[CRIMINAL] Complaint by The Nation of Oakster

[Oakster]

The King of Oakster, walks into the Attorney General's Office and with a heavy heart places a large file on the desk.

Criminal Complaint Form

Name of Complainant: The Nation of Oakster

Name(s) of Accused: Delegate Lord Ravenclaw, Yeraennus (Fomerly the Deputy Attorney General)

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): 21 July 2016 - 22 July 2016

Specific Offense(s): Criminal Code: Section 1.8 - Gross Misconduct

Relevant Excerpts from Legal Code or other Laws:

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.

Article 1. Bill of Rights

1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Article 7. General Provisions

8. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

Article 8. The Regional Forum

2. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration.

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.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

Chapter 3 Decorum

Section 2: General Conduct

2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.

Transcript of incident regarding Request for Review in The Court of The North Pacific

Transcript of incident regarding Request for Review in Attorney General's Office


Summary of Events (What happened, in your own words):

Incident 1

Whilst submitting a Request for Review to the Court of The North Pacific regarding the Governments apparent attempts to over-rule The North Pacific Constitution, Justice Secretary Eagle, who was representing the Nation of Oakster was spoken to on 3 occasions by the accused Nation and the then Deputy Attorney General - Yeraennus who stated that he was not allowed to speak in the manner that he had freely chosen to.

It was suggested by the accused that only the manner of speech that he used was allowed!

This INFRINGEMENT on FREE SPEECH is a direct contravention of The Bill of Rights Section 2 which guarantees the Nation's right to FREE SPEECH from any INFRINGEMENT.

He also breached Article 1 of the Constitution that states that a Nation is guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

It can therefore be implied that he has also breached Article 5 of the Constitution as he represented at the time of this offence the Attorney General's Office by holding the position of Deputy Attorney General. Article 5 protects a Nation from the abuse of Power by any official of a Government Authority of the Region.

He has also breached Article 9 of the Constitution which states that no action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.

He has also breached Article 11 of the Constitution which states that no governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code.

By virtue of these aforementioned breaches of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of The North Pacific Deputy Attorney General Yeraennus wilfully or negligently broke his Oath of Office which states that the Officer taking the Oath will not abuse their power and will also act within their powers.

Four breaches of the Constitution, one of the Bill of Rights and breaching his own Oath of Office, whether it was wilfull or negligent, must be seen as Gross Misconduct as defined by the Criminal Code of The North Pacific.

Incident 2

Whilst submitting a Request for Review to the Attorney General's Office regarding the Governments apparent attempts to over-rule The North Pacific Constitution, Delegate Lord Ravenclaw stated

Admin note: this isn't a roleplay forum.

In a seperate request seeking clarification of the movement of The Oakster Chronicles, a thread detailing the events and actions of the Nation of Oakster Delegate Lord Ravenclaw stated

First and foremost: please don't attempt to write these type of posts in character. We are a non-political, non-roleplay aspect of the North Pacific and we handle the out of character areas - like moderation, administration and so on.

This INFRINGEMENT on FREE SPEECH is a direct contravention of The Bill of Rights Section 2 which guarantees the Nation's right to FREE SPEECH from any INFRNGEMENT.

By virtue of this aforementioned breach of the Bill of Rights, Delegate Lord Ravenclaw has also breached Article 1 of the Constitution that states that a Nation is guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

It can be shown that he has also breached Article 5 of the Constitution as he is the Regional Delegate. Article 5 protects a Nation from the abuse of Power by any official of a Government Authority of the Region. By breaching the Bill of Rights and Article 1 of the Constitution, and as a Government Official, he has therefore abused his power.

He has also breached Article 9 of the Constitution which states that no action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.

He has also breached Article 11 of the Constitution which states that no governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code.

By virtue of these aforementioned breaches of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of The North Pacific Delegate Lord Ravenclaw wilfully or negligently broke his Oath of Office which states that the Officer taking the Oath will not abuse their power and will also act within their powers.

Four breaches of the Constitution, one of the Bill of Rights and breaching his own Oath of Office, whether it was wilfull or negligent, must be seen as Gross Misconduct as defined by the Criminal Code of The North Pacific.

Evidentiary Submissions (Evidentiary Submissions may be submitted to the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division via PM):

This submission rests on the definition of FREE SPEECH and INFRINGEMENT and what is [IC] and [OOC] and [RP] and where the entire collection of Rules and Laws of The North Pacific have jurisdiction which I shall present as evidence.

Free Speech as determined by Amnesty International: 'Free speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'
Free Speech as determined by Wikipedia: 'Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.'
Free Speech as determined by dictionary standards: 'Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.'

The Nation of Oakster has been threatened with government retaliation and censorship due to exercising our right to impart and seek information by any means. The government censorship and retaliation threatened by Deputy Attorney General Yeraennus came in the the form of comments made in the Courts when he said

...I have no issue with him presenting this case, I have a problem with the mixing of IC and OOC affairs.

When the Deputy Attorney General publicly states that he has a problem with upholding the rights of the Constitution I find that very threatening.

He goes on to state

I'm sure our RP moderator (St George/madjack) would be more than willing to tell you the same thing.

This is an elevation of that threat, as it now implies a collusion of censorship by a further official of the government, and is therefore further evidence of the Nation of Oakster's right to Free Speech being infringed.

