RMB Regulations Bill

[Oracle]

It has been brought up in discussions regarding the lack of official rules governing the RMB as well as what actions can be taken by officials with communications power (supressing posts) and border controls (ejecting and banning) against other nations. Currently LC7.3.16 grants the Serving Delegate the authority to regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit. But it does not specify what action can be taken for violation of those rules as the rest of chapter 7.3 does.

Spoiler: Section 7.3: Onsite Authority

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
13. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
14. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
15. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
16. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
17. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
18. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

Therefore, I would like to offer the following amendment to the Legal Code 7.3.16 to define the actions that may be taken for violation of the rules established by the Delegate governing the RMB.

16. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit. Nations may be ejected or banned for violation of established regulations.

Spoiler: Marked up Version of LC 7.3

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
13. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
14. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
15. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
16. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit. Nations may be ejected or banned for violation of established regulations.
17. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
18. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

That seems quite broad. Usually harassment, spamming, trolling, racism, adult content type posts all fall under the ability to ban for breaches of NS rules. That’s usually the main type of thing that leads to bans for rmb posting.

Are there other specific things that you would imagine this would cover? Thinking that depending on the Delegate it could turn into a BoR issue if those regulations were particularly restrictive

 

[Oracle]

One thing that I think the regulations would help is instead of simply kicking/banning the regulations would help establish a procedure for those actions.

ie. When a nation is breaking the rules, an official will reach out either publicly or privately and a. warn them for breaking the rules and b. engage with the nation to help learn from their mistakes. Being a moderator in other regions and communities, I realize that won't always work and the individual will continue breaking the rules. After they have been warned then a kick/ban would be appropriate.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

It's a good thought, but there have to be more restrictions placed on the delegate's ability to set regulations. As it stands, this bill is a textbook violation of the right to free speech. It allows the delegate to set any regulations that they see fit. Hypothetically, a delegate could ban RP under this bill. They could forbid criticism of the government. They could limit posts to 140 characters. And this doesn't restrict them to only setting rules on content. Hypothetically, under this bill, a delegate could require that everyone post on the RMB at least once a week. They could forbid all RMB posting whatsoever. In short, they could de facto criminalize all manner of legal behavior, and punish violations summarily through the harshest punishment that exists.

Generally, I am OK with allowing the Bill of Rights to be self-executing - in other words, it's ok to write legislation that could be interpreted as allowing BOR violations, because those violations are already prohibited by the BOR itself. However, in this case, I think that if restrictions are placed on public speech, those restrictions should be enumerated in the law, not left to a single government official, even the delegate, to decide.

 

[Oracle]

Does not the subsequent section 18 address that though?

 

[Vapia]

Im a bit confused over this editing of the bill. Is it just claryfing implied consequences of violating the rules?

 

[Yuno]

Im a bit confused over this editing of the bill. Is it just claryfing implied consequences of violating the rules?

It basically adds this line to give the delegate permission to ban people

16. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit. Nations may be ejected or banned for violation of established regulations.


But I thought the delegate already has permission to do so? Last time, he banned a spammer recently.

 

[Wonderess]

There is one issue I would like to bring up. How will the RMB take legislation being imposed from the forum gang onto the RMB? Perhaps there should be some dialogue and diplomacy before taking this further.

 

[Syrixia]

There is one issue I would like to bring up. How will the RMB take legislation being imposed from the forum gang onto the RMB? Perhaps there should be some dialogue and diplomacy before taking this further.

No. Just no.

You are implying that there are two 'regions' inside TNP rather than, well, TNP. If we were to operate on this precedent, it would be both regressive and dangerous concerning precedents set.

Why should either the Regional Assembly or the Government of The North Pacific conduct "diplomacy" with the RMB? Why should TNPers conduct diplomacy with TNPers? If RMBers have a problem with this legislation they can come here and say so.

We are all TNPers, especially since the Citizenship Reform- the RMBers have as little of a right to be considered "autonomous" from/within the community of The North Pacific as us here on the forum.

 

[Wonderess]

No. Just no.

You are implying that there are two 'regions' inside TNP rather than, well, TNP. If we were to operate on this precedent, it would be both regressive and dangerous concerning precedents set.

Why should either the Regional Assembly or the Government of The North Pacific conduct "diplomacy" with the RMB? Why should TNPers conduct diplomacy with TNPers? If RMBers have a problem with this legislation they can come here and say so.

We are all TNPers, especially since the Citizenship Reform- the RMBers have as little of a right to be considered "autonomous" from/within the community of The North Pacific as us here on the forum.

This is a noble notion, but there happens to be a reality that threatens that view. There are struggles in regard to the two domains of the region. We are one region, but all of here talking are often on the forum. There needs to be a conversation with those who call the RMB their main home, and I would like to see some of them here to give input.

 

[Syrixia]

I absolutely agree that there should be a conversation, but in the sense of just that- a conversation. I'm absolutely fine with involving RMBers in the discussion, and I think we should encourage this in some way. They are TNPers just like us and deserve the opportunity to chime in. I just don't like the idea of some sort of negotiation proceeding or what have you between forummers and RMBers. That is not the right way to encourage discussion. It undermines the community unity of TNP and I take issue with that possibility. If that's not what you meant at all, then we'll chalk it up to poor word choice and I'll be on my way.

