Off-Site Property Offences Universal Jurisdiction Act

I just realized that the Court ruling On the Reconsideration of the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, while being generally an entirely sensible policy, removes an important function of our anti-forum destruction laws. To illustrate, the Convention on Off-Site Property Security, our oldest standing multilateral treaty (and possibly our oldest treaty period?) says:

To fulfill the second requirement of membership we further agree that nations and entities that engage in these acts will gain no safe haven in member regions and organizations. To that effect we assert the right of all members to bring charges and try those that engage in these acts within their court system.

Click to expand...

The problem is that as a result of the Court's judgement, we can only bring charges under the Criminal Code for acts that were done by TNPers, or which were done directly to us. For us to fulfill the principle of "no safe harbour" - which is to say, that we will not welcome anyone who destroys off-site property, regardless of locale - we need to be able to bring charges against people who destroyed off-site property while they were not TNPers.

As such, I am proposing the following amendment to the Criminal Code to address this issue. It basically spells out the Court's ruling on jurisdiction, and then carves out crashing, phishing, and spamming - the COPS offences - as crimes that can be charged no matter who committed them or where they happened.

The front matter of chapter 1 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any person for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.
2. The Court of The North Pacific has jurisdiction over any criminal case where the offence is alleged to have been committed:
(a) By a person who was a resident when they committed the offence, or;
(b) Inside the physical territory of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, the NationStates region itself and the forum;
3. Notwithstanding the above clause, the Court of The North Pacific has jurisdiction over any case of crashing, phishing, or spamming.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Full support, nicely-spotted legal lacuna.

Lord Nwahs:

Full support, nicely-spotted legal lacuna.

Click to expand...

Thank you, especially for teaching me a new word

A wise Bill and an example of the risks attendant on judicial tinkering with constitutional prior decisions.

I have some thoughts.

Where else is “person” established in our legal documents?

Jurisdiction over any case of crashing or phishing, etc? Anywhere? Where are the limits? Perhaps you can link more directly to that treaty that’s concerning you?

Pallaith:

I have some thoughts.

Where else is “person” established in our legal documents?

Jurisdiction over any case of crashing or phishing, etc? Anywhere? Where are the limits? Perhaps you can link more directly to that treaty that’s concerning you?

Click to expand...

“Person” is used in a number of parts of the Code.

It is used as part of defining espionage, in section 1.2 “7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.” For those entitled to bring criminal proceedings, in section 3.4 “18. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will appoint a prosecutor to manage prosecution of the case.” In defining the Delegate and related officials in chapter 5 “3. In this chapter, the Serving Delegate means the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, the person who has assumed the duties of that office. […] and section 7.1 “4. The Serving Delegate is the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of the Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy or absence in that office, the person that has assumed the duties of that office.”

It has been used to distinguish any individual from possessors of nations or particular sorts of nations. For instance the entitlement to bring charges being “persons” was deliberately chosen to make clear the class of those able to bring proceedings was not limited to citizen (read: resident) nations.

Out of the dozens or so spam accounts i ban a day, under this bill should the Admin team defer to the IC Government for them?

Dreadton:

Out of the dozens or so spam accounts i ban a day, under this bill should the Admin team defer to the IC Government for them?

Click to expand...

The crime of spamming already exists, it is not created by this Bill.

Zyvetskistaahn:

The crime of spamming already exists, it is not created by this Bill.

Click to expand...

I think Dreadton was being facetious.

Pallaith:

Jurisdiction over any case of crashing or phishing, etc? Anywhere? Where are the limits? Perhaps you can link more directly to that treaty that’s concerning you?

Click to expand...

The purpose of this bill is to allow acts of forum destruction which were perpetuated outside of TNP by non-TNPers to be prosecuted in our courts. This is a principle that is explicitly stated by the Convention of Off-Site Property Security (emphasis added):

We agree that proper geopolitical requirements and cooperation are a key to preventing those who engage in acts proscribed in this treaty from continuing to do so. Signatories to this treaty agree to multilateral cooperation and further agree to enact laws against acts proscribed in this Treaty on a regional or organisational basis as one of the requirements for full membership. To fulfill the second requirement of membership we further agree that nations and entities that engage in these acts will gain no safe haven in member regions and organizations. To that effect we assert the right of all members to bring charges and try those that engage in these acts within their court system.

Click to expand...

In the context of forums and off-site properties used by NationStates regions and organizations, this bill asserts universal jurisdiction, which is the express intent of the passage text of the Convention I emphasized.

