Ropanama's Request for Review Regional Ban

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

I am requesting review of my recent ban from the region, for "violation of community guidelines on multiple occassions", as seen here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/634763/35#post-10707978

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?

I believe that Sections 2, 5 and 8 of the Bill of the Rights have been violated by this action. I believe that Sections 5 and 8 of the Bill of Rights have been violated due to the nature of the ban issued against me, i.e. for a reason not expressly given in the Constitution or Legal Code. I believe that Section 2 of the Bill of Rights has been violated due to not being informed as to my rights with regards to requesting review of this ban, thereby denying me my right to seek redress of grievances.

I also believe Legal Code Section 7.3 has been violated by this ban, as I have been banned for a reason that is not covered by the reasons laid out in the appropriate section of the Legal Code covering Onsite Authority.

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

In "On the Regional Ban of Kirana" and "On The Regional Ban of Siberia Union", the court made clear that the use of regional banning is restricted by the Legal Code to those instances which are covered by TNP law, namely: " Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific" (under Section 7.3.16), "Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning." (7.3.18), "Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned." (7.3.19) and Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned." (7.3.20) with none of these applying to the ban handed out to you, thus showing the overreaching nature of the ban.

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.

I have standing under the Legal Code of TNP Section 7.3.26 and due to being the banned party:

26. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, Frontier WA Delegate, Serving Frontier Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

The compelling regional interest in my request is the fundamental violation of my rights and potentially the rights of other people banned for "Community Guidelines violations"

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

Pallaith:

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

Click to expand...

Thank you, this'll be a reminder to my future self to behave and not get in to trouble again. I'm a troublesome truck, like the ones from TTTE (Thomas the Tank Engine).

A Brief in Opposition to the Petitioner

The petitioner correctly cites relevant case law in their petition but incorrectly provides legal analysis for their petition.

On the Regional Ban of Kirana and On the Regional Ban of Siberia Union establish that the Delegate, under their legal authority to moderate the RMB, has the right and responsibility to enforce extralegal moderation as part of that authority. On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, further establishes "But we are also cognizant of the difficulty in applying the Legal Code to situations which are properly under the jurisdiction of NationStates itself. Everywhere else in the region, such extralegal moderation concerns are rightfully handled by the administrative team and governed by the TNP Community Guidelines. But in the case of the Regional Message Board, extralegal moderation is handled by NationStates moderation. And when they cannot act, only the Delegate and those with the power to suppress, eject, or ban can. " The court has already established in previous precedent that enforcement of Nation States rules and TNP Community Guidelines fall within the authority of the Delegate to regulate the RMB.

As the petitioner only alleges that the ban is unlawful because the Delegate's authority to regulate the RMB does not extend to the enforcement of TNP Community Guidelines and prior court precedent establishes that it is within said authority, the court must reject the petition. Challenging the previous ruling is a mater for a Request for review and not a Ban Petition. Furthermore, the petitioner does not allege that their actions were not a violation of TNP community rules, thus such an argument is not properly before the court and cannot be considered.

I'd like to say that my past actions were a violation of TNP community rules, I learned from those past experiences of mine, apologizing for them.

Pallaith:

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

Click to expand...

After a brief search in the GA discord channel I found a post entered by myself reporting inappropriate posts by Ropanama dating from 07/31/2023 12:00 PM

I thank the court for the offer of extra time in evidence gathering - we may need it.

There is a lot of history.

A Short Brief in Response to Dreadton's Brief

Neither On the Regional Ban of Kirana and On the Regional Ban of Siberia Union establish that the Delegate can go outside the law in applying standards of behaviour not explicitly prohibited by law as established in the Constitution or Legal Code, two documents that the Community Guidelines are not in fact part of. Nor does On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board establish that the Delegate is entitled to go outside of those laws.