Infringe as determined by dictionary standards:

1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach, commit a breach of, disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of, ride roughshod over, kick against.
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. "such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties"
synonyms: undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise; More

The definition of 'infringe' clearly shows that in terms of the Constitution of The North Pacific and Free Speech, any attempt to encroach or have an impact on a Nations right to Free Speech is against the law. The definition shows that the infringement doesn't have to be full or entire, the use of the word encroach strengthens the general meaning of infringement in that there only has to be some curtailing of that Free Speech to breach the Constitution. Both of the accused's comments have therefore infringed on the Nation of Oakster's free speech. This therefore shows that they have breached the aforementioned rules and laws of The North Pacific.

The Definition of [IC], [OOC] and [RP] and where the Entire Rules and Laws of The North Pacific have jurisdiction.

There is a world standard for these three states which I am sure do not need explaining here, in fact they are fully supported by the very 'forum' that makes up the entire Region of The North Pacific to such an extent that it is unequivocal. Firstly lets make it clear that we have to be in one of these 3 states at anytime. You can't be outside of them as there is no state outside of them. Two of them, [IC] and [OOC] are mutually exclusive. You can't be in both at the same time. You could be in [IC] and in an [RP] but it is a world standard that [IC] simply explains a state of being where as [RP] implies a continuing course of events in a narrative. Simple and unequivocal.

The 'forum' is split into several areas. One of these areas is called [Role Play]. This makes it clear beyond doubt that this is the area to wax lyrical in fine majestic prose about your Nation and it's exploits in [RP]. There is another area called [OOC]. This makes it clear beyond doubt that this is the area for those people with split personalities to talk as if this NationStates world isn't real and to come up with all sorts of strange concepts, including that this is all just a game on a computer somewhere! I shudder to think. The rest of the forum by simple deduction must all be [IC]. Simple and unequivocal.

As to where the Entire Rules and Laws of The North Pacific have jurisdiction the obvious answer is of course everywhere. The 'forum' is The North Pacific. Therefore there is no where they do not cover and this is proven by the Constitution itself - Article 8 clearly pulls the entire forum under it's remit. So when my Prime Minister, and therefore the Nation of Oakster has it's free speech infringed yet again by Delegate Lord Ravenclaw for using a telegram to request clarification on why the Chronicles of Oakster were moved, it is an irrelevance that it is deemed to be an administrative area in the eyes of Delegate Lord Ravenclaw, it is still covered by the Constitution. This is a further clear breach of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as pointed out above.

Comments:

The Nation of Oakster is clearly having its unequivocal right to free speech infringed, not just once but multiple times. Not by one person, but by multiple people and not just people, government officials. And why? Because we are different. Because we choose to talk in italics and quotation marks. We have never been rude. We have never talked out of turn. We have never over-egged the point with masses of literary fluff. We have been factual, succinct and courteous, even in the face of abrupt, severe and continual repression.

Our words and manner have never broken a single law or rule in The North Pacific as there are no laws or rules that forbids [IC] posts anywhere.

Due to this behaviour we have felt threatened. Not only by the direct and indirect threats of moderation of how we speak but by the insinuation that other Government Officials will be also look to restrict our free speech and how our National Chronicles have been moved from one area to another without any reason as to why.

During all of this, Justice Secretary Eagle acted and spoke completely to the standards set by the Court Rules, Chapter 3, Section 2. he conducted himself in an appropriate, legal and civil manner at all times. Therefore he should not have been threatened with 'moderation' by Deputy Attorney General Yeraennus and I would suggest that this comment by the accused actually put him in jeopardy of this section himself as it was considered uncivil and inappropriate by Mr Eagle.

Is this how all new Nations that haven't joined the clique are treated in The North Pacific? Or is it just those that don't conform, even if that non-conformity doesn't break any laws?

There should be nowhere that a Nation can't express itself how it wishes as long as the message it is passing is understood by all, and as long as no other Nation's rights are infringed. If Oakster chooses to talk in italics and quotation marks and, for example General Attorney SillyString or any other Nation, chooses not to, why should it be deemed wrong? They are under no obligation to respond in kind, their nation communicates how it wishes, and mine likewise.

Sitting here as I right this complaint I am aware that there is a growing support for my Nation and our manner of speech. Maybe it is time the Government listened to it's people and allow Nations to be individual?

*ALL COMPLAINTS MAY BE PUBLICLY POSTED IN THE COMPLAINT DOCKET FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. IF YOU WISH TO FILE A CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINT THEY ALSO MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA PRIVATE MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER THE CRIMINAL DIVISION.*

 

[Flemingovia]

It is spelled "write" not "right". Or is that a form of self-expression?

 

[SillyString]

Thank you for your submission, Oakster.

To give my decision upfront: As Attorney General, I decline to prosecute either complaint. Per Section 7.2 of the Legal Code, you may pursue this case independently if you wish to do so:

15. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
16. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
17. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.

My reason for declining to prosecute is that I do not see that a crime has been committed based on the evidence presented.

In the matter of Yeraennus' comments to the petitioner in the Court thread, Yeraennus made three statements which can be construed to apply to Oakster's use of IC speech:

By the way, TNP Government affairs are not RP. They're separate, which is probably for the best.

RP has its place, and its place is the RP forum. I have no issue with him presenting this case, I have a problem with the mixing of IC and OOC affairs.

the Court, as part of the Government of TNP, is an Out of Character (OOC) construct, completely separate and exclusive with what is considered canon in the In Character (IC) universe. I'm sure our RP moderator (St George/madjack) would be more than willing to tell you the same thing. I am more than happy to engage with you (or anyone, for that matter) in terms of RP, but only so long as it is in the proper channels. IC and OOC should never mix.