If you are concerned about this law applying to acts that have nothing to do with NationStates whatsoever, I would say that those cases are fundamentally real life matters over which our Court cannot assert jurisdiction. In general, I would presume that all our laws apply solely to the NS world, comprised approximately of all NS players and the venues they use to play the game. Right now, if we adopted the position that the Legal Code applies to all acts of crashing or phishing anywhere in the real world, then we could already pursue current residents for such acts that have nothing to do with NS; that would be ridiculous, both in the sense that it would not remotely be the business of the Court of our NS government, and also for the privacy of the individuals concerned.

Comfed:

The purpose of this bill is to allow acts of forum destruction which were perpetuated outside of TNP by non-TNPers to be prosecuted in our courts. This is a principle that is explicitly stated by the Convention of Off-Site Property Security (emphasis added):

In the context of forums and off-site properties used by NationStates regions and organizations, this bill asserts universal jurisdiction, which is the express intent of the passage text of the Convention I emphasized.

If you are concerned about this law applying to acts that have nothing to do with NationStates whatsoever, I would say that those cases are fundamentally real life matters over which our Court cannot assert jurisdiction. In general, I would presume that all our laws apply solely to the NS world, comprised approximately of all NS players and the venues they use to play the game. Right now, if we adopted the position that the Legal Code applies to all acts of crashing or phishing anywhere in the real world, then we could already pursue current residents for such acts that have nothing to do with NS; that would be ridiculous, both in the sense that it would not remotely be the business of the Court of our NS government, and also for the privacy of the individuals concerned.

Click to expand...

No my concern is that it’s silly to try someone in your region’s court when they’re not part of your region and not subject to your laws. My concern is that you look very dumb asserting that you’re going to take someone to Court who doesn’t even care about your region or being part of its community. I don’t think the problem is a clarifying ruling regarding this Court’s jurisdiction, it’s an old treaty that’s never been invoked before and had never lined up with our legal system and how it’s organized.

In fact, I don’t even read that clause the way you do. Our laws are consistent with having a right to bring charges against individuals who engage in that behavior - it doesn’t say that has to apply to outsiders in non-TNP spaces. And even if it can mean that, our jurisdiction not extending beyond our borders does not make us incompatible with that treaty. Another approach to modifying our law to be consistent with this treaty might be to require the VD to fail applicants who have engaged in this behavior - after all, no safe haven right? I also thought we could extend jurisdiction to such cases if the perpetrator becomes a citizen, but that might run into constitutional issues, not sure on that one but I haven’t had time to deep dive.

Basically from where I’m sitting, this change isn’t necessary and I’m not inclined to claim our Court can sentence people and our prosecutors try people who aren’t in TNP and didn’t do anything in TNP. It’s weird and awkward and doesn’t make us look like paragons of justice, it makes us look ridiculous.

Pallaith:

No my concern is that it’s silly to try someone in your region’s court when they’re not part of your region and not subject to your laws. My concern is that you look very dumb asserting that you’re going to take someone to Court who doesn’t even care about your region or being part of its community. I don’t think the problem is a clarifying ruling regarding this Court’s jurisdiction, it’s an old treaty that’s never been invoked before and had never lined up with our legal system and how it’s organized.

In fact, I don’t even read that clause the way you do. Our laws are consistent with having a right to bring charges against individuals who engage in that behavior - it doesn’t say that has to apply to outsiders in non-TNP spaces. And even if it can mean that, our jurisdiction not extending beyond our borders does not make us incompatible with that treaty. Another approach to modifying our law to be consistent with this treaty might be to require the VD to fail applicants who have engaged in this behavior - after all, no safe haven right? I also thought we could extend jurisdiction to such cases if the perpetrator becomes a citizen, but that might run into constitutional issues, not sure on that one but I haven’t had time to deep dive.

Basically from where I’m sitting, this change isn’t necessary and I’m not inclined to claim our Court can sentence people and our prosecutors try people who aren’t in TNP and didn’t do anything in TNP. It’s weird and awkward and doesn’t make us look like paragons of justice, it makes us look ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with being a "paragon of justice"; the purpose is to fulfill the principle stated in article III of COPS, which asserts no safe haven for forum destroyers. Individuals who destroy forums should not be welcomed in to our region, period. The point is deterrence; if someone knows that committing an act of forum destruction will result in their shunning from every region in the game, then they are less likely to do it. You are concerned about the Court being perceived as overreaching beyond the legitimate bounds of the region. I am concerned about the opposite problem - forum destroyers being allowed into the region because regional mechanisms have failed to properly hold them to account.

Your suggestion of a requirement attached to the Vice Delegate's check is not a suitable substitute. First, it has no application to current citizens. Second, anyone who fails the Vice Delegate's check can still participate in the region as a resident, or just as a visitor to our forum or Discord server; prosecution for crashing, phishing, or spamming allows them to be banned from these areas as well. Third, the Vice Delegate's check is subject to oversight by the Regional Assembly in a purely discretionary manner. In order for the policy of "no safe haven" expressed by COPS to be effective, we cannot allow for exceptions to be made based on the popularity of the individual in question. That would defeat the purpose entirely.

