Onsite Authority Enhancement Bill

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
I would like to propose something that has been long overdue, especially in light of the seemingly increasing OOC administration issues that are happening in NS.

Onsite Authority Enhancement Bill:
Chapter 7 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
Click to expand...

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.

It seems crazy to me to shrug our shoulders and say our hands are tied when known predators and problematic individuals are allowed to continue to operate freely in our gameside community. The RMB is part of this region, the gameside community is part of our community. The law should protect them too. If our forum and Discord are unsafe unless people like Ryasta or Hardonius are banned from them, surely the RMB is just as at risk if those individuals continue to operate there. This needs to be corrected, and I am tired of standing by and doing nothing. Obviously we do not want to politicize OOC matters, but I hope that by tying this action to cases decided by administration, we keep it limited only to circumstances where action must be taken. TNP administration doesn't act very often, and not without a case, but if we ever had a questionable or thinly-sourced ban offsite, this would give the Delegate discretion to ban people gameside for a shorter period, or not at all. At the same time, the Delegate would not be able to go beyond what is deemed appropriate by banning the player for a longer period than the admins.

I hope this is permissive and limited enough to preserve the OOC/IC line. I believe it does, but if you have suggestions or found something I missed, please let me know.

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by Forum Administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of bans imposed by Forum Administration may not be banned for longer than the Forum Administrative ban period.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by Administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of Administrative bans may not be banned for longer than the Administrative ban period.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
 
Last edited:
So this essentially allows us to remove those banned from the rest of the region... from the region itself?

I had thought that was a common practice already, full support if my interpretation is correct.
 
The only suggestion I have right now is a consistency change. Instead of "Administration", use "forum administration". And then, change "on the basis of Administrative bans" to "on the basis of bans imposed by forum administration".
 
Scottie:
So this essentially allows us to remove those banned from the rest of the region... from the region itself?

I had thought that was a common practice already, full support if my interpretation is correct.
Click to expand...
I can't ban people who were banned by admins on our forum or Discord unless they violated NS rules, recruit, or spam. If they keep their head down and behave themselves in public on the RMB, they can persist indefinitely.

Sil Dorsett:
The only suggestion I have right now is a consistency change. Instead of "Administration", use "forum administration". And then, change "on the basis of Administrative bans" to "on the basis of bans imposed by forum administration".
Click to expand...

I chose my wording deliberately. I wanted the forum and the Discord to be included, and didn't want to focus on only one of them. I suppose that as written it is possible to ban onsite for a ban that only exists in one of the two places, but I tend to believe it is rare for it to be in one place but not the other. Do we want to differentiate here?
 
I think Forum Administration is the standard to follow. Discord Administration seems to be much more subjective and vulnerable to an itchy trigger finger to throw someone out right away. Forum Administration is far more meticulous. Plus, Discord Moderators can ban. I don't think you want that being an issue to consider in this case.
 
Last edited:
Sil Dorsett:
I think Forum Administration is the standard to follow. Discord Administration seems to be much more subjective and vulnerable to an itchy trigger finger to throw someone out right away. Forum Administration is far more meticulous. Plus, Discord Moderators can ban. I don't think you want that being an issue to consider in this case.
Click to expand...
According to my reading, just because someone is banned on the forums or discord doesn't mean they must be banned from the region, only that we can use one of those bans to justify a region ban.
 
Last edited:
If discord administration needs to play a role, then we'll want to define Discord in the constitution or the legal code somewhere. So far, the law only recognizes forum administration.
 
Last edited:
I support this legislation, as it is a much needed step to securing our community. I do see value in Sil's comments though, because while I understand that simply saying "Administration" allows admin from both Discord and the forum to be included as Ghost was saying, simply saying "Administration" could be misinterpreted as the IC government we have in place. I think it should be made clear that "Administration" specifically refers to the OOC admin team. It's nit-picky, but perhaps a definition of the term could resolve it?
 
Sil is right. Not only because of what the law states regarding administration, but because it is actually more likely for someone to get a temporary Discord ban but not get one on the forum. If Administration is known to be the forum, that language may be fine as is, but it doesn't hurt to be extra clear. I have changed the OP accordingly.
 
My view is that the NS rules element of banning is broad enough to include most transgressions that result in a forum ban. Certainly I banned people for that reason.

That said to avoid any doubt, this legislation makes sense.
 