The Court has indirectly held in previous requests for review that a person serving as a government official can take actions both within their capacity as that official or as a private citizen (or, potentially, as a separate position, or a moderator/administrator, or an ambassador, and so on). As such, in order to pursue a complaint against a government official for abuse of that status, it must first be established that they are indeed acting in that capacity; it does not appear to me that Yeraennus is doing so in his posts. Nor does it appear to me that he is issuing any kind of threat to the petitioner.

As to the question of Lord Ravenclaw, the petitioner's case is premised on Raven abusing the power of the delegacy - but, as with Yeraennus, he cannot be demonstrated to have been acting in his capacity thereof. On the contrary, Raven explicitly states he is speaking in his capacity as an administrator within the Attorney General's Office thread, while the second thread is within the moderation forum itself and the post is again made as an administrator.

Additionally, as with Yeraennus, I do not see any indication that Raven has threatened the petitioner for the RPed posts. Expression of a preference is not, in and of itself, the same as a threat - and free speech is not consequence-free speech. I could post in Arabic instead of English, and the consequences of that would be that nobody would understand me and I would not get anything I wanted.[note]Strictly speaking, I might get warned for that, as our administration team has adopted what one might call an excessively harsh interpretation of that portion of the Terms of Use. No matter.[/note] Similarly, I could be rude when asking for a favor, and it would be entirely my fault if my request was denied.

I do want to point out something else:

The definition of 'infringe' clearly shows that in terms of the Constitution of The North Pacific and Free Speech, any attempt to encroach or have an impact on a Nations right to Free Speech is against the law.

This is patently untrue. The Bill of Rights is exceedingly broad, yes - but both TNP legal precedent and Real Life (tm) legal considerations have nevertheless exerted certain restrictions on that right. It is prohibited to use hate speech, or to commit or incite others to commit RL crimes, or to post porn, or to flame others, and so on. A reasonable limit on free speech is essential to a genuinely free society, and that is something that has (nearly always) been understood and upheld here.

As a word of advice on navigating things during your future in NS, the interplay between IC and OOC is... not as you have surmised. There is RP-IC and RP-OOC and GP-IC and GP-OOC, and the common ways we refer to them are not always intuitive. The RP area you noticed is for RP-IC and RP-OOC, while the OOC area is only for GP-OOC. Everywhere else on this forum, and on the vast majority of forums for non RP-regions, is for GP-IC. GP-IC is often referred to as OOC for various historical socio-political reasons. To provide a brief summary:

• RP-IC is for actually speaking as an invented character, be it a figure in your NS nation or a DnD wizard or whatnot. It is the storytelling of roleplay.
• RP-OOC is for the out-of-game discussion of roleplay issues, including "they cheated!" and "hey let's plan where this story goes next; what if my character tries to assassinate yours?" and "this is my character sheet with background and stats".
• GP-OOC is when individual RL people chat about their actual lives - their jobs, what they study in school, what books/movies/music they enjoy, what they think of significant RL events, what they did last weekend.
• GP-IC is somewhat difficult for a lot of people to define, because it is an unexamined mixture of GP-OOC (who you are as a person) and RP-IC (the stories you create with other people). But, broadly speaking, it is what happens when someone's posts are their-true-selves-as-a-fictional-role. For example, I am not an attorney general (or any kind of attorney) in real life. I do not have any formal legal training and I often have no deeper legal justification for something than "but it just seems wrong!!". The idea behind TNP's AG was entirely invented by NS players, and the fiction only continues to exist because we keep believing it does. If everyone woke up tomorrow and began pretending the AG did not exist, it would not. And yet, when I post as AG (or as any role in TNP), I do so according to my own thoughts and beliefs and ideals - what I, the player, think is right, not what a hypothetical character in my exceedingly wacky nation might think.

I believe that is everything. If there is any point which is unclear, feel free to ask for an elaboration.

 

[Oakster]

The King of Oakster stands up from the desk and claps slowly with a blank look across his face.

"Congratulations Attorney General on the biggest cop out I have ever seen in a Court of Law."

He slow claps again.

"In this attempt to sound like a man who knows what he is doing, you have shown the entire Region that the Courts of The North Pacific have no interest in upholding the Laws of the Land or of protecting the Nations that reside here, that there is no interest in building on the legal framework or clearing up ambiguities. Instead you have attempted to stonewall this complaint and have climbed into bed with the hierarchy of this Region, given them carte blanche to do as they wish, and say as they wish, and even hide behind the ridiculous defence of "Well, when I said that, I wasn't an Officer, I was a citizen!"

"You refer to the previous decision upheld by the Courts as being entirely appropriate! In a world where people don't wear uniforms or a hat that says what position they are speaking in, it is absurd that they can speak with impunity. Who was the Chief Justice at the time of this ruling may I ask and what ruling was it? Was it you by any chance Mr Attorney General? And precedents require several cases to hone them and to make them fit for purpose. A previous case does not mean a precedence has been set."

"As the Attorney General, why have you decided what the accused meant and under what role they were speaking? Is it in your remit to provide a defence for them? Are you in cahoots with them Mr Attorney General because I have never heard of any prosecuting Agent providing a defence for the accused ever!"

"You go on to say that you don't perceive there to have even been a threat! Since when has a prosecuting agent been given the remit to decide how a defendant feels? This is for the court to decide based on the evidence provided by the defendant and the accused and takes into account many decisions."

