[Draft] Loss of Citizenship Upon Administrative Ban

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Citizen
-
-
I find it silly that someone can be banned from the forum (and subsequently the region) but we still have to wait for them to fail out citizenship the normal way. So this.

For reference, this is essentially a combination of the clauses on other losses of citizenship and the clause on the allowance of gameside bans for admin bans.
Loss of Citizenship Upon Administrative Ban:
A new Clause 21 will be added to section 6.2 of the Legal Code to read as follows:
Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
21. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who have been banned offsite by forum administration and whose nation has been subsequently banned from the region by the Delegate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As a drafting point, it seems to me that this should be one or the other of “have been banned by forum administration” or “have been ejected and banned following banning by forum administration”. At the moment, the second condition (being ejected and banned) doesn’t add anything to the first, because the obligation to remove citizenship will always arise under the first condition before they are ejected and banned by the Delegate. My view, if it is to be done, is that it should be the second condition. If the Delegate doesn’t think a citizen’s actions warrant ejection and banning, I don’t see that they should warrant removal from citizenship by Administrative fiat.

In any event, I am opposed to this proposal. It is all well and good now, but it overlooks the risk that rogue administrators can pose. In any event, there is no harm caused by a nation retaining citizenship while subject to forum and regional bans, because they cannot do anything with it and will inevitably come to lose it.

EDIT: “citizens” to “citizen’s”
 
Last edited:
This also overlooks the possibility of a successful appeal by the banned citizen. With the way things are now, banned citizens effectively have 30 days to prove that forum administration got it wrong so they can come back as a citizen and not have to reapply.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
As a drafting point, it seems to me that this should be one or the other of “have been banned by forum administration” or “have been ejected and banned following banning by forum administration”. At the moment, the second condition (being ejected and banned) doesn’t add anything to the first, because the obligation to remove citizenship will always arise under the first condition before they are ejected and banned by the Delegate. My view, if it is to be done, is that it should be the second condition. If the Delegate doesn’t think a citizen’s actions warrant ejection and banning, I don’t see that they should warrant removal from citizenship by Administrative fiat.

In any event, I am opposed to this proposal. It is all well and good now, but it overlooks the risk that rogue administrators can pose. In any event, there is no harm caused by a nation retaining citizenship while subject to forum and regional bans, because they cannot do anything with it and will inevitably come to lose it.

EDIT: “citizens” to “citizen’s”
Click to expand...
You raise a fair point regarding ejections and such, I believe I will change it to just that at some point. I do believe that would also cover your rogue administrator worry (I don’t think that’s exactly likely however).
Sil Dorsett:
This also overlooks the possibility of a successful appeal by the banned citizen. With the way things are now, banned citizens effectively have 30 days to prove that forum administration got it wrong so they can come back as a citizen and not have to reapply.
Click to expand...
A quick at admin record indicates that a successful appeal for a full ban hasn’t happened recently - or that I can’t see them. Is that actually some that happens, and something that happens within a 30 day period?
 
Unless I'm missing something, the delegate has the power to ban someone for the duration of a forum ban. So if a delegate agrees with the forum admin's reasoning, then someone's citizenship could be lost very quickly and not require to wait 30 days. That seems like enough to me.
 
Former English Colony:
Unless I'm missing something, the delegate has the power to ban someone for the duration of a forum ban. So if a delegate agrees with the forum admin's reasoning, then someone's citizenship could be lost very quickly and not require to wait 30 days. That seems like enough to me.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to a gameside ban, the whole reason this is being proposed is because the Court has ruled before that ejecting/banning a nation would not cause them to lose citizenship because the law states they would either have to leave voluntarily or cease to exist.
 
Gorundu:
If you're referring to a gameside ban, the whole reason this is being proposed is because the Court has ruled before that ejecting/banning a nation would not cause them to lose citizenship because the law states they would either have to leave voluntarily or cease to exist.
Click to expand...
Ah (why there is always a caveat :P). What aspect(s) of citizenship would they be able to keep if they were forum and region banned?

If a change is needed, I'd feel more comfortable with it happening after both forum and regional ban, so that it ensured there was a larger amount of agreement on it. Plus if it was a disputable ban that would probably mean the delegate wouldn't summarily ban them.
 
Former English Colony:
What aspect(s) of citizenship would they be able to keep if they were forum and region banned?
Click to expand...
Nothing, pretty much. But it would only expire after they haven't posted on the forum or RMB for 30 days (which will happen since they can't post on either).
 
Okay, finally got around to actually updating the draft to reflect that it will instead require the admin ban and then Delegate ban. As others have mentioned, I believe this will cover our bases in terms of mistaken or potentially borderline cases.
Cretox:
What about temporary bans for moderation purposes?
Click to expand...
As a matter of inquiry, how common are such cases? I ask because I don’t strictly notice how often admin bans occur (especially on Discord, where such things are presumably more common compared to the forum bits I can see). I do see the potential for abuse, I’m curious how common such a situation is. In particula, I’m wondering about whether a change to “permanent ban (or perhaps just long-term)” would be in need (for this, and potentially the existing clause allowing for banjection on admin ban).
 
Would it be needed to add to the bill that all the rest of clauses will be re-numbered as needed?
 
Vivanco:
Would it be needed to add to the bill that all the rest of clauses will be re-numbered as needed?
Click to expand...
Nope, the preamble of the Legal code provides for it.

Something that leaves me scratching my head is a case like Heloon, who keeps citizenship despite being forum banned because of underage laws. Do you intend for this law to resolve such cases?
 
Last edited:
Lord Dominator:
A quick at admin record indicates that a successful appeal for a full ban hasn’t happened recently - or that I can’t see them. Is that actually some that happens, and something that happens within a 30 day period?
Click to expand...
One could hypothesize that it's conceivable that we could have banned Imkihca in error, back in 2017. We certainly firmly had the wrong impression of some relevant matters.
 
Fregerson:
Nope, the preamble of the Legal code provides for it.

Something that leaves me scratching my head is a case like Heloon, who keeps citizenship despite being forum banned because of underage laws. Do you intend for this law to resolve such cases?
Click to expand...

Heloonia is not banned gameside. At any point, however, the delegate could ban Heloonia from the region since they're serving a forum ban. Such a gameside ban would inevitably lead to loss of citizenship, since they couldn't post on the RMB. LC 7.3.11 and 7.3.12 already provide for that, along with limitations.
 
Last edited:
Eluvatar:
One could hypothesize that it's conceivable that we could have banned Imkihca in error, back in 2017. We certainly firmly had the wrong impression of some relevant matters.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point indeed, one I had not considere.

In any case, I do intend to shelve this one for now, at least unless we have another similar instance to provide a pattern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top