[Private] Request for Review: Kirina Ban

[Zyvetskistaahn]

There is a request for review filed by Kirana here. The request seeks review of a ban from the region, as well as a ban from participation in (I gather) the RMB RP and from the RP server.

The petitioner does not claim any illegality in any of the bans, but ask for them to be reversed.

I think that there is an odd standing issue in relation to the ban from the region that they are clearly "affected" by the ban and are within the scope of the BoR right to judicial review of bans, but do not expressly claim there was anything wrong with them. While it is perhaps possible to infer a request to review the length or propriety of the continuance of the ban, it is a stretch, to my mind.

On the RP issues, I think there is a clear question about the extent to which RP is amenable to judicial review at all. The administration of the RP server would seem, on its face, to be beyond the scope of judicial review, given that it is not controlled by government. The administration of the in-game RP is an issue that I admit I am not well placed to judge at this moment, as I do not use the RMB much in general and am not aware of the relationship it bears to government.

My view, I think, is that the request should be denied.

 

[Lord Dominator]

I would agree on the denial largely, as I'm not reasonably sure we can review ban length given how the law is (and that's best thing the applicant has put up for review).

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I accepted this request for review, the discussion prior to that on Discord can be seen below.

The posts provide by Nessuno (EDIT: also, he says "as requested", did we request them?), presumably in the capacity of lead gameside advocate, raise curious issues. I think there is a curiousness as to whether there was actionable trolling as the petitioner seems to accept (in that the posts seem mostly to comprise of criticism, albeit in harsh terms, of aspects of government and moderation, which would seem to me to be, in broad terms, protected by the right to free speech), though the primary basis for the ban, as publicly announced, was spamming. However, the thing which seems most curious is that the petitioner appears to have already been resident in TRR at the time of the posts and, thus, presumably the ban, which would seem to raise the question as to whether they are within the scope of the substantive protection of the Bill of Rights against being banned (as opposed to the procedural protection of having a right to review to determine whether they have the substantive protection).

I would be minded to make a request of the petitioner and the Delegate to clarify whether am I right in thinking the petitioner was resident in TRR at the time of the ban and how they came to be there (that is, to confirm that they came to be in TRR due to moving there or being ejected by a region other than TNP).

 

[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 , with [abstaining | dissenting]​

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.

EDIT: "The Court does not consider that this is a matter that can properly be considered by the Court when consideringdeciding, as it must, the lawfulness of the decision to ban when it was made." too many considers.
EDIT2: "Constitution ofor the Legal Code"; "petitioner's requests"

 

[Just a Lore]

Looks good as far as I can see.

 

[Lord Dominator]

Looks fine to me

 

[Wonderess]

I agree. Remorse alone cannot be a basis for reviewing a ban.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Given there is agreement, I will hand down the decision in this matter later today.