"It is clear from this whole response, as well as your use of nicknames, that 'Raven' as you so fondly refer to him, has been given the 'get out of trouble' card by virtue of him being an Administrator. The role of the delegate will almost certainly mean that they will be an administrator too but that should not excuse the accused from breaching the Constitution. It certainly shouldn't mean that the accused is given a defence by the Attorney General!"

"Your entire wordy narrative is nothing more than a handshake to get them off. It is littered with your own personal opinions and prejudgments, you refer to the accused on clearly friendly terms and you have failed to provide a legal reason as to why they should be exempt from questioning by the Courts. You refer to your inexperience in the legal world and I appreciate that. This was a big compliant, one which provided the opportunity to strengthen and clear up the Regional Laws. It's just a shame that you are unable to stand up to that challenge, choosing the path of less resistance and more bedfellows instead."

The King takes a sip of water as he shakes his head in complete shock at the events unfolding in the office.

"Moving on, your attempt to explain away the meaning of infringement is nothing short of laughable. To suggest that infringement doesn't mean an encroachment is so completely legally wrong I am flabbergasted that you have managed to attain the position of Attorney General. You have tried to evidence this by using topics that are not free speech and in no way supports your claim. If your understanding of infringement was correct then there would be no way that a company could defend it's copyright, or a screen writer protect his work, or a Nation protect its right to Free Speech"

"My final point regarding your view of the NS world ,the role play world in general and IC, OOC and your attempts to create new subsets of role play category is pitiful. Don't try and create a system to try and prove your erroneous judgment Mr Attorney General. You may be able to bamboozle and appear knowledgeable to many but I have been around a while. Take away the fluff of your judgement and you are left with the states I mentioned. You are either IC or OOC. The board makes this clear."

Looking around at the people that are watching, the King mumbles something about being disappointed, and how it shouldn't have had to come to this. He then sighs a big sigh, the sigh of a man that feels like it is the end and then slowly takes his hat off, then his wig, and then peels a mask from off his face...

*GASP*

[OOC]

I bought this complaint to the Attorney General to try and stimulate your forum from becoming like all of the others - a bland and stalling world of apathy and disenfranchisement. People get so set in their ways that they struggle to see the bigger picture of why they came here, the excitement they felt when they got their first issue, when they became a citizen of a region and when they took part in their first raid or got promoted or voted into a position.

Most people fade in and fade out. Nations die. Some people try the WA thing, get put off and then fade out. Nations die. Some people try the Region thing and even manage to make a good go of it, get promotions, make real changes, get a position, maybe even write an issue or two but unfortunately it is a subset of these few that cause the rot to set. They get power hungry, they refuse to allow new people in.

I have been around the NationStates world since almost from its inception, in the first few months of it coming to be in fact. I have done and been everything and every position there is possible over the years. And yet when I turned up to your region and did nothing more than type with quotation marks and in italics you would have thought I had turned the world upside down.

This game is all about RP in some form or another. Some like it some ways, some like it others, some don't like it all, some love it. But when a new nation turns up and is just a little bit different, don't push them away, don't force them out. I never made a fuss when people didn't RP back because there was no need to, I worked around it and everything flowed. There were no issues but people had to keep telling me I couldn't do it. Look how people jumped up though when you tried to stop me typing that way. Surely that shows that it can work?

The fact that this complaint was closed down so quickly proves all of this (and RP aside SillyString - your legal argument is terrible! ). It wasn't turned into a good thing, no one contacted me via TG and ask to talk OOC, work out where to take it, where to lead it, as other people did in support of my Nation. It just got shut down.

The thing is I was contacted not long after my first post by a user on here, high up in the government, who basically said that I would be shut down because people wont accept change here, How rubbish is that? That some people see a new nation that is a bit different, and they get warned that people won't accept it and to be careful!

Come on guys. Let people be individual, look at opportunities to make things work and get a bit interesting. So the delegate gets taken to court, so what? Like SillyString said, it is only a GP-IC-OOC-YMCA-K9 post! No one will actually go to prison! I am sure it could have been worked out in the end.

This forum has loads of good topics and law discussion and groups and roles but all in past posts. Outside of the OOC thread where there are 20 people at a time all trying to be the next person to post or vote on how ugly the previous poster is, it is almost dead. This is a feeder region. All the new Nations start here, get them interested! Let them in. It looks like you do, which is why I came here, but I typed four extra characters - [ i ] " - and that was it!

If you all want me to leave because of my disruption and use of italics, then I'll go, it makes no odds to me, this whole OOC post has ruined the perception and characters anyway

But just think about what I've said and don't be so quick to shut everyone down and dampen what could be a good thing

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

*ahem*

In this attempt to sound like a man who knows what he is doing, you have shown the entire Region that the Courts of The North Pacific have no interest in upholding the Laws of the Land or of protecting the Nations that reside here, that there is no interest in building on the legal framework or clearing up ambiguities. Instead you have attempted to stonewall this complaint and have climbed into bed with the hierarchy of this Region, given them carte blanche to do as they wish, and say as they wish, and even hide behind the ridiculous defence of "Well, when I said that, I wasn't an Officer, I was a citizen!

