cannot be enforced through the courts. Muchas Gracias, PaulWall. Next time JAL is on trial he has given him the perfect precedent to cite.

Click to expand...

So I was coming to the RA to see if this is something that needs addressed or not.

As I see it, I agree with COE in that BOR protections are to protect the citizens from the government and not to protect citizens from other citizens. There is no statutes to keep private citizens from violating another citizens rights. So we could leave it as is, reinstate Civil Suits, or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

I was coming to the RA with Flems concerns to see if the RA feels the issues Flem raised were worth discussion or not.

I can understand that you did not read every single word or sentence.. but I believe this is certainly something else!! In those matters you were very much provoking and assisting in the intensification of the argument. This included but is not limited to the distribution of logs of conversations on the IRC channel in order to keep that drama going....

But you're right. There is significant commentary on that period already and we have thankfully moved beyond that.

I think your comments on the BOR are correct.

Despite the Legal Code clause limiting criminal prosecution to only the listed crimes, BOR violations may, in my view, still be addressed. When the government infringes on someone's rights, the BOR supersedes the Legal Code. The kangaroo example would not qualify, as the incident did not involve a government official acting in the capacity of his position.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

Click to expand...

In what tangible way are private citizens who are not acting in any capacity as a government official able to deprive others of their rights?

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

Click to expand...

In what tangible way are private citizens who are not acting in any capacity as a government official able to deprive others of their rights?

Click to expand...

By rendering them speechless.

QED.

mcmasterdonia:

I can understand that you did not read every single word or sentence.. but I believe this is certainly something else!! In those matters you were very much provoking and assisting in the intensification of the argument. This included but is not limited to the distribution of logs of conversations on the IRC channel in order to keep that drama going....

But you're right. There is significant commentary on that period already and we have thankfully moved beyond that.

I think your comments on the BOR are correct.

Click to expand...

That was on the flemingovian religion debates not the jal trial fiasco.

flemingovia:

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

Click to expand...

In what tangible way are private citizens who are not acting in any capacity as a government official able to deprive others of their rights?

Click to expand...

By rendering them speechless.

QED.

Click to expand...

Or by taking their keyboard away.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

flemingovia:

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

Click to expand...

In what tangible way are private citizens who are not acting in any capacity as a government official able to deprive others of their rights?

Click to expand...

By rendering them speechless.

QED.

Click to expand...

Or by taking their keyboard away.

Click to expand...

So... you would like to put people on criminal trial, in TNP, for physically taking someone's keyboard?

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

flemingovia:

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

Click to expand...

In what tangible way are private citizens who are not acting in any capacity as a government official able to deprive others of their rights?

Click to expand...

By rendering them speechless.

QED.

Click to expand...

Or by taking their keyboard away.

Click to expand...

So... you would like to put people on criminal trial, in TNP, for physically taking someone's keyboard?

Click to expand...

A strange crime

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

flemingovia:

SillyString:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

or make additions to the criminal code to make it a crime for a citizen to deprive another citizen of their BOR rights.

Click to expand...

In what tangible way are private citizens who are not acting in any capacity as a government official able to deprive others of their rights?

Click to expand...

By rendering them speechless.

QED.

Click to expand...

Or by taking their keyboard away.

Click to expand...

So... you would like to put people on criminal trial, in TNP, for physically taking someone's keyboard?

Click to expand...

No. I am simply going along with Flemingovia's slapstick humor.

Personally, I would potentially like to see civil trial legislation discussed again and maybe this time it could be written better. And allow a person who feels their BORs have been violated to sue the regional government in court. Rather then simply file a request for review and follow the courts advisory opinion.

At any rate as flems test complaint demonstrates filing a complaint that someone has deprived them of their free speech by making them speechless with the AG office is not the proper venue. As the AG can only process complaints and bring those to trial except which have violated specific statutes in the criminal code. Flem did raise the point of enforceability - I do not think a citizen could deny one of their tnp libertied as they have no admin permissions to supress any postings or any authority to coerce someone into retracting any public postings. However what are the recourses if a Government offical did it? File a request for review? And the person could possibly be charged with Gross Misconduct. But where is the restitution to the citizen who had their liberties violated by the government? Shouldnt we at least have civil suits? However, I do not know how judgement would be carried out in our simulated government as civil suits are usually settled with a monetary penalty - we do not have a simulated economy in our role play game.