It is plainly the purpose of the convention to prohibit acts of forum destruction wherever they occur and for parties to it to assert their entitlement to punish such acts. It is right to say that it would not be a wise use of time to prosecute a person not interested in coming to our region, the point of the convention and the Bill is not to pointlessly pursue such a person it is to assert jurisdiction so if someone engages in such an act and then comes to our region, they will find no safe haven.

Along the lines of what Zyvet is saying, I don’t believe the current language in the bill is effectively achieving its goal, because it’s too broad. You’re saying it has jurisdiction over “any case” when you should be expanding the other clauses to allow for trying residents who committed these acts no matter where or when they did it. The key there is that they are subject to the trial only when they are a resident of TNP.

I’m not sold on the VD thing I was just explaining an alternative pathway, one that aims at barring the door rather than going through the Court. It admittedly requires some delicate twists and turns though, it’s simpler not to go that route I imagine. I just feel that total blanket jurisdiction is more than you need and doesn’t make sense. If that’s not what you intended fine, then I suggest a rewrite of the clause.

Pallaith:

Along the lines of what Zyvet is saying, I don’t believe the current language in the bill is effectively achieving its goal, because it’s too broad. You’re saying it has jurisdiction over “any case” when you should be expanding the other clauses to allow for trying residents who committed these acts no matter where or when they did it. The key there is that they are subject to the trial only when they are a resident of TNP.

I’m not sold on the VD thing I was just explaining an alternative pathway, one that aims at barring the door rather than going through the Court. It admittedly requires some delicate twists and turns though, it’s simpler not to go that route I imagine. I just feel that total blanket jurisdiction is more than you need and doesn’t make sense. If that’s not what you intended fine, then I suggest a rewrite of the clause.

Click to expand...

The issue becomes, though, that there may be persons interested in our region who are not resident. Indeed, we have a prominent example in one of our Deputy Speakers, who was once banned from NationStates and yet participated in a number of aspects of our region’s life. While I would expect if there were such a person who was a known forum destroyer they would not be welcome and could well expect Administrative action if it were thought they posed a risk to the forum, our regional polity has taken the obligation of ensuring they will not be tolerated and the means are the COPS offences and judicial banning if necessary.

Zyvetskistaahn:

The issue becomes, though, that there may be persons interested in our region who are not resident. Indeed, we have a prominent example in one of our Deputy Speakers, who was once banned from NationStates and yet participated in a number of aspects of our region’s life. While I would expect if there were such a person who was a known forum destroyer they would not be welcome and could well expect Administrative action if it were thought they posed a risk to the forum, our regional polity has taken the obligation of ensuring they will not be tolerated and the means are the COPS offences and judicial banning if necessary.

Click to expand...

Well now you’re opening the door to a few other dimensions to this that are interesting and in my view don’t really help the case for this bill.

On one hand, you have the concept of admin taking action on forum destroyers - that’s completely separate and has nothing to do with our laws, and that action will happen if it happens regardless of what our law says on the matter. It also reminds us just how significant forum destruction can be, and why it’s somewhat of an odd fit being a central aspect of our legal system’s provisions anyway.

On the other hand, you are invoking the idea of non-resident non-citizens being in our community. Those are people who do not have rights under our laws, none of the protections or privileges. If such a person were discovered the remedies to their inclusion in the community are much simpler than what this bill need concern itself with. We could be as broad or as restrictive here as we want, it would still be easier and faster to deal with them because they aren’t residents. My preference for making residents subject to trial at any time is precisely because of that possibility they may be discovered late or might already be citizens. We need to be able to apply the law to them when they may have exited all natural points of response along the way. But we need not fear that with registered users on the forum. I suppose the only issue with this in practice is that you still have to rely on admin, because IC offices cannot ban accounts from the forum, so you would need to go to the Court for ban orders. Is there a mechanism for the Court to request such bans? This strikes me as an untested area, but I’d imagine if there’s any doubt your bill could accommodate such orders.

Either way, you don’t need the super broad jurisdiction angle to address this. You just need to make it possible for residents to be subject to prosecution for this at any time, without limit on where and when the offense occurred; and you need a Court capable of ordering bans of such individuals if they happen to be a non-resident on this forum. And that supposed admin doesn’t decide to just take such action on their own.

Chapter 2.6 of the Legal Code allows a sentence of administrative banishment from the forums. That would be the reason to pursue a criminal trial against a non-resident. In an idea world, perhaps forum administration would act to ban forum destroyers without need for recourse to the courts. However, with the current state of things, they have largely left these matters up to the state.