Nor does there exist a difference between a "Request for Review" and a "Ban Petition". That is not a distinction that exists in our legal system and indeed the relevant portion of the legal code on banning explicitly calls this process a "judicial review". Further, the court, should it find itself in agreement with the petitioner, could decide to take a second look at its decision in On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board and overturn it or reaffirm it in partial or in full, as it did in that very case, when it overturned its prior ruling in On the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition, despite that not being in the scope of the petitioner's request.

Pallaith:

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

Click to expand...

The Socialist Lamprey of Ropanama: Active
Population: 4.573 billion
Founded: 3 years 189 days ago

I believe that other GA's will be assisting with the evidence gathering.

Perhaps starting from the latest to the oldest?

I know that there may have been NS Mod/Admin involvement with this nation, a GHR will probably require submission - if the court believes this should be done.

Where would you like the evidence published?

Would you like it posted as it becomes available, in a post that can be edited over time perhaps?

Marcus Antonius:

The Socialist Lamprey of Ropanama: Active
Population: 4.573 billion
Founded: 3 years 189 days ago

I believe that other GA's will be assisting with the evidence gathering.

Perhaps starting from the latest to the oldest?

I know that there may have been NS Mod/Admin involvement with this nation, a GHR will probably require submission - if the court believes this should be done.

Where would you like the evidence published?

Would you like it posted as it becomes available, in a post that can be edited over time perhaps?

Click to expand...

The evidence should be posted in this thread, in whatever format is easiest for you - I might suggest using spoilers and clearly marking different dates, especially if screenshots are utilized. I believe all at once would be best, if that stretches the timeframe let me know and we can extend the brief submission phase.

I am unsure what your point about the GHR signifies - are you suggesting a GHR is necessary in order to produce additional evidence?

Pallaith:

The evidence should be posted in this thread, in whatever format is easiest for you - I might suggest using spoilers and clearly marking different dates, especially if screenshots are utilized. I believe all at once would be best, if that stretches the timeframe let me know and we can extend the brief submission phase.

I am unsure what your point about the GHR signifies - are you suggesting a GHR is necessary in order to produce additional evidence?

Click to expand...

It's probably easiest to begin with the most recent evidence and go back in time from there.

As for the GHR, I have been informed by GA's that a dispatch was created by the petitioner which was either deleted by the petitioner or Moderation, I'm sure this will be mentioned in the timeline of evidence.

If I come across any RMB posts by the petitioner that have been suppressed by moderation, I will mention them and then we'll see if we need clarification, obviously any posts removed by moderation in the past we will not be able to submit as evidence.

Evidence Timeline - Part 1

The timeline will start from the most recent events and go back in time.

The evidence has been recovered from the Gameside Advocates discord channel and RMB posts

This post will be updated as and when evidence is recovered.

Image permissions have now been granted.



Due to being restricted to only 10, attached files to a post - please click this link https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198789/post-10708582 for further evidence. Thank you

@Pallaith Could someone please allow me to post image/screenshots here on this thread. Thank you

May it please the court,

I write this brief in support of the petitioner.

Despite any amount of evidence presented or that could be presented, the court need only look to one line:

Marcus Antonius:

The Socialist Lamprey of Ropanama has been banned from The North Pacific - Violation of Community Guideline on multiple occasions

Click to expand...

I, myself, have made a few bans under the conditions of "Violations of Community Guidelines" since becoming a Border Control officer, but looking back, I question the legality of those as well. Here is why:

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority:

16. Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.

Click to expand...

The reason given for the ban does not fit the allowable reasons per this clause, nor in any other part of Section 7.3. Even if evidence is presented in this review that showed that Ropanama violated NationStates rules, it wouldn't matter, as the reason given for the ban suggested something other than violations of NationStates rules. Ropanama has also not been banned offsite by forum administration, nor does Ropanama possess any nations in regions with which we are at war (that we know of), nor was Ropanama subject to summary ban for excessive endorsement gathering, having only 140 endorsements at the time of the ban. In essence, I believe Ropanama correctly assessed Section 7.3.