So far the only examples anyone's come up with for citizens depriving other citizens of their rights have been farcical. So far this appears to be a solution looking for a problem.

Crushing Our Enemies:

So far the only examples anyone's come up with for citizens depriving other citizens of their rights have been farcical. So far this appears to be a solution looking for a problem.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I created this discussion for Flems benefit. Even though his test complaint was farcicle.

I felt this quote by him:

On the wider issue, effectively PaulWall has concluded that violations of the Bill of Rights cannot be prosecuted by the Attorney General's office because such violations are not listed as "crimes" in the Legal Code.

Click to expand...

May be worth discussing.

Violations of someone's rights are crimes in the same way that breaking any other clause of the Constitution or Legal Code are crimes - they constitute oath violation.

While adding another crime to the legal code to encompass BoR violations is an option, it strikes me as a bad idea - first of all because on any practical matter that I can think of, BoR violations are impossible unless the violator is a government official, so Gross Misconduct covers it just fine. Second of all, I think it would lead to a lot more trumped up charges based on petty grudges, rather than actual violations of the law.

Can I just point out that McM is a government official?

Also, Admins, who are not government officials, can violate someone's rights under the BOR faster and easier than anyone else.

Then as a government official, he would be vulnerable to a charge of Gross Misconduct if, as a government official, he violated your rights under the BoR.

Can admins be charged for gross misconduct? Seeing as that is a responsibilty outside of the role play and role play laws? And are technically not govt officals -- yet as flem points out can violate someones BOR quicker than anyone?

Simply being a government official isn't enough. The action has to be something performed within the scope of his duties, not on his lunch break as it were.

Edit: As far as Admins go, it isn't part of the game. Crossing the line will get an admin in deep kim chee with the team. Never mind the court

The admins are a law unto themselves. None of the government can force them to act, or not act, only choose whether to stay or leave.

Crushing Our Enemies:

So far the only examples anyone's come up with for citizens depriving other citizens of their rights have been farcical. So far this appears to be a solution looking for a problem.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The Bill of Rights is to protect governmental overreach in the violation of rights because the government is entrusted with enforcement powers. An individual player acting outside any governmental authority simply has no way to enforce a breach of those rights. And I trust we are all wise enough to recognize when a government officer is acting within his or her official capacity, and when they are speaking (or acting) off-the-cuff as a private citizen -- though it behooves all such officers to make clear that they are indeed not acting in an official capacity so as to avoid any misunderstandings.

SillyString:

Violations of someone's rights are crimes in the same way that breaking any other clause of the Constitution or Legal Code are crimes - they constitute oath violation.

While adding another crime to the legal code to encompass BoR violations is an option, it strikes me as a bad idea - first of all because on any practical matter that I can think of, BoR violations are impossible unless the violator is a government official, so Gross Misconduct covers it just fine. [Ed. -- color added for emphasis.] Second of all, I think it would lead to a lot more trumped up charges based on petty grudges, rather than actual violations of the law.

Click to expand...

Great Bights Mum:

Simply being a government official isn't enough. The action has to be something performed within the scope of his duties, not on his lunch break as it were. [Ed. -- color added for emphasis.]

Edit: As far as Admins go, it isn't part of the game. Crossing the line will get an admin in deep kim chee with the team. Never mind the court

Click to expand...

It may help if a real-life example is considered. In the Delegate's Statement on the discussion about flemingovianism, R3naissanc3r stated in an addendum that:

R3naissanc3r wrote::

There was also no large-scale, concentrated, and slanderous campaign against those elements of our RP government.

Putting that aside, the argument I am making is exactly a response to that. An RP religion is no more offensive to your RL religious beliefs than an RP flag is to your RL patriotism. Those resigning over the adoption of an RP religion appear to be oversensitive on this issue, potentially as a result of your overblown campaign against it. [Ed. -- color added for emphasis.]

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights states in clause 2:

Bill of Rights:

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. [Ed. -- color added for emphasis.] Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA 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 the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The Delegate's comments above denigrated my expression of religious belief by asserting that I was incapable of distinguishing between real life and role play, that I was oversensitive on the issue, and that I was probably incapable of coming to the decision that I did without undue influence from Romanoffia. The statement is certainly discouraging, and while it might not actually infringe on my free expression of religion, it certainly failed to lend any encouragement.