Comfed:

Chapter 2.6 of the Legal Code allows a sentence of administrative banishment from the forums. That would be the reason to pursue a criminal trial against a non-resident. In an idea world, perhaps forum administration would act to ban forum destroyers without need for recourse to the courts. However, with the current state of things, they have largely left these matters up to the state.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

Dreadton:

Citation needed.

Click to expand...

"6. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration."

Comfed:

"6. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration."

Click to expand...

Thats the law but whens the last time the court has had to rule on such a case, or have the admins routinely addressed the matter of spammers and the like? In addition of agreeing with the position presented by Ghost, many times the "evidence" presented by other regions is weak or questionable at best. We have a vigorous process for evidence acceptance. How do you see this working when such evidence is likely destroyed or inadmissible? For example, if someone destroys balders forums, and people say its Bill who did it, how do you prove that?

Dreadton:

Thats the law but whens the last time the court has had to rule on such a case, or have the admins routinely addressed the matter of spammers and the like? In addition of agreeing with the position presented by Ghost, many times the "evidence" presented by other regions is weak or questionable at best. We have a vigorous process for evidence acceptance. How do you see this working when such evidence is likely destroyed or inadmissible? For example, if someone destroys balders forums, and people say its Bill who did it, how do you prove that?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the kind of garden variety spammers who are typically dispatched quickly by the administrators. I am referring to individuals in NationStates who destroy forums and then are welcomed back by various regions.

Your question regarding evidence seems to me to be a procedural one, that is irrelevant as to the broader question of whether it is desirable to prosecute forum destroyers. I would say, though, that the standard of evidence that we have to apply for the court system to be functional is necessarily lower than the one that would be applied in real life. Without claiming to make a definitive legal statement, I would probably consider testimony from a Balder forum administrator sufficient to reasonably convict someone of crashing Balder's forums, unless there is some sort of evidence that undermines the credibility of that witness.

Comfed:

Chapter 2.6 of the Legal Code allows a sentence of administrative banishment from the forums. That would be the reason to pursue a criminal trial against a non-resident. In an idea world, perhaps forum administration would act to ban forum destroyers without need for recourse to the courts. However, with the current state of things, they have largely left these matters up to the state.

Click to expand...

So then write in an explicit provision allowing the Court to issue such orders without a trial in the event it’s a non-resident in the forum.

But I continue to be skeptical of this whole thing because I don’t agree that our system as currently constituted even violates the treaty. It asserts our right to prosecute the crime and our system accommodates that prosecution. We’re concerned here with edge cases and being more explicit and broader in the application of it. I’m open to language addressing that, but simply saying the Court can have jurisdiction over any old example of forum destruction doesn’t seem like the approach to take.

Pallaith:

Well now you’re opening the door to a few other dimensions to this that are interesting and in my view don’t really help the case for this bill.

On one hand, you have the concept of admin taking action on forum destroyers - that’s completely separate and has nothing to do with our laws, and that action will happen if it happens regardless of what our law says on the matter. It also reminds us just how significant forum destruction can be, and why it’s somewhat of an odd fit being a central aspect of our legal system’s provisions anyway.

On the other hand, you are invoking the idea of non-resident non-citizens being in our community. Those are people who do not have rights under our laws, none of the protections or privileges. If such a person were discovered the remedies to their inclusion in the community are much simpler than what this bill need concern itself with. We could be as broad or as restrictive here as we want, it would still be easier and faster to deal with them because they aren’t residents. My preference for making residents subject to trial at any time is precisely because of that possibility they may be discovered late or might already be citizens. We need to be able to apply the law to them when they may have exited all natural points of response along the way. But we need not fear that with registered users on the forum. I suppose the only issue with this in practice is that you still have to rely on admin, because IC offices cannot ban accounts from the forum, so you would need to go to the Court for ban orders. Is there a mechanism for the Court to request such bans? This strikes me as an untested area, but I’d imagine if there’s any doubt your bill could accommodate such orders.

Either way, you don’t need the super broad jurisdiction angle to address this. You just need to make it possible for residents to be subject to prosecution for this at any time, without limit on where and when the offense occurred; and you need a Court capable of ordering bans of such individuals if they happen to be a non-resident on this forum. And that supposed admin doesn’t decide to just take such action on their own.

Click to expand...

It is Comfed’s Bill, not mine.

My point is that I would hope the community would not be welcoming of a known forum destroyer and that I would have thought there would be a prospect that, in the interest of protecting this forum, the Administration may act if they thought there was a risk posed to the forum by the presence of such a person. I do not expect the Administration to seek to enforce the convention, except to the extent that that would be incidental to action they would take for the integrity of the forum. It is the region at large that has covenanted to not to tolerate the practice, not the Administration. I think one could well establish a summary process to obtain judicial bans for non-residents, but that non-resident may not enjoy rights under the law has not yet been seen a fit reason to permit the Court to proceed against them by summary process for other offences, for instance those committed when they were once resident.