If I may, I will begin by saying that I to some extent happy and to some extent wearied by the return of the age old accusations of conspiracy and oligarchy. Happy because they often amuse me and because I had worried in recent months that they had went out of fashion, wearied because the amusement swiftly fades and is replaced by frustration. (also, though you probably weren't to know, SillyString uses pronouns such as "she" rather than "he", for future conversation)

You refer to the previous decision upheld by the Courts as being entirely appropriate! In a world where people don't wear uniforms or a hat that says what position they are speaking in, it is absurd that they can speak with impunity. Who was the Chief Justice at the time of this ruling may I ask and what ruling was it? Was it you by any chance Mr Attorney General? And precedents require several cases to hone them and to make them fit for purpose. A previous case does not mean a precedence has been set.

For the record, yes, SillyString was, presuming I am correct as to which rulings she means to refer, at the time a member of the Court and was (as I recall) the Chief Justice (though being Chief Justice does not grant one many extra powers or privileges in TNP's Court). The rulings, again presuming I am correct, were: Re: the Ownership Scope of the Executive Branch and Re: the meaning of "private citizen" with respect to the Freedom of Information Act (in case you're interested, the private judicial discussions of the rulings have since been declassified and are here and here, respectively, public briefs and discussion can be found in the threads which the rulings are contained in).

The rulings make it clear that the simple fact of someone is a government official does not render all of their posts "government posts" (for lack of a better term). It does this in Re: the Ownership Scope of the Executive Branch with the obiter statement (that is, a statement that is not strictly part of the reasoning for the Court's ruling) "As an additional finding, on the matter of ownership, the Court holds that the author of a post owns its content, and posts made while acting in one's capacity as a government official are owned, more broadly, by the respective branch of government within which that capacity falls.", which, by saying that there are times when one acts in one's capacity as a government official, clearly contemplates that there are times when, despite being a government official, one does not act in one's capacity as a government official.

This statement is further clarified in Re: the meaning of "private citizen" with respect to the Freedom of Information Act through this statement "So long as the author is speaking in their capacity as an executive official, the law applies." which is explained by a particular example, relevant to that review, thus "all posts made within areas of the forum which normally grant posting privileges only to members of the executive - excluding administrators and moderators from consideration - are inherently made in the author's capacity as an executive official. Such posts cannot be considered non-governmental. Posts which are made in areas of the forum more accessible to the public may be ruled non-governmental if such a determination is merited by their content and context.", making it clear that it is not as simple as to say that because an author is a government official all of their posts "are government posts", and that, instead, it is a matter of assessing whether a particular post is made in a context which one would consider governmental (such as in the Cabinet's private fora) or has content which one would consider governmental (such as a post by myself in the Regional Assembly saying that a vote on a Bill is scheduled to begin in a certain number of days).

Now, applying this to the first situation you have brought forward, that of Yeraennus, here I will admit that I think it arguable as to whether or not he was speaking in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General (leaving aside arguments that some may make as to whether or not he had lost that office on the previous Attorney General having been removed). He was speaking in the Court, which is a context in which one may reasonably think that the Deputy Attorney General is speaking as Deputy Attorney General. The content of his posts, I would say, is more questionable, as they are not posts which one would expect a person to make in the course of their duties in their role as Deputy Attorney General (in that they are not presenting an argument in relation to the request for review nor directing the prosecution of a case), nor are they purporting to exercise any particular right or power of the Deputy Attorney General, however, they do relate to something (namely the operation of the courts) in which one may expect the Deputy Attorney General to have an interest and to which to offer advice. It is plausible, therefore, to say that it was speech in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General.

With relation to Lord Ravenclaw, however, I must disagree with your assertion. Lord Ravenclaw, in the request for review thread in the Attorney General's Office posted stating "Admin note: this isn't a roleplay forum.". I will address this post first, then move on to the thread in the forum operations sub-forum. This post is made in the Attorney General's Office, that Office is not a place where the Delegate has any duties except where they are the Acting Attorney General, which was not the case here, so the context, I would suggest, does not lead to the understanding of it as a "government post". It is prefaced with the words "Admin note" which, though not conclusive, is indicative of whether Lord Ravenclaw was purporting to be acting in his capacity as Delegate or in some other capacity, further the rest of the post, stating that the Attorney General's Office is not a roleplay forum, is not within the purview of the Delegate's responsibilities (the Attorney General is the person responsible for their own Office, in the same way that I, not the Delegate, am responsible for the Regional Assembly's sub-fora) but is within the purview of Lord Ravenclaw's other role as Administrator (which is not a government office). The context and content of the post being outside of the purview of the Delegate but within the purview of Lord Ravenclaw's other role leads readily to the conclusion that the post was not a "government post" but, in fact, was an administrative post and, thus, not abuse of his office.

The thread in the forum operations sub-forum is even more clear cut, I would say. It's context is clearly administrative, as the whole of that sub-forum is for administrative tasks. Further, the content of the post is clearly administrative, saying "We are a non-political, non-roleplay aspect of the North Pacific and we handle the out of character areas - like moderation, administration and so on.", which clearly indicates it is not intended to be read as a post in his capacity as Delegate and, additionally, the thread relates to matters which are largely administrative and not ordinarily undertaken by the Delegate (but, instead, in this case, by the RP Moderators).

As the Attorney General, why have you decided what the accused meant and under what role they were speaking? Is it in your remit to provide a defence for them? Are you in cahoots with them Mr Attorney General because I have never heard of any prosecuting Agent providing a defence for the accused ever!