In On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, it was stated that while the Community Guidelines could form the basis for RMB Guidelines, the Community Guidelines did themselves not apply to on-site conduct as they were "explicitly designed for the region’s offsite properties and enforced by TNP’s administration team". Additionally, violations of the RMB Guidelines, while those guidelines may contain inspiration from NationStates rules and TNP's Community Guidelines, do not themselves constitute a valid reason for a ban, per Section 7.3. While it was later noted that extrajudicial moderation, while ordinarily handled by NationStates moderation, has frequently been delegated to those with Border Control and Communications regional officer powers, it is NationStates rules that must be consulted, not the TNP Community Guidelines or the RMB Guidelines themselves, per Section 7.3.

Finally, the reason for the ban is vague and does not point out the specifics of the violation leading to the ban. Most other ban reasons given by border control contain specifics about the violations committed. The reason given has none, only alluding to a pattern of repeated violations without stating what those violations were. These violations, if they violate NationStates rules, should have been spelled out in the ban notice. By not doing so, unless a telegram was sent to Ropanama, they were left guessing at what the problem was and thus was ill prepared to formulate a defense. It is only with Marcus Antonius's brief and evidence submission here that we know exactly why the ban was instituted.

May it please the court,

I feel I need to respond to this, as this has caused this old man some confusion.

Sil Dorsett:

Despite any amount of evidence presented or that could be presented, the court need only look to one line:

I, myself, have made a few bans under the conditions of "Violations of Community Guidelines" since becoming a Border Control officer, but looking back, I question the legality of those as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I was informed as the then new and inexperienced BCer, to use that phrase, it served as a 'catchall'. The reason for the ban was truly, multiple violations of the guidelines. These ranged from minor infringements, flaming to inappropriacy, breaking PG rules.

Ropanama has been the subject of discussion in the GA discord channel for some considerable time. I believe you were aware of this. You even asked, on at least two occasions, questions regarding their behaviour.


Please follow the conversation between yourself and Vapia

Sil Dorsett:

The reason given for the ban does not fit the allowable reasons per this clause, nor in any other part of Section 7.3. Even if evidence is presented in this review that showed that Ropanama violated NationStates rules, it wouldn't matter, as the reason given for the ban suggested something other than violations of NationStates rules. Ropanama has also not been banned offsite by forum administration, nor does Ropanama possess any nations in regions with which we are at war (that we know of), nor was Ropanama subject to summary ban for excessive endorsement gathering, having only 140 endorsements at the time of the ban. In essence, I believe Ropanama correctly assessed Section 7.3.

Click to expand...

Do you wish me to submit evidence or not? It would save me a lot of 'wasted' time.

Sil Dorsett:

In On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, it was stated that while the Community Guidelines could form the basis for RMB Guidelines, the Community Guidelines did themselves not apply to on-site conduct as they were "explicitly designed for the region’s offsite properties and enforced by TNP’s administration team". Additionally, violations of the RMB Guidelines, while those guidelines may contain inspiration from NationStates rules and TNP's Community Guidelines, do not themselves constitute a valid reason for a ban, per Section 7.3. While it was later noted that extrajudicial moderation, while ordinarily handled by NationStates moderation, has frequently been delegated to those with Border Control and Communications regional officer powers, it is NationStates rules that must be consulted, not the TNP Community Guidelines or the RMB Guidelines themselves, per Section 7.3.

Click to expand...

This causes me confusion, If you mean we are to follow NationStates rules in regard to the RMB, despite the extrajudicial moderation delegated to those with Border Control and Communications regional officer powers, that means all infringements should be dealt with by NS moderation or TNP Admin? Am I correct?

The RMB guidelines would simply be 'guidelines', I guess suppressions would be allowable but bans would not? So how do we proceed from now on, in regards to the RMB?