The mechanism employed by the Bill is a straightforward way to capture non-residents and residents alike who commit the offences. It avoids any issues of wording the jurisdiction or offence so as to avoid retroactivity for a resident for crimes committed while not resident, as their acts will have always been criminal, and avoids having to set up a parallel process for what, I would readily accept, one would expect to be a small group even in the context of these offences.

Dreadton:

Thats the law but whens the last time the court has had to rule on such a case, or have the admins routinely addressed the matter of spammers and the like? In addition of agreeing with the position presented by Ghost, many times the "evidence" presented by other regions is weak or questionable at best. We have a vigorous process for evidence acceptance. How do you see this working when such evidence is likely destroyed or inadmissible? For example, if someone destroys balders forums, and people say its Bill who did it, how do you prove that?

Click to expand...

The potential issue of evidential difficulties arises with these offences as they exist now. If I were to destroy Balder’s forum, I would be guilty and clearly within this region’s jurisdiction, the same question would arise. I do not think it an insurmountable task but if you wish to repeal the offences as you think them impossible to prosecute then you can propose a Bill to do so and presumably can advise the Delegate to propose that we should cease to be party to the convention as we cannot give effect to it.

Needless to say, I disagree. It’s a simple and straightforward approach, sure, but it’s way too blunt an approach for what we all acknowledge is a small segment of potential players. We would be going way out on a limb staking out a dubious position. It simply is not good practice to claim we have authority to try and judge people based on laws that are for our people and our community. As I have said, I do not see a contradiction with how we handle this matter and what the treaty states. I think this effort means well but isn’t necessary, and if you really want to proceed, there are more directed ways to do it.

Dredging this up slightly, but would be happy to support this if it were instead an additional requirement for the VD to screen for.

Bump.

I continue to maintain that the optimal way is the one that I have presented. In particular, the suggestion to simply make this a part of the Vice Delegate's check is not a plausible alternative. First, I would presume that the Vice Delegate would consider any forum destroyer to be a security threat in the first place and now allow them to obtain citizenship. Second, the Vice Delegate's check is much more limited in scope than this bill aims to be. All it can do is prevent an individual from becoming a citizen. It cannot remove a person who is already a citizen, nor can it wholly remove individuals from our community; individuals who are barred from citizenship are free to continue participating as residents or as visitors on the forums and Discord server. That is not an effective deterrent against forum destruction. In order for such a deterrent to be effective, forum destroyers must face total ostracism from all regions, thereby making it a crime that no one would consider worth the risk of committing. An example of where this process failed is when Mlahkavia, otherwise known as Sleet, was tolerated as a prominent gameplayer for some time despite her acts in The Land of Kings and Emperors as South Reinkalistan.

That incident indicates, to me, that this change is necessary. Senior Administrator Eluvatar stated when the point was raised that "in order for [the administrative team] to ban Sleet under COPS we'd need to try them for [...] the appropriate COPS crime" and that "TNP Forum administration isn't about to ban Sleet for the LKE incident." Evidently, we cannot rely on the administrative team to act where it is needed here - a legal approach is needed.

Comfed:

Bump.

I continue to maintain that the optimal way is the one that I have presented. In particular, the suggestion to simply make this a part of the Vice Delegate's check is not a plausible alternative. First, I would presume that the Vice Delegate would consider any forum destroyer to be a security threat in the first place and now allow them to obtain citizenship. Second, the Vice Delegate's check is much more limited in scope than this bill aims to be. All it can do is prevent an individual from becoming a citizen. It cannot remove a person who is already a citizen, nor can it wholly remove individuals from our community; individuals who are barred from citizenship are free to continue participating as residents or as visitors on the forums and Discord server. That is not an effective deterrent against forum destruction. In order for such a deterrent to be effective, forum destroyers must face total ostracism from all regions, thereby making it a crime that no one would consider worth the risk of committing. An example of where this process failed is when Mlahkavia, otherwise known as Sleet, was tolerated as a prominent gameplayer for some time despite her acts in The Land of Kings and Emperors as South Reinkalistan.

That incident indicates, to me, that this change is necessary. Senior Administrator Eluvatar stated when the point was raised that "in order for [the administrative team] to ban Sleet under COPS we'd need to try them for [...] the appropriate COPS crime" and that "TNP Forum administration isn't about to ban Sleet for the LKE incident." Evidently, we cannot rely on the administrative team to act where it is needed here - a legal approach is needed.

Click to expand...

The VD method has already been discussed and since you’re repeating yourself I’ll do the same: it was an example of an alternative, not a proposed competitor to your bill.