 

[BluieGamer]

What kind of infractions would warrant an ejection/ban from TNP that isn't reportable to NS mods though?

 

[Oracle]

Perhaps it was a poor choice of a title

 

[mcmasterdonia]

There is one issue I would like to bring up. How will the RMB take legislation being imposed from the forum gang onto the RMB? Perhaps there should be some dialogue and diplomacy before taking this further.

Probably just like all in game nations accept the laws enacted by the RA. All legislation we pass applies to the whole region. It’s not a new concept. There is no other way for us to pass laws.

 

[Vapia]

There is one issue I would like to bring up. How will the RMB take legislation being imposed from the forum gang onto the RMB? Perhaps there should be some dialogue and diplomacy before taking this further.

I don’t really see a scenario in which this would be a cause for concern for rmbers. I think most rmbers would agree that the delegate should be able to ban people.

 

[Wonderess]

I understand that the RA is right to do this, I'm just saying that it would be important to make sure the RMBers are involved in this conversation so that this action cannot be misconstrued. Think of it as a safeguard against a possible issue down the road. We should always endeavor to cover all of our bases and make sure there are no unfortunate effects that could have been avoided.

 

[Dreadton]

It's a good thought, but there have to be more restrictions placed on the delegate's ability to set regulations. As it stands, this bill is a textbook violation of the right to free speech. It allows the delegate to set any regulations that they see fit. Hypothetically, a delegate could ban RP under this bill. They could forbid criticism of the government. They could limit posts to 140 characters. And this doesn't restrict them to only setting rules on content. Hypothetically, under this bill, a delegate could require that everyone post on the RMB at least once a week. They could forbid all RMB posting whatsoever. In short, they could de facto criminalize all manner of legal behavior, and punish violations summarily through the harshest punishment that exists.

Generally, I am OK with allowing the Bill of Rights to be self-executing - in other words, it's ok to write legislation that could be interpreted as allowing BOR violations, because those violations are already prohibited by the BOR itself. However, in this case, I think that if restrictions are placed on public speech, those restrictions should be enumerated in the law, not left to a single government official, even the delegate, to decide.

Why not add a section the subjects the delegates action in the RMB to review by the court, or what ever body reviews disciplinary actions in other areas of TNP?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Why not add a section the subjects the delegates action in the RMB to review by the court, or what ever body reviews disciplinary actions in other areas of TNP?

It's already in there. The only thing is that it's not an automatic review. As it stands now, I believe someone, either the person banned or the AG, would have to initiate it.

18. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

 

[SillyString]

I understand that the RA is right to do this, I'm just saying that it would be important to make sure the RMBers are involved in this conversation so that this action cannot be misconstrued. Think of it as a safeguard against a possible issue down the road. We should always endeavor to cover all of our bases and make sure there are no unfortunate effects that could have been avoided.

I actually think getting the RMB's input on this is a good call. As someone who doesn't chat on the RMB much, my notion of how to handle moderating it is "suppress slurs/flaming/other rule breaking, report to NS as needed, have delegate ban repeat problems".

But people who are on the RMB a lot will probably have a much more nuanced idea of what would be desirable - maybe "hello im new" posts are the worst and we could add something in our welcome TG about introducing yourself with more detail. Maybe they want people to be kicked or banned sooner, since there's no granularity between suppressing a post and banning the poster, and jerks use that to their advantage more often. Even if all of what they want isn't legal or feasible, I think it makes sense to ask them first.

But note that I wouldn't do it as "hey here's a law what do you think". I would ask them the broader question "what would you change about how the RMB is run and moderated" and look for patterns, then craft law and policy based on that.

 

[Romanoffia]

There are two issues here - one involving game mechanics and one involving game play. To wit:

Certain things posted on the RMB generally involve Moderation on the NS site side and game related issues such as excessive recruiting spam and the like. Spam unrelated to NS is a Site Related issue. Either one is removable by the Delegate under game mechanics.

The question is, is it proper to extend to the Delegate unregulated authority to remove game-play related posts without any regulation on the part of TNP Law or Constitution? If the posts/spam is excessive with the intent of reducing the purpose of the RMP an designed to deliberately or actually disrupt the RMB (which is essentially a denial of service action on the part of the spammer), then,by all means, the Delegate is almost obligated to do this. If it is purely for the intent of censorship of a competing idea, then that crosses into censorship that actually suppresses free speech (if we are to extend the same TNP legal and constitutional protections to the RMB).

As such, I would have to agree with this:

I actually think getting the RMB's input on this is a good call. As someone who doesn't chat on the RMB much, my notion of how to handle moderating it is "suppress slurs/flaming/other rule breaking, report to NS as needed, have delegate ban repeat problems".

But people who are on the RMB a lot will probably have a much more nuanced idea of what would be desirable - maybe "hello im new" posts are the worst and we could add something in our welcome TG about introducing yourself with more detail. Maybe they want people to be kicked or banned sooner, since there's no granularity between suppressing a post and banning the poster, and jerks use that to their advantage more often. Even if all of what they want isn't legal or feasible, I think it makes sense to ask them first.

But note that I wouldn't do it as "hey here's a law what do you think". I would ask them the broader question "what would you change about how the RMB is run and moderated" and look for patterns, then craft law and policy based on that.