I happen to like R3naissanc3r, and as I see it, even though his comment appears as an addendum to his official commentary on the matter as Delegate, I would rather like to think that he was speaking in a moment of passion, off-the-cuff, and that he did not intend to disparage my sincerely held beliefs. And while I'm concerned that this may be a poor precedent for future Delegates, I harbor no ill will. I have no interest whatsoever in filing any criminal complaint; I'm just pointing out that this is an actual situation where a criminal complaint could have been brought.

>^,,^<
Alunya

COE:

So far the only examples anyone's come up with for citizens depriving other citizens of their rights have been farcical.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous is how I'd describe it. I can't believe this "complaint" was even considered. The idea that being rendered speechless by a post constitutes a BOR violation, left me speechless. McM was exercising his right to free speech with the post in question (to follow the inane commentary). This complaint should have been summarily dismissed, and Flem cautioned not to waste the AG's time with such frivolous nonsense.

As for re-instating civil trials? No. For this reason:

Silly String:

I think it would lead to a lot more trumped up charges based on petty grudges,

Click to expand...

Crushing Our Enemies:

I think the bill of rights quite rightly protects citizens only from the actions of the government, and not private citizens.

Click to expand...

That I would beg to differ with.

Suppose an individual threatened another individual with a smear campaign of the second party refused to remain silent about an issue, etc. That would be a clear attempt on the part of one person to thwart the second person's right to free speech.

Under your logic, if an Admin simply silenced and individual for no legitimate reason, or did so to affect a change in RP for RP reasons, then it would be a violation of free speech insofar as someone was silenced for RP processes by means other than 'governmental action'.

Crimes are crimes and violations of Rights are violations no matter who does the violating.

Also, under you logic, one's TNP BOR rights cannot be violated except by the government which would be the same as saying that an individual can violate anyone's rights just as long as that individual wasn't acting in a governmental capacity when violating those rights. There is nothing in the BOR, the TNP Constitution or the Legal Code that restricts determinations of violation of BOR rights to just Government actions. Believe me, anyone here, government or not, could violate your rights and they would get prosecuted.

But back to the original point PW was making, and that can be distilled down the issue of 'frivolous' charges being lodged for the purpose of personal gain or to clutter up the Court/AG's Office with deliberate intent. The question is, who could this be prevented if done in a malicious or potentially malicious fashion?

viz.:

Section 1.3: Fraud

11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Click to expand...

Technically speaking, under a strict interpretation of the law, Flemingovia's joke/bogus Complaint against McMasterdonia could be construed as Fraud, per se. If such and action was deliberate it would be in direct violation of the RA Membership Oath as it pertains to the clause relating to pledging obedience to her [TNP] laws".

In addition, knowingly and deliberately lodging false complaints by an RA member could be construed and Gross Misconduct, viz.:

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct


23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

Click to expand...

Obviously, Flemingovia was hopefully being humorous in terms of pulling an entertaining gag at best (or disrupting the AGs' Office for political or personal gain at worst?). But the gag does bring up an interesting question:

Does the lodging of patently Frivolous Criminal Complaints or fabricated complaints based upon bogus evidence constitute Fraud or an attempt to defraud?

Romanoffia:

There is nothing in the BOR <snip> that restricts determinations of violation of BOR rights to just Government actions.

Click to expand...

Would you mind quoting me a single clause of the Bill of Rights that can be violated by a private citizen who is not in a position in the government?

EDIT: No explanation is necessary. Just quote one clause.

EDIT2: I double dog dare you.

Roman:

Technically speaking, under a strict interpretation of the law, Flemingovia's joke/bogus Complaint against McMasterdonia could be construed as Fraud, per se. If such and action was deliberate it would be in direct violation of the RA Membership Oath as it pertains to the clause relating to pledging obedience to her [TNP] laws".

In addition, knowingly and deliberately lodging false complaints by an RA member could be construed and Gross Misconduct

Click to expand...

You may have a point. Consider this post. The relevant line is:

Flemingovia:

I admit i did not expect my complaint to get far, and part of the reason for bringing it was to see how you would handle it as AG. Call it a test case, for my own curiosity.

Click to expand...

Filing a complaint for the purpose of evaluating the acumen/performance of the AG's office, and satisfying one's curiosity, approaches fraud imo.

Furthermore, there's this post. Clearly an attempt to denigrate the Attorney General. Particularly:

Flemingovia:

And idiot Attorney General is idiot

Click to expand...

I recommend the AG and his deputies consider remedial action in this matter. The AG's office isn't a playground (although opinions may differ on that).

