Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Gulliver on June 10, 2015, 06:11:03 PM
-
Some time ago a discussion on adopting a criminal code was started. It ultimately petered out with many people stating they'd prefer to handle things on a case by case basis as we have been doing so far. Our Constitution, however, states that "[n]o person may be charged for a crime that was no crime at the time of commission" and "[n]o citizen may be ejected from Taijitu or limited in their access to the Regional Forums absent criminal charges." As I read this, we currently cannot charge anyone with a criminal offense because there are none defined.
This brings to mind two questions we should discuss, namely whether my interpretation of the law is correct and whether we should alter the Constitution or adopt a criminal code to address this situation. A related question is whether we want to even have a classical sense of "criminal code" and just work by ostracizing people if we feel it's necessary. The one key point I see immediately is being able to limit in-game abuses by the Delegate without preventing them from maintaining a basic degree of security and orderliness.
-
I believe the last discussion had a good support towards a list of offenses, so I think quoting the last discussion would be helpful. Why did I not do it myself? sorry I don't have time D: when I come back home I might do it. kthxbye
-
The power still resides in the Ecclesia in all matters. If the majority vote that a crime was committed and punishment is warranted, then a crime was committed and punishment shall be carried out, regardless how it is worded in the Constitution.
That's my take on it.
-
I think a list of crimes is a good idea, especially given the inconsistencies Gulliver pointed out.
I would hope that such a list would be 1) well-defined but also 2) really short.
As Morpheus said "we well know that the reason most of us are here is because of our affinity for disobedience." ;D
-
If the majority vote that a crime was committed and punishment is warranted, then a crime was committed and punishment shall be carried out, regardless how it is worded in the Constitution.
that'd be terrible. You can't say it's a crime without a previous list of offenses. Anyway here's some snippets from the last discussion:
Let's just keep it simple with things we know we don't want.
No illegal shit on our forum.
No harassing other members.
No stalking/phishing other members.
No racism, no sexism, no homophobia, etc.
I'm in favor of the the ad hoc approach, at least while our active community is small. On the other hand, I like the idea of having statutes of limitations and sentencing guidelines for major crimes in law somewhere, and find it hard to imagine an act with such things in it that doesn't provide a list of specific crimes. Perhaps we should discuss this, and at the very least we will have produced a set of guidelines for the Ecclesia to consider should the need arise for them.
This is why I support a list of crimes spelled out in legislation, should we need a Citizen-Mediator it would be nice if they had legal precedent to work with. Rather than going contrary to being negative to an adhoc legal function, I believe it is a boon for such.
Can someone link or post the forum usage rules? I can't find em.
-
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
2. No Taijituan shall, repeatedly and with malicious intent, harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan or group of persons that causes such Taijituan or group of persons anguish, embarrassment, or any other extreme negative emotion.
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
-
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
2. No Taijituan shall harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan that causes such Taijituan anguish, embarrassment, or any other negative emotion.
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
I think the motif is still a case-by-case, you just need to list what can be considered an offense, the treatment of such offense will be either agreed between parties through a Mediator or put to everyone's scrutiny in Ecclesia if there are no agreements. We've had this discussion before and I'm against "permabans".
I agree on the front of time limits on this but otherwise find the list to be comprehensive. Should different offenses have different lengths of ejection or are we talking permabans for some?
I'm disagreeing with permabans. If most people are so sensitive to some subjects more than others I wouldnt mind that much if some were close to permabans, if you give a ban for 3 years is virtually the same as permaban. We either decide the appropriate time at each sentence through Ecclesia for each case, or we set maximum time limits for each offense.
btw link to a much older discussion about this issue: http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/ejections/
comes with a nice list from Eluvatar:
- Misuse of personal information (i.e. doxxing)
- Impersonation (of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu)
- flaming (personal attacks) or spamming (egregiously) on the RMB
- (willfully?) breaking NS rules
- lying in your citizenship application
- lying about an election on the RMB or by telegram
- having been ostracized
- acting in Taijitu as an agent of a foreign power
- couping an ally of ours (TNP/TRR)
- deliberately endorsing a rogue/invader delegate of an ally
-
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
2. No Taijituan shall harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan that causes such Taijituan anguish, embarrassment, or any other negative emotion.
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
I think the motif is still a case-by-case, you just need to list what can be considered an offense, the treatment of such offense will be either agreed between parties through a Mediator or put to everyone's scrutiny in Ecclesia if there are no agreements.
Yea, pretty much. I just wrote some things that could be considered "offenses."
We've had this discussion before and I'm against "permabans".
I agree on the front of time limits on this but otherwise find the list to be comprehensive. Should different offenses have different lengths of ejection or are we talking permabans for some?