Now, I am not SillyString and so, obviously, I will leave to her to explain why she has decided so. However, I think that I have made it reasonably clear as to why one may conclude that Yeraennus was not and I think that I have made it clear as to why one almost must conclude that Lord Ravenclaw was not. I will say, however, that it is certainly the role of the Attorney General to consider the prospects for a prosecution and whether, in light of those prospects, a prosecution should be brought. Considering those prospects must involve considering what defences may be raised and how strong a chance of success those defences have. Here, it is evident that SillyString has concluded that the prospect of the defence raising the matter of whether a post was a "government post" is likely and that the evidence available to the prosecution could not overcome the contention that the posts were not "government posts".

You go on to say that you don't perceive there to have even been a threat! Since when has a prosecuting agent been given the remit to decide how a defendant feels? This is for the court to decide based on the evidence provided by the defendant and the accused and takes into account many decisions.

Let us examine the matter of threats, I must say that I detect none in the posts of either Yeraennus or Lord Ravenclaw. Yeraennus' statement that "By the way, TNP Government affairs are not RP. They're separate, which is probably for the best." contains no menace, merely a friendly attempt to convey information, as far as I can tell. He then states "I agree that it's commendable that new nations take an interest in the Judicial system and the general government of the region, but RP has its place, and its place is the RP forum. I have no issue with him presenting this case, I have a problem with the mixing of IC and OOC affairs.", here, again, the closest one gets to a threat is the suggestion that Yeraennus has a problem with RP posts in areas that are, conventionally, not consider RP; there is no threat of any action or use of the Deputy Attorney General's powers to rectify that perceived problem (and rightly so), nor do I think one can imply any such threat into his statement. Simply put, I may say that I have a problem with the imputation of sinister motives to ordinary and perfectly reasonable decisions, that does not mean that I have threatened to use the powers of the Speaker's Office against those who make such imputations.

Then there is Yeraennus' final statement in this matter "Remind me how exactly I'm impinging your freedom of speech? I am, as I've stated before, completely fine with you presenting this case. I simply informed you, and many others would have done the same I assure you, that the Court, as part of the Government of TNP, is an Out of Character (OOC) construct, completely separate and exclusive with what is considered canon in the In Character (IC) universe. I'm sure our RP moderator (St George/madjack) would be more than willing to tell you the same thing. I am more than happy to engage with you (or anyone, for that matter) in terms of RP, but only so long as it is in the proper channels. IC and OOC should never mix.". This statement begins with an attempt at reassurance, indicating no wish to interfere in the argumentation of the request for review, not something which I would suggest is threatening. It then continues with a statement which is, essentially, an elaboration on his previous statement that there are parts of this forum which are, conventionally, RP and parts which are not and that they are, conventionally, considered to be separate. He then says that he is sure that the lead RP moderator would say the same; this could possibly be an oblique threat of action by moderation, however, as the RP moderators have no ability to moderate the Court's sub-fora, this seems unlikely and, I think, can be more readily explained as Yeraennus referring to someone who he believes to be experienced in the conventions of RP in TNP, who he believes would agree with him, in order to make his point more clearly and demonstrate that it is not simply his own view but, rather, is a view widely held across TNP, including by those experience and involved in RP. He then states that he would happily engage with you in RP, so long as it is through what he considers to be the proper, conventional place for RP; this, arguably, is a threat, in that it could be said to indicate that he would not act or cooperate with you were you to require the involvement of the Attorney General's Office unless you were to not RP during such involvement, however, this, I think, is a stretch of the wording used and is one which would not be reached by a Court which is bound to presume innocence, unless there were clear corroborating evidence of that being Yeraennus' intention.

Now, moving to Lord Ravenclaw's statements: "Admin note: this isn't a roleplay forum." is no threat, either overt or oblique, to use the powers of the Delegacy, indeed, there is also no threat to use the powers of an Administrator unless one presumes that all speech made by Administrators as Administrators contain implicit threats to use the powers of an Administrator (which, even if the case, would not be sufficient to prove gross misconduct, as Administrators are not government officials and are not bound, in their actions as Administrators, by oaths they take as government officials); "First and foremost: please don't attempt to write these type of posts in character. We are a non-political, non-roleplay aspect of the North Pacific and we handle the out of character areas - like moderation, administration and so on.Secondly: I would suggest asking the Lead RP Moderator, StGeorge directly, or one of his team. They have a wide range of discretion over the Roleplaying Sections." also contains no threats to use the powers of the Delegacy nor those of Administrators, and simply speaking as an Administrator cannot be said to inherently be threatening without legitimatising all attempts at reasonable moderation of this forum.

Moving on again, this time to the statement that it is for the Court to determine the defendants' intentions. This is certainly true, however, it oversimplifies the role of the prosecutor. In TNP (and in RL jurisdictions such as that which I am from), prosecutors enjoy a certain discretion, which is codified in law ("If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint." (Codified Law of The North Pacific, section 2.7, clause 15), clearly allowing for the Attorney General to determine not to prosecute a case), this is exercised, as in this case, where to prosecutor does not think that there is a reasonable prospect for the prosecution to succeed and such a determination necessarily includes an estimation of what the prosecutor thinks the defendants' intentions were and what they think that the Court will determine those intentions to be.

It is clear from this whole response, as well as your use of nicknames, that 'Raven' as you so fondly refer to him, has been given the 'get out of trouble' card by virtue of him being an Administrator. The role of the delegate will almost certainly mean that they will be an administrator too but that should not excuse the accused from breaching the Constitution. It certainly shouldn't mean that the accused is given a defence by the Attorney General!

If I may, that is simply not the case. It is true that Administrative actions are not within the purview of TNP's criminal law (and that is true across many regions) but that is not the same as saying that Administrators are above the law when they act simply as citizens or as government officials; the issue here is that Lord Ravenclaw is clearly acting as an Administrator.

