(The reason for asking about the ban thread wasn't caring about where it was, more that I couldn't find it and was blanking at the time of asking as to purpose of such).
Anyways, I'll be doing this less essay-style, more bullet-point style, and separating out each hypothetical nation involved (except in the case of the couple only described doing the same actions). Each nation will receive a brief summary of their described actions and a summary of crimes/breaches involved within those actions. Additional crime notations will be made where the given intentions being known or not being known may affect what crimes have been potentially committed. This is made to differentiate between this being a purely hypothetical situation where the information presented is the entire situation, and what it would likely look like to a reasonable observer of said hypothetical events. References will be made in parentheses to relevant legal documents where appropriate. Assumptions regarding Nations A-G and Snakey will be given after collective detailings. Some of the crimes presented as such are being given from the perspective of a reasonable observer, rather than as clearly crimes, and are indicated with language saying something as such.
Nation A:
Description of Actions: A is described as posting on the RMB that the WA Delegate will be going rogue and banning particular nations for not going along with roleplay plans. The stated intentions of A are "to play some tricks on other nations in the region." It is unclear in the hypothetical if the given roleplay plans are of A or of the WA Delegate.
With Stated Intentions Considered: Per the stated intentions, A has knowingly planned to engage in intentional deception of other nations in the region, namely that the WA Delegate may ban them for not doing as they say. This may be reasonably read as being Fraud, as A is engaging in "intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual" (Legal Code 1.3.12). A is either to be benefited by other nations going along with their roleplay plans (if they are A's) to avoid being banned, or to damage the WA Delegate by the presumption that they would ban those not going along with their roleplay plans. Additionally, A may be reasonably presumed to have engaged in Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, as indicated by their noted pre-planning, given that they have engaged in "planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code" (Legal Code 1.7.22).
At Face Value: Taken at face value, A continues to have engaged in Fraud, but information would be lacking to a reasonable observer to indicate Conspiracy to commit such. A potential mitigating factor regarding charges would be if A has evidence suggesting the WA Delegate were planning to engage in said bannings and rogue behavior (whose roleplays they are would not be relevant at this point), in which case A could not be reasonably considered to have engaged in Fraud.
Nation B:
Description of Actions: Nation B is described as having spammed the RMB and flamed Nation A and the WA Delegate.
Crimes/Breaches of Law: As no intentions have been stated other than panic, only the described actions are considered. The closest approximate crime would be Spamming, specifically the definition in 1.4.17 of the Legal Code: "and any attempts to flood the RMB of a region which is not that nation's normal abode." B has been previously assumed to be an existing resident of TNP, and thus TNP would reasonably be considered B's "normal abode." However, as B has violated NS rules and been DEATed for such, any subsequent nation they have in TNP may be ejected/banjected per "Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning" (Legal Code 7.3.11).
Nation C:
Description of Actions: Nation C is the busiest of the hypothetical nations. C has in order: denounced the delegate on the RMB for deleting B and going rogue, withdrawn their endorsement of the WA delegate, and telegramed every WA nation in TNP to detail the supposed threat of the WA Delegate to ban nations and to suggest they withdraw endorsements of the WA Delegate.
Considering all Information in Hypothetical: C, while wrong about the WA Delegate deleting B, has not committed Fraud according to the hypothetical, as they have not engaged in "an intentional deception" as the Legal Code requires for such (1.3.12). C's withdrawal of the their endorsement of the WA Delegate is protected by Article 4 of the Bill of Rights, which states: "The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." The final point of consideration is C's unendorsement telegram sent to the WA nations in the region, detailing the supposed threats to ban nations from the region and asking the WA nations to remove their endorsements of the WA Delegate. As previously detailed above, given the statements of the hypothetical, the portion relaying the supposed threats does not constitute Fraud and is thus discarded as being further relevant in what crimes have been committed. The remaining consideration is of the recommendation to unendorse the WA Delegate. There are two different points which I consider to be relevant here, both of which agree that such a campaign would be legal by itself. The first of these is the trial (one of several) of JAL/Durk. In the
indictment given, JAL is cited as having sent telegrams recommending WA nations remove their endorsements of the WA Delegate at the time, and indicated as having violated an existing law on Sedition. Subsequently in a
court ruling, the Sedition law was found to be unconstitutional, and the trial then
dismissed. This court ruling would thus indicate that it is found that telegrams recommending endorsement removal are legal, given that the only law they it was indicated they violate by themselves was found to be unconstitutional (sending them as part of a coordinated attack from outside or with support of such is a different story). The other point that can be made is that Article 2 of the Bill of Rights allows for free speech of nations, and Article 4 states that to "withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." Taken together, these would indicate that encouraging others to remove their endorsements is legal by itself.