I'm disagreeing with permabans. If most people are so sensitive to some subjects more than others I wouldnt mind that much if some were close to permabans, if you give a ban for 3 years is virtually the same as permaban. We either decide the appropriate time at each sentence through Ecclesia for each case, or we set maximum time limits for each offense.
As you said, "case-by-case jurisdiction" and the Ecclesia still has absolute power. All I said was a maximum punishment, not an absolute one. If you are against permaban, you absolutely do not have to vote for it. :)
-
If the majority vote that a crime was committed and punishment is warranted, then a crime was committed and punishment shall be carried out, regardless how it is worded in the Constitution.
that'd be terrible. You can't say it's a crime without a previous list of offenses.
If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Alrighty, lets break this down....
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
And what exactly is considered an "illegal fashion" and/or "illegal to Taijitu"? I have no idea what crime(s) is being defined here, if any.
2. No Taijituan shall harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan that causes such Taijituan anguish, embarrassment, or any other negative emotion.
So if someone's post makes another mad and/or sad, it's a crime?
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
Okay, actual criteria listed for reasonable offenses. No objection here.
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
And what does this do? Put the punishment at the will of the Ecclesia? This is the current system in place.
...and why are these considered "high" crimes?
-
Alrighty, lets break this down....
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
And what exactly is considered an "illegal fashion" and/or "illegal to Taijitu"? I have no idea what crime(s) is being defined here, if any.
It means you can't post anything illegal here.
2. No Taijituan shall harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan that causes such Taijituan anguish, embarrassment, or any other negative emotion.
So if someone's post makes another mad and/or sad, it's a crime?
I think you know what I mean, but I'll tweak it to say "repeatedly" and "with malicious intention."
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
Okay, actual criteria listed for reasonable offenses. No objection here.
:)
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
And what does this do? Put the punishment at the will of the Ecclesia?
Yep. Direct democracy always wins.
-
I am strongly opposed to faux-ostracism, of the sort that involves banning a single person via a single at-large vote of the Ecclesia.
Now, if we are going to put punishment in the hands of the Ecclesia and not in a court, we should ensure that the Citizen-Mediator, or Mediators, are completely unable to remedy the situation at hand before proceeding to a proper vote of ostracism (and before anyone points this out, yes, ostracisms were usually preventative, not a punishment):
Each year the Athenians were asked in the assembly whether they wished to hold an ostracism. The question was put in the sixth of the ten months used for state business under the democracy (January or February in the modern Gregorian Calendar). If they voted "yes", then an ostracism would be held two months later. In a section of the agora set off and suitably barriered,[2] citizens gave the name of those they wished to be ostracised to a scribe, as many of them were illiterate, and they then scratched the name on pottery sherds, and deposited them in urns. The presiding officials counted the ostraka submitted and sorted the names into separate piles. The person whose pile contained the most ostraka would be banished[...]
The two-month gap is a key feature in the institution, much as in elections under modern liberal democracies. It first prevented the candidate for expulsion being chosen out of immediate anger, although an Athenian general such as Cimon would have not wanted to lose a battle the week before such a second vote.[9] Secondly, it opened up a period for discussion (or perhaps agitation), whether informally in daily talk or public speeches before the Athenian assembly or Athenian courts. In this process a consensus, or rival consensuses, might emerge. Further, in that time of waiting, ordinary Athenian citizens must have felt a certain power over the greatest members of their city; conversely, the most prominent citizens had an incentive to worry how their social inferiors regarded them.
The gap between the vote and the "election", as it were, is important. It provides a period for cooling down period, and the "election" for ostracism - wherein anyone is eligible - is an excellent way to prevent witch-hunts. We would of course have to change things to make it applicable to our needs - like shortening the cooling-off period from two months - but in general we should leave the process the same.
If we're not going to establish a court to actually deal punishments, this is how it should happen.
I think if anyone is doing things that violate the forum ToS seriously or RL-laws, that warrants an immediate ban by administration.
-
I am strongly opposed to faux-ostracism, of the sort that involves banning a single person via a single at-large vote of the Ecclesia.
Now, if we are going to put punishment in the hands of the Ecclesia and not in a court, we should ensure that the Citizen-Mediator, or Mediators, are completely unable to remedy the situation at hand before proceeding to a proper vote of ostracism (and before anyone points this out, yes, ostracisms were usually preventative, not a punishment):
Each year the Athenians were asked in the assembly whether they wished to hold an ostracism. The question was put in the sixth of the ten months used for state business under the democracy (January or February in the modern Gregorian Calendar). If they voted "yes", then an ostracism would be held two months later. In a section of the agora set off and suitably barriered,[2] citizens gave the name of those they wished to be ostracised to a scribe, as many of them were illiterate, and they then scratched the name on pottery sherds, and deposited them in urns. The presiding officials counted the ostraka submitted and sorted the names into separate piles. The person whose pile contained the most ostraka would be banished[...]