The suggestion of corruption on the basis of the use of nicknames is one which I find extraordinary, such nicknames are common in TNP. Do you suppose that I am usually referred to as Zyvetskistaahn, because if you do then you are incorrect, I go by many other names (Z, Zyv, Zyvet, Zyvetlongname (and when in office, sometimes, Mr Speaker)) but the simple use of those nicknames, or even of my name but not my title, does not mean familiarity, it is simply a reflection of how people in TNP speak and refer to each other (further examples can be found with the Administrators McMasterdonia, who is commonly referred to as McM or McMaster; or Flemingovia, who is commonly referred to as Flem; or my Deputy, Quak1234, who is commonly referred to as Quak; or the present Chief Justice, Eluvatar, who is commonly referred to as Elu (perhaps this is too many examples)).

Now on to a misunderstanding of the operation of the Administration on this forum, it is simply not the case that Delegates are, as a matter of course, Administrators on this forum. Prior to Lord Ravenclaw, SillyString was herself Delegate, yet she was not an Administrator, the former Attorney General, Tomb, was Delegate for a time, yet he was not an Administrator, should the next Delegate not be an Administrator when elected then the likelihood is that they will not simply be appointed an Administrator due to being elected.

Then we return to the misunderstanding of the role of a prosecutor, so I will say it simply: a prosecutor must consider defences to know the prospect of a prosecution so that they can decide whether to prosecute.

Your entire wordy narrative is nothing more than a handshake to get them off. It is littered with your own personal opinions and prejudgments, you refer to the accused on clearly friendly terms and you have failed to provide a legal reason as to why they should be exempt from questioning by the Courts. You refer to your inexperience in the legal world and I appreciate that. This was a big compliant, one which provided the opportunity to strengthen and clear up the Regional Laws. It's just a shame that you are unable to stand up to that challenge, choosing the path of less resistance and more bedfellows instead.

Let me begin by saying that, of course, there are opinions in SillyString's post, for there are opinions in almost everyone's posts in TNP because we are not expected (and should not expect) to be completely objective nor should we obfuscate how we speak (for instance by removing how we normally refer to people) merely to create a false sense of objectivity. I disagree with your contention that there is no legal reason in SillyString's post, I think that she has set out plainly the case that the posts were not "government posts" and that, thus, a prosecution would be likely to fail.

I do not see that this would have cleared up to the laws much, except, perhaps, making it clearer that government officials can speak outside of their capacity as such (though I think that the Court has answered that question fairly well in the past). Nor do I see SillyString's decision as being the corruption that you make it out to be. In respect of Lord Ravenclaw there is no case to answer as far as I can tell and, while in relation to Yeraennus there might be, it is a case where reasonable opinion may differ and where the Attorney General is entitled to refuse to prosecute on the basis that it would be unlikely to succeed.

Moving on, your attempt to explain away the meaning of infringement is nothing short of laughable. To suggest that infringement doesn't mean an encroachment is so completely legally wrong I am flabbergasted that you have managed to attain the position of Attorney General. You have tried to evidence this by using topics that are not free speech and in no way supports your claim. If your understanding of infringement was correct then there would be no way that a company could defend it's copyright, or a screen writer protect his work, or a Nation protect its right to Free Speech

I must disagree with your notion that any restriction of speech is inherently contrary to the law. Not only are there restrictions for administrative reasons which are beyond question, such as the posting of pornography or inciting of RL offences, as SillyString noted, there are also clear restrictions permitted TNP which have no justification in terms of RL law. Several examples can be found in relation to my own office alone from restricting what one may post in voting threads (prohibiting text other than ""aye" "nay" or "abstain" in black, normal sized text without embellishments") in Re: the Speaker's Power to Restrict the Format of Votes up to unilaterally tabling debate on Bills which are, in my consideration, not reasonably in the best interests of the region in Re: the Speaker's Powers and Re: Voting Procedure.

It cannot be said that any restriction of speech must be unlawful, these few examples demonstrate to the contrary, and, further, it must be said again that it is only criminal for government action to restrict speech and, as was set out by SillyString it is not the case that all actions by government officials is, inherently, government action.

My final point regarding your view of the NS world ,the role play world in general and IC, OOC and your attempts to create new subsets of role play category is pitiful. Don't try and create a system to try and prove your erroneous judgment Mr Attorney General. You may be able to bamboozle and appear knowledgeable to many but I have been around a while. Take away the fluff of your judgement and you are left with the states I mentioned. You are either IC or OOC. The board makes this clear.

I must say, I agree with the sets drawn by SillyString here and I would estimate that many in TNP do (simply going by the prevalence of speaking formats similar to mine and dissimilar to yours in the areas you hold as being IC). There is a clear distinction, to me, between Gameplay-IC and Roleplay-IC. That is why I am here as Zyvetskistaahn, not as Executor-General Kirr Rendah, nor as any other character that forms part of the government of Zyvetskistaahn.

I bought this complaint to the Attorney General to try and stimulate your forum from becoming like all of the others - a bland and stalling world of apathy and disenfranchisement. People get so set in their ways that they struggle to see the bigger picture of why they came here, the excitement they felt when they got their first issue, when they became a citizen of a region and when they took part in their first raid or got promoted or voted into a position.