I continue to disagree with your method of solving this problem. There are more targeted ways to go about it without the overbroad and borderline laughable approach of claiming jurisdiction that our Court does not actually have.

I would also ask if the admin team’s position is the LKE incident wouldn’t lead to a ban, why a conviction in our Court for the same incident would. Is admin suggesting they would ban someone administratively for an IC conviction but not for something seen as beyond the pale for most regions? The very fact these things are being thrown about is kind of weird to me, though I recognize this is an old agreement from a time where those matters were treated differently. I understand the sentence of admin ban is in the legal code, but I would also note we don’t utilize it elsewhere, nor do we seriously contemplate doing so. Should we be doing that more? If not, why are we doing so here in the first place? This isn’t really the point of your bill but these are implications of what’s being discussed.

Charges can be made against residents and citizens for this now. If your concern is about non-citizens, then I must again suggest you write in an explicit provision allowing the Court to issue admin ban orders without a trial in the event it’s a non-resident in the forum. A criminal trial for an outsider continues to strike me as odd. The Court should have a modified hearing procedure for non-residents on these grounds - there would still be submission of evidence and consideration by the Court, but it would be a much quicker, and no less public, process. Applying our law to people outside our jurisdiction just doesn’t seem practical or appropriate, and would be a process that is a showy waste of time. I could support something like that. I do not support your bill as currently written.

I agree with Comfed's proposal. There must be some legal code or law to deal with these scenarios. The administrative team cannot be relied on all the time.

SkyTheAquariusOP:

I agree with Comfed's proposal. There must be some legal code or law to deal with these scenarios. The administrative team cannot be relied on all the time. I move for a vote.

Click to expand...

Sorry, only the citizen who proposed the legislation can move for a vote.

SkyTheAquariusOP:

I agree with Comfed's proposal. There must be some legal code or law to deal with these scenarios. The administrative team cannot be relied on all the time.

Click to expand...

The question is not relying on the admin team, the question is how we address this matter. Are you supporting this bill because of that, or because you agree with the method he has outlined? Because there's more than one way to do it.

Pallaith:

The question is not relying on the admin team, the question is how we address this matter. Are you supporting this bill because of that, or because you agree with the method he has outlined? Because there's more than one way to do it.

Click to expand...

My Opinion on this proposal:
@Pallaith You raised an important point about the practicality of trying individuals in TNP’s court when they are not even a part of TNP and are not subject to our laws. This concern is valid, and I understand that enforcement of such jurisdiction could be challenging. However, the intention behind the proposed amendment is not overreach but to ensure compliance with the existing Convention on Off-Site Property Security (COPS). By clearly defining the Court’s jurisdiction over specific offenses like crashing, phishing, and spamming as said by others, the Court can uphold “no safe harbour” principle without creating impractical legal situations. The goal is to prevent destructive behavior by indicating that such actions will have consequences, regardless of where they occur or the perpetrator’s region affiliation with TNP or not at the time of said action.

Regarding the interpretation of the COPS treaty, we can at least agree that it is crucial to make sure that our internal laws align with its requirements. While the clause does not explicitly demand jurisdiction over outsiders or actions in non-TNP spaces, the focus is on "not providing a safe haven for those who engage in such destructive acts". The amendment fulfills this principle by allowing the Court and TNP at large to hold people responsible who commit these offenses. This interpretation aligns with the spirit of the treaty. Or else what is the use of this treaty then?
Maybe the question here is whether the treaty should be amended or not? I believe this proposal of Comfed highlights an underlying issue which may or may not have been ignored and it is pertinent that we deliberate on that later. I, along with Comfed, too agree that the VD method is not going to be that useful. But as of now, given the fact there is no better alternative (even the ones suggested by you), Comfed's proposal seeks to amend that.

I understand the concern about how the amendment might affect TNP’s reputation. It is essential to balance our commitment to justice and international agreements at the same time maintaining a sensible and enforceable legal system.
Many political decisions and interaction with other regions are determined by our social relationship with them, which makes it very easy for us to fall into complacency. I don't see the possibility of getting mocked by the international community a far greater problem than our own internal conflicts with the legal code and honestly the extreme wariness about foreign nations mocking us stems from the false belief that it actually matters in the long run. As long as there is no doubt in the interpretation in the relationship between the legal code and the COPS treaty, I am satisfied. Comfed's proposal seeks to establish that interpretation.

I had no intent of moving to a vote while this is still under discussion and debate.

Pallaith:

I continue to disagree with your method of solving this problem. There are more targeted ways to go about it without the overbroad and borderline laughable approach of claiming jurisdiction that our Court does not actually have.

Click to expand...