Sil Dorsett:

Finally, the reason for the ban is vague and does not point out the specifics of the violation leading to the ban. Most other ban reasons given by border control contain specifics about the violations committed. The reason given has none, only alluding to a pattern of repeated violations without stating what those violations were. These violations, if they violate NationStates rules, should have been spelled out in the ban notice. By not doing so, unless a telegram was sent to Ropanama, they were left guessing at what the problem was and thus was ill prepared to formulate a defense. It is only with Marcus Antonius's brief and evidence submission here that we know exactly why the ban was instituted.

Click to expand...

As previously mentioned the "Violations of Community Guidelines" is used as a 'catchall' and whereas there is no mention of specific violations for the ban, this does not disadvantage the petitioner as their defence can be constructed from the evidence provided here. I cannot believe that the petitioner, who has been playing NationStates since 21 April 2021 and has been a resident here posting on our RMB since May 6, 2023 was oblivious to their behaviour being an issue. I am not a lawyer, but I am aware that ignorance of the Law is not a defence, but it can be used as mitigation.

If I could once again address the court,

Could I please have the ability granted to post screenshots and images here.

Thank you

Or should I request this from Admin?

Marcus Antonius:

If I could once again address the court,

Could I please have the ability granted to post screenshots and images here.

Thank you

Or should I request this from Admin?

Click to expand...

Such permissions are a forum level matter and would need to be granted by an admin, I am unable to make such an adjustment.

Pallaith:

Such permissions are a forum level matter and would need to be granted by an admin, I am unable to make such an adjustment.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I shall submit a request immediately.

@Marcus Antonius

I have decided to extend the briefing period for five additional days given the difficulty in gathering the evidence and the delays caused by the forum permissions.

Pallaith:

I have decided to extend the briefing period for five additional days given the difficulty in gathering the evidence and the delays caused by the forum permissions.

Click to expand...

I thank the Court for this extension.

Indeed, collating the evidence has been very, very time consuming. I believe I have 6 months or so of GA Channel searches remaining [going back to when Ropanama arrived in our Region - unfortunately it would appear that some of Ropanama's actions may not have been reported there. Stressing once again the importance of record keeping and certainly not to delete evidence.

There is a strong collective memory of Ropanama's past rule breaking, and some discussion posted, amongst the GA team, perhaps I'll find more evidence of it. I'm not really going to search through several thousand RMB posts to track down suppressed Ropanama posts.

I'll use the time remaining to find what I can and post in evidence.

For the Courts information: I will be AFK this Wednesday, 30th October 2024

Evidence Timeline - Part 2

Evidence Timeline - Part 3


OK that's the GA discord channel trawled for evidence up to 1st June 2023

Something that I am hoping the court can address in their decision is whether it is appropriate to amend a ban reason. Judging from the evidence presented by Marcus, I count multiple violations of NationStates rules, including Trolling, Flaming, Adult-Only content, et cetera. Thus, if the ban reason were amended to read "Violations of NationStates Rules: Trolling, Flaming, Adult-Only content", I would have no reason to see the matter in the petitioner's favor.

Additional

Miscellaneous Evidence

Evidence collated from RMB posts

1. Marcus Antonius (Ethnon) — 10/26/2024 6:18 PM​

   For Record Purposes..........1 year 144 days ago Ropanama's first post on the RMB https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52380103 Page 113,660
   [6:21 PM]
   Second post https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52380128
   
   
   
   [6:24 PM]
   A Smol Doe appears to recognise Ropanama..........https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52380171
   

   ​

   Marcus Antonius (Ethnon) — 10/26/2024 7:17 PM​

   Ropanama suppressedhttps://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52380361 Emoji only post
   
   [7:21 PM]
   Ropanama suppressedhttps://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52380558 More than 50% use of caps in post
   
   

   Marcus Antonius (Ethnon) — 10/26/2024 7:25 PM​

   Ropanama suppressedhttps://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52380834 Emoji only post
   
   

   Marcus Antonius (Ethnon) — 10/26/2024 7:53 PM​

   Ropanama suppressedhttps://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52386900 All Caps
   