Romanoffia:

Believe me, anyone here, government or not, could violate your rights

Click to expand...

How?

I'm going to split my thoughts into a number of posts. there are a number of overlapping topics here, and I want to keep them separate:

Can a non-government official break the Bill of Rights?

The answer, I think is a resounding "yes, but..." The BOR is there to protect us all from abuse by others, and whether they are a government official or not is irrelevent.

BUT a non-government official will generally speaking lack the means to break the rights of another person on the forum. So those most often capable of being put on trial for BOR violations will be in the government.

HOWEVER, i can think of occasions when others, not in the government, could break the BOR.

For example, we give mod abilities to a number of people who are not government officials. For example, area like OOC, Roleplay and cartography are often moderated by non-government officials. Let's suppose one of them used their mod powers in a personal vendetta, to delete posts. Trust me, the Admins would deal with it by removing the errant mod, but I could see a scenario where the injured party might go to court as well.

I'll deal with admins in the next post.

Admins and the Law

the relationship of admins to the law is complex, and I would like to take the time to unravel it as I see it.

Administration was, deliberately, kept out of our laws. Instead, we have a relationship of trust and respect that has worked pretty well for many years.

I think of admins rather like landlords. We have a responsibility to keep the forum functioning. If we do not do so, or abuse our power, the roleplay laws we have concocted cannot force admins, or remove admins, any more that a group of tenants can turn to a landlord and say "we have had a tenants meeting and decided that you will paint the hallway every two years instead of every four years."

Imperfect analogy, but I hope you get the point.

That does not mean that non-admins are powerless. Ultimately, you only stay so long as we behave. Twoslit, the root admin of Old Blue, discovered that to his cost, and his forum is a wasteland. It is in admins' interest not to piss people off too much.

HOWEVER, admins are generally also citizens, and in that respect subject to the laws of TNP. So although the courts cannot impose penalties like removal of admin powers, that does not mean they cannot put an admin on trial.

Let me do a worked example. Let's suppose that a few weeks ago I lost patience with Romanoffia and used the admin CP to edit his nation name to "Shitface" and deleted large numbers of his posts....

I would expect two things to happen. First I would expect the other admins to remove my admin masking ASAP for abuse of admin powers and to protect the forum.

BUT ALSO i would expect there would be a court case for violation of Roman's rights, and the court would impose whatever extra penalties they saw fit.

That is a little rambling, but I hope you get the shape of my thoughts.

flemingovia:

HOWEVER, i can think of occasions when others, not in the government, could break the BOR.

For example, we give mod abilities to a number of people who are not government officials. For example, area like OOC, Roleplay and cartography are often moderated by non-government officials. Let's suppose one of them used their mod powers in a personal vendetta, to delete posts. Trust me, the Admins would deal with it by removing the errant mod, but I could see a scenario where the injured party might go to court as well.

I'll deal with admins in the next post.

Click to expand...

I see your point. However, I don't think the individual would be able to bring such a matter to court. There aren't any civil trials any more and the BoR is to protect against abuses by government officials in their official duties. If a Government Official were to delete the posts of others using their mod powers, to prevent discussion on an action that they have carried out, I believe that would be a violation of the BoR as it is within their official duties & moderator duties. In such a case they would face a proceeding against them under the BoR and have their mod privileges removed.

I do not think that a non-government official moderator could face court proceedings on a BoR violation.

flemingovia:

Admins and the Law

the relationship of admins to the law is complex, and I would like to take the time to unravel it as I see it.

Administration was, deliberately, kept out of our laws. Instead, we have a relationship of trust and respect that has worked pretty well for many years.

I think of admins rather like landlords. We have a responsibility to keep the forum functioning. If we do not do so, or abuse our power, the roleplay laws we have concocted cannot force admins, or remove admins, any more that a group of tenants can turn to a landlord and say "we have had a tenants meeting and decided that you will paint the hallway every two years instead of every four years."

Imperfect analogy, but I hope you get the point.

That does not mean that non-admins are powerless. Ultimately, you only stay so long as we behave. Twoslit, the root admin of Old Blue, discovered that to his cost, and his forum is a wasteland. It is in admins' interest not to piss people off too much.

HOWEVER, admins are generally also citizens, and in that respect subject to the laws of TNP. So although the courts cannot impose penalties like removal of admin powers, that does not mean they cannot put an admin on trial.