I still think my wording is more consistent with the rest of the constibillocode, but I support draft 2 of the bill.
 
The way I see it, this bill will provide both centralization and enforcement. Under this law, persons banned from the forum would now also be banned from the region by default, and that's something I like to hear. I very much support laws like this that make RMBers just as accountable as forumers. No RMBer banned from this forum should roam the region, gameside.

If there's one thing I despise above all in any society or community, it's double standards. This was long overdue- it's time to end any risk of such things occurring again. It's time to bring the RMB in line. I support this bill.
 
mcmasterdonia:
My view is that the NS rules element of banning is broad enough to include most transgressions that result in a forum ban. Certainly I banned people for that reason.

That said to avoid any doubt, this legislation makes sense.
Click to expand...

The problem is if they commit those violations out of NS. It creates wiggle room for the ban to be challenged and every legal expert I have spoken to feels it would be an open question.

Sil Dorsett:
I still think my wording is more consistent with the rest of the constibillocode, but I support draft 2 of the bill.
Click to expand...

I adopted your wording, am I mistaken?

Syrixia:
The way I see it, this bill will provide both centralization and enforcement. Under this law, persons banned from the forum would now also be banned from the region by default, and that's something I like to hear. I very much support laws like this that make RMBers just as accountable as forumers. No RMBer banned from this forum should roam the region, gameside.

If there's one thing I despise above all in any society or community, it's double standards. This was long overdue- it's time to end any risk of such things occurring again. It's time to bring the RMB in line. I support this bill.
Click to expand...

This is actually not accurate. The way this is worded, the Delegate has the option to ban or not to ban. It does not make a gameside ban automatic, and the reason for that is actually related to Eluvtar's post.

Eluvatar:
I'm concerned that this bill assumes propriety in action by forum administrators without any way of enforcing that. I don't have any constructive suggestions, at least not yet.
Click to expand...

The problem with forum administration is that we cannot do that. We trust our admins to do right by us but we're quite separate. If a Delegate ever had reason to doubt them or believed the ban didn't warrant it, this bill gives them the option to opt out of banning the player gameside. It is also possible for the gameside ban to be reduced from the forum ban. I figure you were aware of this, so I take it those aren't sufficient considerations for you to be completely comfortable with this bill?
 
Fair point, but could it not be said that under the current law, that Forum Administration/Forum Bans aren't even taken into count? That's why we're adding it; so they are.
 
Pallaith:
I adopted your wording, am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Mistaken. Here's how I'd word it:
Chapter 7: Executive Government
Section 7.3: Onsite Authority

11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on NationStates on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum adminstration.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Syrixia:
Fair point, but could it not be said that under the current law, that Forum Administration/Forum Bans aren't even taken into count? That's why we're adding it; so they are.
Click to expand...
Yes that part is right. Those are not actionable under the legal code's onsite authority, and that is why this is being proposed. It would create the possibility that a Delegate could apply those bans gameside as well, it just doesn't make it automatic.
 
Sil Dorsett:
@Pallaith See my previous post. I significantly edited what I had in mind.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't have your full wording until now. Minor phrasing change in 12. aside, you don't use capitals and you want to specify "forum ban" and "banned on NationStates." I isn't capitalized anywhere else, and specifying forum ban is fine. I wouldn't use NationStates though because in context this is the onsite section. The other changes have been adopted.
 
Honestly? I'm all for this. I have been wondering people like Ry and Hardonius have been allowed to stay in our community. Especially for their toxic behavior. This has my support. My only question is how will this be executed? Will the Security Council/Border Control ban them following the Administration's wishes?
 
I think this bill makes a lot of sense. It gives the delegate the discretion to apply a ban in-game when they feel that the reasons behind a forum ban extend there, but also does not require that they do so. So, someone like ryasta who has been deemed to be unsafe to the community could be removed, but someone who got a ban for flaming a few times, but is otherwise nothing more than a bit hot-headed, could be permitted to remain in the region as long as they behaved themselves.

I also appreciate that the way it is worded would not allow the delegate to impose a region ban on the basis of a judicial forum ban, which would certainly be inappropriate.
 
King SillyString:
I think this bill makes a lot of sense. It gives the delegate the discretion to apply a ban in-game when they feel that the reasons behind a forum ban extend there, but also does not require that they do so. So, someone like ryasta who has been deemed to be unsafe to the community could be removed, but someone who got a ban for flaming a few times, but is otherwise nothing more than a bit hot-headed, could be permitted to remain in the region as long as they behaved themselves.