Considering Only Face Value: In contrast to the view provided by the information above, C would instead appear to have engaged in Fraud by perpetuating "an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual" (Legal Code 1.3.12) in regards to the WA Delegates supposed deletion of B and intentions of banning nations from the region in both their RMB post and telegram. The recommendation to remove endorsements would remain legal.
Nation D:
Description of actions: Nation D made a singular RMB denouncing the WA Delegate for deleting B and going rogue, removed their endorsement of the WA Delegate, and a number of subsequent posts further making warnings about the WA Delegate and promoting the campaign to remove endorsements on such.
With Full Information Presented: Similar to C, D would not have engaged in Fraud due to not being aware of the untruth of the statements, and promoting the campaign to remove endorsements would remain legal. Similar to B, D is presumed to be a resident, and thus has not engaged in spamming per the definitions in the Legal Code (1.4.16 & 1.4.17). D's continual posting of the campaign may qualify as spamming by NS rules however, and may be liable to be ejected or banjected for such as per the Legal Code (7.3.11). The removal of their endorsement on the WA Delegate is legal in the same manner as C above.
At Face Value: If taken at face value, D would be similarly potentially liable for Fraud in the same manner as C (except the telegram portion) and the campaign to remove endorsements would remain legal. The points regarding spamming by NS rules and endorsement removal above remain unchanged.
Nations E, F, and G:
Description of Actions: All three nations posted on the RMB denouncing the Delegate for deleting B and going rogue, and subsequently removed their endorsements of the WA Delegate.
With Full Information: As above with C and D, E-G would not be guilty of Fraud due to being unaware of the untruth of the statements. Similarly, the removal of their endorsement on the WA is legal as described above.
At Face Value: E-G would be potentially guilty of Fraud in the same manner as C & D would be above, and the removal of their endorsements of the WA Delegate remain legal.
Security Councillor/Lead Gameside Advocate Snakey:
Description of Actions: Bans nations C & D and suppresses their RMB posts. They then announce the ban in the appropriate thread for such.
Crimes/Breaches of Law: (I see no difference between the hypothetical and at face value.) Snakey has properly carried out the ban protocol as described by law (Legal Code 7.3.16). However, banning for Fraud is not in any way allowed by the Legal Code as no provision allows for such (Legal Code 3.3, 7.3.11, etc) except as punishment for a crime after being convicted "in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter" (Legal Code 2.1). As no trial has taken place, the banning of C & D would thus be illegal/in breach of law. Therefor, Snakey may be considered to have engaged in "the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence," or Gross Misconduct (Legal Code 1.8.23, 4.1.1).
Assumptions made, which may be incorrect if different information were the actual story:
- Nations A and B are residents of TNP and not of an embassied region (allowing them to post on the RMB via embassy).
- Nations C-G are WA residents of TNP, presumed given their ability to remove endorsements from the WA Delegate.
- Nations A-G are not citizens of TNP, and thus have no oaths to violate.
- Nations A-G did not coordinate any aspect of this scenario with each other or outside groups.
- Nations C & D were not tried, convicted and sentenced within a span of hours
- Snakey did not sleep for a period long enough for a complete trial to take place.
- Snakey is legally the Lead Gameside Advocate and legally a Security Councilor, and holds citizenship as such & is bound by oaths as such.
- The WA Delegate is not actually planning to what they are being accused of.
I do believe that is everything, and if I'm missing something I plead that my brain is overloaded
)