I disagree that, if this bill were enacted, it would claim jurisdiction that the Court does not have. In real life, it is normal for the law to assert jurisdiction, and different countries assert in different ways; for example, France asserts jurisdiction over the actions of French citizens even when they are not in France. Similarly, the jurisdiction of our Court has been settled in this judicial decision - I am seeking to codify it in the Legal Code in a way that is slightly different from the Court decision.

More broadly, I would say that even if we assert jurisdiction over a particular case, we are not necessarily going to prosecute it; we would merely retain the option of doing so if the perpetrator chose to become a resident of The North Pacific, or a visitor to our community. Our ability to assert jurisdiction is limited by our ability to take enforcement action; in this case, the most we can do is ban someone from the region and forums. It would be useless to prosecute a non-resident without a forum account, so I do not think that will result from passing this bill.

Pallaith:

I would also ask if the admin team’s position is the LKE incident wouldn’t lead to a ban, why a conviction in our Court for the same incident would. Is admin suggesting they would ban someone administratively for an IC conviction but not for something seen as beyond the pale for most regions? The very fact these things are being thrown about is kind of weird to me, though I recognize this is an old agreement from a time where those matters were treated differently. I understand the sentence of admin ban is in the legal code, but I would also note we don’t utilize it elsewhere, nor do we seriously contemplate doing so. Should we be doing that more? If not, why are we doing so here in the first place? This isn’t really the point of your bill but these are implications of what’s being discussed.

Click to expand...

In response to your first question, that is my assumption. Eluvatar's statement I mentioned seemed to imply that the administrative team would prefer that COPS be enforced through Court action and that the admins would not enforce it unilaterally. Perhaps this would indeed be better handled from an OOC administrative standpoint, but I think there are a few key differences between this and other matters that are clearly within the remit of the admins. For some issues (namely, the ones covered in our Community Standards,) it is essential that the admins be able to act swiftly, outside of the political framework of the game, and in a way which fully preserves the privacy of individuals as needed, because these are, in many respects, real life matters rather than in-game ones. I'm not saying that forum destruction is an in-game action, but the way it has been treated historically has often (not universally) been as a political matter for regional governments to handle. Again, there are strong arguments against doing it that way, but it seems to me that the administrative team considers it as, in part, a political issue (although, of course, I am sure that they would act against individuals who endangered the safety of TNP's forums or Discord server.)

To your point about using forum bans as a sentencing mechanism, I would say that being banned from the forum is just a technical feature akin to permission masking. Historically, it has generally been imposed for OOC administrative reasons (as it should be), but there is no reason we cannot use it as a punishment in the criminal code if we wanted to. Many regions regularly impose bans from their off-site communities for in-character causes, although we have generally not opted to do so. I see this as a matter for the Regional Assembly to decide, and if it decided that forum bans should be a standard component of sentencing (not to suggest that this will happen) it would be an entirely legitimate use of its legislative authority. For that reason, I think that if a person were convicted of Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming in our Courts, they could be sentenced to a ban from the forum, and this ban could be carried out.

Pallaith:

Charges can be made against residents and citizens for this now. If your concern is about non-citizens, then I must again suggest you write in an explicit provision allowing the Court to issue admin ban orders without a trial in the event it’s a non-resident in the forum. A criminal trial for an outsider continues to strike me as odd. The Court should have a modified hearing procedure for non-residents on these grounds - there would still be submission of evidence and consideration by the Court, but it would be a much quicker, and no less public, process. Applying our law to people outside our jurisdiction just doesn’t seem practical or appropriate, and would be a process that is a showy waste of time. I could support something like that. I do not support your bill as currently written.

Click to expand...

Your suggestion to have an abbreviated procedure for addressing non-residents makes sense, given that they are not afforded the same constitutional rights as residents. Conversely, I don't think that's incompatible with the intent of this bill. Issuing summary bans by judicial edict to non-residents for their actions, to me, is effectively the same thing as asserting jurisdiction over those actions. We would still be asserting our authority to penalize them for acts of forum destruction committed beyond our borders while they were not citizens - which is all I am intending to establish here, regardless of specifics.

Picairn:

Sorry, only the citizen who proposed the legislation can move for a vote.

Click to expand...

Yeah, didn't know. The first motion must be introduced by the person who proposed this proposal? Then other citizens can second or third the motion right? Is that how it works?

SkyTheAquariusOP:

Yeah, didn't know. The first motion must be introduced by the person who proposed this proposal? Then other citizens can second or third the motion right? Is that how it works?

Click to expand...

No second is required, the Speaker will schedule a vote after the proposer makes a motion to vote.

Comfed:

I had no intent of moving to a vote while this is still under discussion and debate.