I also appreciate that the way it is worded would not allow the delegate to impose a region ban on the basis of a judicial forum ban, which would certainly be inappropriate.
Click to expand...

100% agree with this post and analysis by Sillystring (and the other posts)
Flaming+hotheaded can still stay in the GCR region (if they cross the lines, the on-site moderators would remove them from the game anyway) but the Ryasta can be removed from the region 100%.
I support Pallaith's rule proposals!
 
Last edited:
Keeping in mind the importance of this subject, the universal support so far for this proposal, and the fact that formal debate is still to follow, I would like to call a vote on this.
 
The motion for a vote is recognized.

We are now in formal debate for 5 days on this proposal, unless the the author wishes to shorten the formal debate period. Formal Debate shall last till Saturday, April 27th at 11:00 AM GMT.

A vote is scheduled to begin two day hence the end of the formal debate period. The Vote shall begin Monday, April 29th at 11:00 PM GMT.
 
Last edited:
On balance, I am for this. I do share Elu's concern, however. The current admin team strives to keep politics out of the decision-making process. There is nothing to ensure this practice will endure. If admin starts banning nations who are dissident, marsupial, or garden variety pains in the butt, this proposal allows the delegate to ban them from the region. We need to be careful we're not inviting infringement on the Bill of Rights.

Another thought I had is regarding gameside bans in general. They are ridiculously easy to circumvent. Some evaders are caught, but we won't always have Nessunian intelligence to rely on. The perceived safety which is the benefit of this legislation is a bit illusory.

Still, the delegate should be able to legally ban those who present a danger to the community.
 
One thought that occurs to me is that it can be difficult to prove that any given nation is associated with a given forum account if the owner of both does not want it proven. If a nation so banned exercises their right to judicial review of the matter, or brings charges against the delegate for unlawfully banning them, it may be impossible to prove that they were banned legally under this provision.
 
Great Bights Mum:
On balance, I am for this. I do share Elu's concern, however. The current admin team strives to keep politics out of the decision-making process. There is nothing to ensure this practice will endure. If admin starts banning nations who are dissident, marsupial, or garden variety pains in the butt, this proposal allows the delegate to ban them from the region. We need to be careful we're not inviting infringement on the Bill of Rights.

Another thought I had is regarding gameside bans in general. They are ridiculously easy to circumvent. Some evaders are caught, but we won't always have Nessunian intelligence to rely on. The perceived safety which is the benefit of this legislation is a bit illusory.

Still, the delegate should be able to legally ban those who present a danger to the community.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure I follow the concerns about the bill of rights. The kinds of bans you described have been seen in other regions but they carried out by Gameside officers not admins. Thankfully administrative bans have always been of a more serious nature. Even the dubious ones were done on concrete grounds, not nonsense like marsupial bans. And the delegate can serve as a check if the ban in question seems problematic. In any case I’m not really sure what to tell you. We rely on our admins to be responsible and serious actors, and there’s always the risk they may not be, but the remedy for that is quite complicated by virtue of how the admin/political separation works.

Crushing Our Enemies:
One thought that occurs to me is that it can be difficult to prove that any given nation is associated with a given forum account if the owner of both does not want it proven. If a nation so banned exercises their right to judicial review of the matter, or brings charges against the delegate for unlawfully banning them, it may be impossible to prove that they were banned legally under this provision.
Click to expand...

I’m going to respond to GBM here as well, since you have similar fears. Gameside bans are easy to circumvent, but when someone is discovered to have circumvented it, it is very easy to ban them again for circumventing the ban. We can only do this when we discover it. I don’t believe that we should decline to take this action just because there’s a possibility that bad actors will slip through the cracks. We cannot control everything perfectly, but we can make it easier for us to take action when we have the information needed to take that action.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
One thought that occurs to me is that it can be difficult to prove that any given nation is associated with a given forum account if the owner of both does not want it proven. If a nation so banned exercises their right to judicial review of the matter, or brings charges against the delegate for unlawfully banning them, it may be impossible to prove that they were banned legally under this provision.
Click to expand...
That's possible, but I think any reasonable judicial review would provide reasonable opportunity for the delegate to demonstrate why they think that nation is associated with the banned player.

For example, if a nation named "New BannedNation" moves into the region, the delegate has two avenues to defend a ban: either the person is banned and is circumventing it, or they are impersonating another player, which breaks site rules and may also be banned.