Most people fade in and fade out. Nations die. Some people try the WA thing, get put off and then fade out. Nations die. Some people try the Region thing and even manage to make a good go of it, get promotions, make real changes, get a position, maybe even write an issue or two but unfortunately it is a subset of these few that cause the rot to set. They get power hungry, they refuse to allow new people in.

I have been around the NationStates world since almost from its inception, in the first few months of it coming to be in fact. I have done and been everything and every position there is possible over the years. And yet when I turned up to your region and did nothing more than type with quotation marks and in italics you would have thought I had turned the world upside down.

This game is all about RP in some form or another. Some like it some ways, some like it others, some don't like it all, some love it. But when a new nation turns up and is just a little bit different, don't push them away, don't force them out. I never made a fuss when people didn't RP back because there was no need to, I worked around it and everything flowed. There were no issues but people had to keep telling me I couldn't do it. Look how people jumped up though when you tried to stop me typing that way. Surely that shows that it can work?

The fact that this complaint was closed down so quickly proves all of this (and RP aside SillyString - your legal argument is terrible! ). It wasn't turned into a good thing, no one contacted me via TG and ask to talk OOC, work out where to take it, where to lead it, as other people did in support of my Nation. It just got shut down.

The thing is I was contacted not long after my first post by a user on here, high up in the government, who basically said that I would be shut down because people wont accept change here, How rubbish is that? That some people see a new nation that is a bit different, and they get warned that people won't accept it and to be careful!

Come on guys. Let people be individual, look at opportunities to make things work and get a bit interesting. So the delegate gets taken to court, so what? Like SillyString said, it is only a GP-IC-OOC-YMCA-K9 post! No one will actually go to prison! I am sure it could have been worked out in the end.

This forum has loads of good topics and law discussion and groups and roles but all in past posts. Outside of the OOC thread where there are 20 people at a time all trying to be the next person to post or vote on how ugly the previous poster is, it is almost dead. This is a feeder region. All the new Nations start here, get them interested! Let them in. It looks like you do, which is why I came here, but I typed four extra characters - [ i ] " - and that was it!

If you all want me to leave because of my disruption and use of italics, then I'll go, it makes no odds to me, this whole OOC post has ruined the perception and characters anyway

But just think about what I've said and don't be so quick to shut everyone down and dampen what could be a good thing

Now, I apologise for abandoning my paragraph by paragraph responding, but I have spent an unaccountably lengthy time on this post and am trying to speed things up somewhat.

I will say simply that all your time in NS (longer than my own it may be) seems to have been spent in regions unlike TNP and that you seem to presume a knowledge of TNP which is greater than your knowledge actually is.

Leaving aside that this complaint has not been closed down and that, if you are confident in your own argument, you may present it to the Court yourself, I must say again that there is no conspiracy against the way in which you post, it is simply the truth that the way in which you post is not accurate to how, conventionally, people post in much of TNP, no matter how much you may claim that all the forum is RP because only one part of it is signposted as OOC, and that people have endeavoured to tell you that. Further, SillyString's decision, so far as I can tell, appears reasonable within TNP's law and that is not something which requires OOC discussion because that is not how the GP world operates, GP does not involve actors discussing where to lead things and how interactions will play out, things simply go where they may and interactions happen as they will (this is not to say that there is no plotting, of course, simply that most things do not involve it).

I must refute your suggestion that all of this forum's good topics, discussions and roles are in the past also. RP on this forum was, for the longest time, completely devoid of activity, yet recently it has been buzzing with activity (though I do not involve myself in it too much). The RA and the Courts have certainly been these last couple of terms, but that does not mean that they have been without decent proposals, indeed, at this very moment Eluvatar's two executive related Bills in the Regional Assembly are being considered and his proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights, particularly, is getting some riveting discussion (for some ). Further, while the OOC sub-forum is not my own interest, and is not necessarily relevant to the region at large, I find it strange that you seem to devalue activity there while claiming that it is important to value contributions equally and let people do as they will (though, that may just be myself misreading your intention with that section).

I'll close by saying that I don't want you to leave and that I, personally, would like to see you in the Regional Assembly, debating measures there. Despite that, however, I must say that I find the allegations of conspiracy, when they arise from time to time, to be quite irritating and that I don't think that accusing those you wish to get involved with of being inherently malicious powerhungry monsters who demand that all do things as they say is the best way of becoming involved and bridging misunderstanding.

EDIT: Also, my apologies to the Attorney General for cluttering this thread if I was not ought to post here.

 

[SillyString]

At this point, I am going to have to request that you not refer to me as "sir", "Mr.", or as a man. Either "SillyString" or "Attorney General" would be fine.

Since when has a prosecuting agent been given the remit to decide how a defendant feels? This is for the court to decide based on the evidence provided by the defendant and the accused and takes into account many decisions."

As I have declined to prosecute this case, I feel compelled to point out that I am not a prosecuting agent. Luckily, TNP allows for you to prosecute your complaint yourself, or appoint someone to do so on your behalf.

I provided you my reasoning as a courtesy, nothing more - all I am obligated to do is accept or decline the complaint.

Given that your first response to not getting your way was to question my integrity, I seem to have made the right decision.

 

[Oakster]

Haha - why say 10 words when a million will do!

I think I'll leave it there Ladies and Gentlemen because either I am missing the point or you are...

Maybe I'm too old hat for this and assumed too much. I will hang around and see how the region pans out if you don't mind.

I apologise for disrupting you all.

 

[SillyString]

As you wish.

I still await an answer in your request for request for review thread; I am not sure if you saw my question.