[R4R] Kirina (Ban Appeal)

[Kir]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

Your honor, I respectfully ask that both my ban from the North Pacific (by McMasterdonia) and my RP ban (by Prydania/a RMB RP mod? as I had already left the discord server I'm not quite sure of the exact details behind that one) be ended. Also that my ban from the RP server, presumably by Prydania, be reversed.

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

None, as my punishment was completely deserved, yet I request that, as the LGA has told me that I may appeal my gameside ban here, that it be taken due consideration.

(note that the Lead Gameside Advocate did not confirm that it, my appeal would be successful, he simply directed me here as a place to appeal it.)

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

None regarding myself.

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated. If you are submitting this request in your capacity as the Attorney General or their designee, please note that here instead.

While I deserve every bit of it, I have been affected by guilt over my past actions/behaviors, and I sincerely wish to return to the North Pacific and to Strangereal (the RMB roleplay). Therefore, your honor, I humbly ask that my gameside ban, RP ban, and RP server ban be reversed, and that I be given a second chance to return to the community.

5. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

An apology for my previous misbehaviors, listed below:

~In evading RMB RP moderation: attempting to, in effect, restart the RMB RP with myself as the head moderator;
~In trolling/spamming the RMB: triple posting on purpose, slandering the moderation for my own personal gratification, and generally behaving inappropriately toward community standards, in essence like my slandering of the moderation was all "a big joke";
~In disregarding the rules as I saw fit, which I should have known better regardless that I was never given a warning, this is of course no excuse for such behavior;
~In ban evading under an alt account several days after I was banned, though it was "for fun" and I admitted it at once, it was inappropriate;
~In further mudslinging/griefing several government/NPA members after I was banned.

For which I humbly plea for pardon. I have worked to correct all of these misbehaviors and, if successfully appealed, I will remain a repentant and sincere member of the community.

OOC: Also, y'all have rebooted the forum, I see. Nice.

 

[Kir]

EDIT: This thread was posted in the wrong place (I think), I am restarting it elsewhere.

 

[Oracle]

This is the correct area for you to post your r4r in. The other thread you posted is incorrect.

 

[Kir]

This is the correct area for you to post your r4r in. The other thread you posted is incorrect.

Ah, my mistake. Then please let this one proceed, rather than the newer one.

 

[Kir]

Your honor, I am bumping this to ensure it gets reviewed by the court, as there was mistakenly another thread that I do not wish to be confused with this one.

 

[Oracle]

Please do not spam the court. The justices will address your appeal in due time. This thread was not even posted 24 hours ago.

 

[Kir]

Please do not spam the court. The justices will address your appeal in due time. This thread was not even posted 24 hours ago.

Apologies, my mistake.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I accept the request for review of the ban from the region. I will note that I do so with some hesitation, given that the request seems to accept the initial lawfulness of the ban, but I am willing to accept at this stage that the Bill of Rights provides a clear and absolute entitlement for banned nations to have their bans judicially reviewed and that the ban does affect the petitioner; those questions are separate to the merits of any argument as to whether the ban should be overturned.

I reject any review of a ban from the RP server or from RP participation. It seems to me that these issues relate to matters that are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, in particular that its jurisdiction relates principally to the actions and policies of government and to the constitutionality or legality of those actions and policies. RP is presently administered by moderators appointed by the Administration of this forum, not government. In any event, no issue as to the constitutionality or legality of the actions seems to be raised; absent a specific right to review, I do not think that I am bound to extend the same latitude as in relation to the regional power to ban.

I set the period for briefs at five days.

 

[Kir]

I accept the request for review of the ban from the region. I will note that I do so with some hesitation, given that the request seems to accept the initial lawfulness of the ban, but I am willing to accept at this stage that the Bill of Rights provides a clear and absolute entitlement for banned nations to have their bans judicially reviewed and that the ban does affect the petitioner; those questions are separate to the merits of any argument as to whether the ban should be overturned.

I reject any review of a ban from the RP server or from RP participation. It seems to me that these issues relate to matters that are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, in particular that its jurisdiction relates principally to the actions and policies of government and to the constitutionality or legality of those actions and policies. RP is presently administered by moderators appointed by the Administration of this forum, not government. In any event, no issue as to the constitutionality or legality of the actions seems to be raised; absent a specific right to review, I do not think that I am bound to extend the same latitude as in relation to the regional power to ban.

I set the period for briefs at five days.