   

   Marcus Antonius (Ethnon) — 10/26/2024 8:17 PM​

   Ropanama suppressed by Madjack.https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52395402
   
   [8:18 PM]
   Ropanama suppressed by Madjack.https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52395409 long post
   [8:22 PM]
   Ropanama suppressedhttps://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52395965 All caps/Emojis
   

   Marcus Antonius (Ethnon) — 10/26/2024 8:50 PM​

   Post by Ropanama suppressedhttps://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=52402304 All Caps

A Response Brief Against the Petitioner

The ruling On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board established that the enforcement of NationStates rules specifically and extralegal moderation generally falls under my authority as the Delegate, as well as "those with the power to suppress, eject, or ban," to regulate the RMB in the absence of NationStates moderation. Aside from the relevant portion of the ruling cited in Dreadton's brief, I would like to draw the Court's attention to the following statements in which the Court has affirmed this view:

That being said, in seeking to foster constructive, positive dialogue and keeping the peace in the community, the Delegate has a great deal of leeway in moderating the Regional Message Board. [...] It would be unreasonable to assert that if a NationStates moderator chooses not to respond to a post reported on the Regional Message Board, the post is not actionable. Given the subjective nature of many posts, and the sheer number of them, not to mention the many other regions to moderate outside of The North Pacific, it would be unreasonable to expect every instance of moderation to be handled by NationStates moderators. It is expected for the region itself to pick up the slack, [...] But our laws cannot be consistently applied to every single specific case of questionable posts. Every situation requires its own consideration, and sometimes it comes down to our Delegate and regional officers to make the call that would otherwise be for NationStates moderation.

[...] The Delegate has the legal authority to regulate the Regional Message Board and the constitutional authority to restrict some forms of speech in the interest of the greater good of the community. And the Delegate has a secondary role as a moderator for the gameside community in addition to or in the absence of NationStates moderation, particularly in the most subjective or low priority situations as with this one.

Click to expand...

Further, the Court has also established that TNP's Community Guidelines may be used as a "point of reference" for government officials when considering extralegally actionable posts, i.e. posts outside the context of the regional government and the game:

This Court does not mean to suggest that officials will “know it when they see it,” though the topic and severity of the content is an important guidepost in determining the nature of legally actionable or extralegally actionable posts. Posts clearly related to regional events, government officials, policies, laws, elections, and in the context of the game of NationStates itself, all would be legally actionable. Posts discussing all of the above outside of the context of NationStates, especially referring to players controlling the nations in a strictly “real life” context, are more likely to be extralegally actionable. Extreme language or emotion, particularly if they rise to a threatening or personally concerning level, would also warrant extralegal review. When considering such posts, NationStates rules should be consulted, and TNP Community Guidelines can also serve as a point of reference. If none of these rules are clearly violated, the posts are likely legally actionable, and the Delegate and regional officers may be subject to judicial review. These are hardly exhaustive examples, but we hope they serve as an aid in determining how to approach handling such posts in the future.

Click to expand...

In both cases where the ruling was applied, On the Regional Ban of Kirana and On The Regional Ban of Siberia Union, the Court has repeatedly affirmed its original precedent and upheld the Delegate's broad authority to regulate the RMB. The Petitioner themself has admitted, in this very thread, that their past actions "were a violation of TNP community rules" and apologised for those acts.

As demonstrated by Security Councillor Marcus's submitted evidence, the Petitioner committed multiple acts of flaming, trolling, and adult-only content in their messages, all of which are punishable offences under both NationStates' One Stop Rules Shop and TNP's Community Guidelines. Even if the Court adopts the view that the Community Guidelines do not apply to the Delegate's legal authority to regulate the RMB, the ban must still be upheld under Section 7.3.16 of the Legal Code, where it is plainly stated: "Violators of NationStates rules [...] may be subject to summary ejection or banning."

The briefing period is closed, and the Court will now begin deliberating.