It's a little trickier if the ban is on the basis of "someone else told me this person is so-and-so", so a smart delegate would want to get evidence of that claim, like IP data or an admission of guilt.

And if the court does overturn a ban under this section, well, that's the way it goes - the delegate will just need to be on the lookout for in-game misbehavior that merits a separate ban. But just because this isn't perfect due to game mechanics doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the current situation, where people banned from the forum for OOC misbehavior can openly and freely participate on the RMB.
 
Last edited:
Another thing to consider is that judicial review typically takes place on our forum. How would a forum-banned nation be able to exercise their right to judicial review? Generally, the law has been agnostic of forum bans, essentially ignoring if a user has been banned from the forum for purposes of the law. This bill would acknowledge the existence of forum bans, which I think requires the government to account for such bans when considering if someone's rights are violated. Without a judicial process in place that is accessible to forum-banned nations, banning them from the region on the basis of a forum ban may be denying their right to due process.

EDIT: To clarify my point, let me say that in all previous cases, a forum ban has been incidental to whatever action the government is taking. If a citizen is removed for forum inactivity, it doesn't matter that the reason they were inactive was incidentally that they were forum banned. This bill makes the government action (a regional ban) conditional on a forum ban, and that is what makes me think we have to consider their rights in the context of the forum ban, since the ban will be the rule rather than the exception.
 
Last edited:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Another thing to consider is that judicial review typically takes place on our forum. How would a forum-banned nation be able to exercise their right to judicial review? Generally, the law has been agnostic of forum bans, essentially ignoring if a user has been banned from the forum for purposes of the law. This bill would acknowledge the existence of forum bans, which I think requires the government to account for such bans when considering if someone's rights are violated. Without a judicial process in place that is accessible to forum-banned nations, banning them from the region on the basis of a forum ban may be denying their right to due process.

EDIT: To clarify my point, let me say that in all previous cases, a forum ban has been incidental to whatever action the government is taking. If a citizen is removed for forum inactivity, it doesn't matter that the reason they were inactive was incidentally that they were forum banned. This bill makes the government action (a regional ban) conditional on a forum ban, and that is what makes me think we have to consider their rights in the context of the forum ban, since the ban will be the rule rather than the exception.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t they have their chosen defense post on their behalf? I’m fairly certain people who had forum bans have had their day in court complete with someone defending them in court.

Seems funny to me that a legal ban would somehow be depriving them of their rights. We are not magically unable to communicate with such players. This strikes me as getting lost in legal weeds and missing the whole point of these laws.
 
Pallaith:
Seems funny to me that a legal ban would somehow be depriving them of their rights.
Click to expand...
The ban is only legal if it's in compliance with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights says they must have "immediate recourse to judicial review" following a ban. I am not sure what the current process is for offering such nations that recourse, but presumably the standard practice is that they must post in the Court forums. That's what happened most recently, when Gracius Maximus requested judicial review of his ejection during the Halloween event last year. I am not saying that this bill is inherently against the Bill of Rights, but we have to have a defined process in place to guarantee their rights before we implement this. If we wait until someone is banned to figure out how they can exercise their right to judicial review, that is denying them the "immediate" part of that right.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
The ban is only legal if it's in compliance with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights says they must have "immediate recourse to judicial review" following a ban. I am not sure what the current process is for offering such nations that recourse, but presumably the standard practice is that they must post in the Court forums. That's what happened most recently, when Gracius Maximus requested judicial review of his ejection during the Halloween event last year. I am not saying that this bill is inherently against the Bill of Rights, but we have to have a defined process in place to guarantee their rights before we implement this. If we wait until someone is banned to figure out how they can exercise their right to judicial review, that is denying them the "immediate" part of that right.
Click to expand...
So how would you fix this to account for that? And what of criminal cases where the defendant was banned from the forum, wouldn’t those be applicable here?

I just don’t see why judicial review of a ban has to necessitate a forum account. That isn’t in the bill of rights. I also think that focusing too much on the process here risks crossing the line between IC and OOC. These bans were talking about were administrative bans for OOC reasons, there was no trial or any of that judicial process. Perhaps it would be prudent for me to instead further define the nature of the administrative bans? It was certainly my intent and assumption that the language as drafted was only contemplating such bans, whereas the language you’re citing is concerned with IC judicial process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top