I disagree that, if this bill were enacted, it would claim jurisdiction that the Court does not have. In real life, it is normal for the law to assert jurisdiction, and different countries assert in different ways; for example, France asserts jurisdiction over the actions of French citizens even when they are not in France. Similarly, the jurisdiction of our Court has been settled in this judicial decision - I am seeking to codify it in the Legal Code in a way that is slightly different from the Court decision.

More broadly, I would say that even if we assert jurisdiction over a particular case, we are not necessarily going to prosecute it; we would merely retain the option of doing so if the perpetrator chose to become a resident of The North Pacific, or a visitor to our community. Our ability to assert jurisdiction is limited by our ability to take enforcement action; in this case, the most we can do is ban someone from the region and forums. It would be useless to prosecute a non-resident without a forum account, so I do not think that will result from passing this bill.

In response to your first question, that is my assumption. Eluvatar's statement I mentioned seemed to imply that the administrative team would prefer that COPS be enforced through Court action and that the admins would not enforce it unilaterally. Perhaps this would indeed be better handled from an OOC administrative standpoint, but I think there are a few key differences between this and other matters that are clearly within the remit of the admins. For some issues (namely, the ones covered in our Community Standards,) it is essential that the admins be able to act swiftly, outside of the political framework of the game, and in a way which fully preserves the privacy of individuals as needed, because these are, in many respects, real life matters rather than in-game ones. I'm not saying that forum destruction is an in-game action, but the way it has been treated historically has often (not universally) been as a political matter for regional governments to handle. Again, there are strong arguments against doing it that way, but it seems to me that the administrative team considers it as, in part, a political issue (although, of course, I am sure that they would act against individuals who endangered the safety of TNP's forums or Discord server.)

To your point about using forum bans as a sentencing mechanism, I would say that being banned from the forum is just a technical feature akin to permission masking. Historically, it has generally been imposed for OOC administrative reasons (as it should be), but there is no reason we cannot use it as a punishment in the criminal code if we wanted to. Many regions regularly impose bans from their off-site communities for in-character causes, although we have generally not opted to do so. I see this as a matter for the Regional Assembly to decide, and if it decided that forum bans should be a standard component of sentencing (not to suggest that this will happen) it would be an entirely legitimate use of its legislative authority. For that reason, I think that if a person were convicted of Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming in our Courts, they could be sentenced to a ban from the forum, and this ban could be carried out.

Your suggestion to have an abbreviated procedure for addressing non-residents makes sense, given that they are not afforded the same constitutional rights as residents. Conversely, I don't think that's incompatible with the intent of this bill. Issuing summary bans by judicial edict to non-residents for their actions, to me, is effectively the same thing as asserting jurisdiction over those actions. We would still be asserting our authority to penalize them for acts of forum destruction committed beyond our borders while they were not citizens - which is all I am intending to establish here, regardless of specifics.

Click to expand...

We cannot assert authority over things we do not have authority over. That is what I find ridiculous, and what other parts of this game would rightfully be prone to laugh at.. Your bill has a provision claiming jurisdiction over any case of this nature. I never had a problem with the first provision, though obviously I would not replace the word resident with person. And looking at it again, I would actually point out that you're limiting jurisdiction compared to the Court, limiting it to TNP and its forum, whereas nowadays we tend to leave such things open to offsite properties in general. I think this is something you may want to adjust.

Considering residents and citizens can be charged with crimes, the fact that you think it is pointless to prosecute non-residents makes me wonder why this is even necessary, which takes me back to my original argument: we already have a system compliant with the treaty that so concerns you. These are crimes under our laws, and our jurisdiction extends to any former resident or any TNP property. That's where it should extend, and that is where it extends. Your bill seeks to extend it beyond that for these crimes, but you don't expect to prosecute non-residents. So what are you trying to do here? This provision of your bill is not needed and in your own telling wouldn't have any impact different from status quo. So why do it?

My suggestion for summary judicial bans for non-residents is not the same as your suggestion. It involves jurisdiction we do have, over our spaces that non-residents happen to enter. I did not suggest that non-residents somewhere else outside of TNP space, and people who never were TNP residents, should be targeted. That seems to be what you're shooting for, a claim that we can prosecute people for TNP crimes that did not take place in TNP and were not committed by TNP residents. For TNP to not be a safe harbor for these people, all we need are laws which prohibit that behavior and a Court which can try the perpetrators. If they are not in TNP, why would we take it upon ourselves to try them? I am not seeing how the thing you fear is actually something to fear, nor does the ruling you cited change our ability to properly enforce this treaty.

I agree with Pallaith in general, but would also note that if the ruling in question truly does contradict our treaty duties, then the ruling is wrong/incomplete. In any case, I very much don’t think that the COPS crimes are especially likely to ever turn into trials, given that by definition they are almost always better handled by forum administration or the VD/Security Council.