Let me do a worked example. Let's suppose that a few weeks ago I lost patience with Romanoffia and used the admin CP to edit his nation name to "Shitface" and deleted large numbers of his posts....

I would expect two things to happen. First I would expect the other admins to remove my admin masking ASAP for abuse of admin powers and to protect the forum.

BUT ALSO i would expect there would be a court case for violation of Roman's rights, and the court would impose whatever extra penalties they saw fit.

That is a little rambling, but I hope you get the shape of my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Same as what I said above, I guess. I think the Admin would definitely be removed or the Assembly would vote to move the forum. I do not think that the person who had their posts deleted or whatever would have a case for court review unless the individual who was the administrator was acting as a government official. Like if I was Delegate & Administrator again.

falapatorius:

Roman:

Technically speaking, under a strict interpretation of the law, Flemingovia's joke/bogus Complaint against McMasterdonia could be construed as Fraud, per se. If such and action was deliberate it would be in direct violation of the RA Membership Oath as it pertains to the clause relating to pledging obedience to her [TNP] laws".

In addition, knowingly and deliberately lodging false complaints by an RA member could be construed and Gross Misconduct

Click to expand...

You may have a point. Consider this post. The relevant line is:

Flemingovia:

I admit i did not expect my complaint to get far, and part of the reason for bringing it was to see how you would handle it as AG. Call it a test case, for my own curiosity.

Click to expand...

Filing a complaint for the purpose of evaluating the acumen/performance of the AG's office, and satisfying one's curiosity, approaches fraud imo.

Click to expand...

My complaint was not "false". except in your opinion. the only people who could decide that would be the courts, on examination of all evidence. Since the AG has decided not to pursue the case the charges I laid remain untested by the court. As such, they are simply my opinion - free expression of which is a cherished TNP right.

And by the way, I never said that I brought the case to test the Attorney General. I said that it was PART of the reason I brought the case.

Humans motivations are seldom simple and monochrome. If you wish to put me on trial for fraud because I have complex motivations, then good luck - see you in court.

Furthermore, there's this post. Clearly an attempt to denigrate the Attorney General. Particularly:

Flemingovia:

And idiot Attorney General is idiot

Click to expand...

I recommend the AG and his deputies consider remedial action in this matter. The AG's office isn't a playground (although opinions may differ on that).

Click to expand...

To be fair, I called Paulwall an idiot after he called me a troll. As the Attorney General he has a duty to the dignity of his office, as a private official i do not. I do not think PaulWall is vindictive and sensitive enough to prosecute someone who calls him an "idiot". If he is, then he is going to have a hard ride in public office.

But, once again, should the AG office decide to pursue this, I will see them in court.

Mcm, I think you are wrong in your assessment. The BOR does not state "this only applies to government officials". As a right, it protects us from abuses by ANYONE.

The reality is, however, it is much easier for government officials, mods and admins to break someone's right to, say, free speech or free association.

But I would be very uncomfortable to limit the provisions of the BOR to the government.

Flem:

My complaint was not "false". except in your opinion.

Click to expand...

If you re-read the post, that was Roman's assertion, not mine. I called your complaint frivolous. You may have had other reasons to file the complaint, but the fact that it was PART (as stated by you) of your motivation, it is sufficient to warrant consideration of legal sanctions.

Flem:

If you wish to put me on trial for fraud because I have complex motivations, then good luck - see you in court.

Click to expand...

That's not up to me.

Flem:

To be fair, I called Paulwall an idiot after he called me a troll. As the Attorney General he has a duty to the dignity of his office, as a private official i do not.

Click to expand...

Being called a troll is everyday internet B.S. No one takes that seriously. Being called an idiot is different. It's hard to be dignified when called an idiot. In fact, it can do real damage to a person's self worth. You should know better (as an admin and all).

Flem:

Mcm, I think you are wrong in your assessment. The BOR does not state "this only applies to government officials". As a right, it protects us from abuses by ANYONE.

Click to expand...

Let's look at the BOR:

BOR:

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.

Click to expand...

McM (and others) have interpreted this correctly. Only the government is forbidden from infringing on these rights. If there was a line: all TNP nations have the inalienable rights to free speech, etc.. you would be correct. Such is not the case.

Flem:

The reality is, however, it is much easier for government officials, mods and admins to break someone's right to, say, free speech or free association.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but mods and admins are outside the protections of the BOR. Government officials are not.