Very well, after being informed of the non-contextual nature of RP ban and RP server ban in the second paragraph I will drop the related requests. I would like to thank the court for accepting to review the gameside ban, and await further developments with due patience.

 

[Nessuno]

As requested, I will proceed to post the links of the links to the offended posts in the RMB (Page 51,237) :

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

The following links came from page 5475 and 5476 of TRR:

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

NationStates | RMB Post

www.nationstates.net

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The period for briefs has concluded. The Court will deliberate on this matter and will endeavour to render its opinion within 7 days. I would note that there may be a delay beyond that, given the ongoing judicial which will lead to a change in the membership of the Court if this matter is not concluded before the election.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Kirana on their Regional Ban
Opinion drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Lady Raven Wing and Wonderess​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Kirina.

The Court took into consideration the information filed here by Nessuno.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

11. Violators of NationStates rules, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of NationStates rules:

There are many types of spam, but the general definition is making a post that doesn't have any sort of use. Excessive bumping, tagging, and random posts with irrelevant information are all examples of spam. The same applies to in-game posts on regional message boards and telegrams.

[...]

Regional Message Board Spam: Posting multiple messages on your message board within a short period of time can be considered message board spam. Founders and regional officers they designate may suppress spam (or any other messages) on the regional message board.

The Court opines the following:

Standing

The petitioner brings a request for review seeking for their ban from the region by McMasterdonia, the Delegate, to be overturned.

The Court finds that the petitioner does have standing as an affected party to request this review. They are clearly adversely affected by being banned from the region by the Delegate, which is plainly a government action. Further, the Bill of Rights makes clear that judicial review is guaranteed for nations that are banned from the region.

Lawfulness of the Ban

The Bill of Rights restricts use of the regional power of banning to circumstances that are expressly authorised by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Provision has been made for the use of that power: the Delegate is empowered by the Constitution to eject and ban nations as permitted by law and the Legal Code sets out a range of scenarios in which ejection or banning would be permitted.

One such scenario is dealt with by Section 7.3, clause 11 of the Legal Code, which allows for the summary banning of nations that violate NationStates rules. In this matter, the petitioner states that the ban in question was due, at least in part, to spamming the regional message board, which accords with the public notice of the ban given by the Delegate as required by the Legal Code. The Court notes that the petitioner accepts that they engaged in spamming of the regional message board. The Court also notes that a series of posts on the regional message board have been referred to the Court by Nessuno, the Lead Gameside Advocate (a government official charged with assisting the Delegate in their duties regulating the regional message board), which demonstrates that a number of posts appear to have been made over a short period of time, including three posts in succession.

The Court has had regard to the relevant provisions of the NationStates rules concerning spam and the regional message board. Those rules seem clear that multiple messages over a short period of time can constitute regional message board spam. The Court has not heard argument on the test to utilise when considering alleged violations of NationStates rules and whether it is a matter that the Court should come to its own judgment on or whether some area of discretion should be afforded to the Delegate. In this case, it is not necessary for the Court to decide those issues. It appears to the Court that, whatever standard is used and whether it is for the Court to decide or whether there is a discretion in the Delegate, it is clear from the petitioner's request and the posts shown to the Court that the petitioner was in violation of NationStates rules concerning regional message board spam and, therefore, liable to be summarily banned. That ban was in compliance with the Legal Code and, consequently, authorised by both it and the Constitution, in satisfaction of the requirements of the Bill of Rights.

A second chance

The petitioner asks the Court to give them a second chance. They say that they have corrected their behaviour and will be a repentant and sincere member of the community if the ban is reversed. The Court does not consider that this is a matter that can properly be considered by the Court when deciding, as it must, the lawfulness of the decision to ban when it was made. It appears to the Court that the Delegate has taken a decision to ban the petitioner on grounds which were lawful and it is not for the Court to interfere with lawful decisions. Whether the Delegate would be minded to rescind the ban on the basis of what has been said by the petitioner or on other representations from the petitioner (or for any other reason) is, in the first instance at least, a matter for them.

Conclusion

The Court determines that the petitioner was lawfully banned by the Delegate for the reasons given above. There is no need for any order to be made by the Court.

 

[Kir]

I would like to thank the Court for taking the time to review this case. I also apologize for my initial impatience and will, as the court has stipulated, petition the Delegate and the Gameside Advocates to rescind the gameside ban, with alternate punishments (continued loss of citizenship, etc) if necessary. Once again, I thank the Court for considering this case in a fair and open manner, and the LGA for providing sufficient evidence for the court to arrive at a lawful and just conclusion.