The two-month gap is a key feature in the institution, much as in elections under modern liberal democracies. It first prevented the candidate for expulsion being chosen out of immediate anger, although an Athenian general such as Cimon would have not wanted to lose a battle the week before such a second vote.[9] Secondly, it opened up a period for discussion (or perhaps agitation), whether informally in daily talk or public speeches before the Athenian assembly or Athenian courts. In this process a consensus, or rival consensuses, might emerge. Further, in that time of waiting, ordinary Athenian citizens must have felt a certain power over the greatest members of their city; conversely, the most prominent citizens had an incentive to worry how their social inferiors regarded them.
The gap between the vote and the "election", as it were, is important. It provides a period for cooling down period, and the "election" for ostracism - wherein anyone is eligible - is an excellent way to prevent witch-hunts. We would of course have to change things to make it applicable to our needs - like shortening the cooling-off period from two months - but in general we should leave the process the same.
If we're not going to establish a court to actually deal punishments, this is how it should happen.
I think if anyone is doing things that violate the forum ToS seriously or RL-laws, that warrants an immediate ban by administration.
Something like two weeks would be sufficient for us, this would be preferable to the aimless lists suggested thus far. Would we have specific times for raising the question of such?
-
Why are we doing that? Just to mimic ostracism? I'm pretty sure the system already in place is fine, Mediator act or w/e already tries to fix offenses between members, if no agreement is met Ecclesia will deal with it. Offenses against the collective is the same thing. Just list the damn offenses and they will be dealt case-by-case.
-
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
2. No Taijituan shall harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan that causes such Taijituan anguish, embarrassment, or any other negative emotion.
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
a nice list from Eluvatar:
- Misuse of personal information (i.e. doxxing)
- Impersonation (of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu)
- flaming (personal attacks) or spamming (egregiously) on the RMB
- (willfully?) breaking NS rules
- lying in your citizenship application
- lying about an election on the RMB or by telegram
- having been ostracized
- acting in Taijitu as an agent of a foreign power
- couping an ally of ours (TNP/TRR)
- deliberately endorsing a rogue/invader delegate of an ally
I much prefer the previous Eluvatar originated list of crimes vs the list of AwesomeSaucer. I might work up a better draft of crimes if I can get the time today. Very thoroughly against wishy washy language and the term "Taijituan" we're Taiji's damn it!
-
Quick draft of High Crimes:
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
2. No Taijituan shall harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan that causes such Taijituan anguish, embarrassment, or any other negative emotion.
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
If any Taijtuan performs such above high crimes, and is convicted and found guilty by the Ecclesia, such Taijtuan is subject to punishment designated by the Ecclesia, with a maximum punishment of permanent ban.
a nice list from Eluvatar:
- Misuse of personal information (i.e. doxxing)
- Impersonation (of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu)
- flaming (personal attacks) or spamming (egregiously) on the RMB
- (willfully?) breaking NS rules
- lying in your citizenship application
- lying about an election on the RMB or by telegram
- having been ostracized
- acting in Taijitu as an agent of a foreign power
- couping an ally of ours (TNP/TRR)
- deliberately endorsing a rogue/invader delegate of an ally
I much prefer the previous Eluvatar originated list of crimes vs the list of AwesomeSaucer. I might work up a better draft of crimes if I can get the time today. Very thoroughly against wishy washy language and the term "Taijituan" we're Taiji's damn it!
Lol, I honestly hate Elu's list. The language is certainly easier on the eyes, but it gets WAY too political with "deliberately endorsing a rogue/invader delegate of an ally" and such. That isn't acceptable in my opinion. And I swear by my life that we are Taiji, but the majority says otherwise.
-
Why are we doing that? Just to mimic ostracism? I'm pretty sure the system already in place is fine, Mediator act or w/e already tries to fix offenses between members, if no agreement is met Ecclesia will deal with it. Offenses against the collective is the same thing. Just list the damn offenses and they will be dealt case-by-case.
I'm actually growing to like a "Mediator Act." Should I assume the Mediator is like a "supreme judge?"
-
Why are we doing that? Just to mimic ostracism? I'm pretty sure the system already in place is fine, Mediator act or w/e already tries to fix offenses between members, if no agreement is met Ecclesia will deal with it. Offenses against the collective is the same thing. Just list the damn offenses and they will be dealt case-by-case.
I'm actually growing to like a "Mediator Act." Should I assume the Mediator is like a "supreme judge?"
You can read the full text HERE. (http://forum.taijitu.org/legislative-and-treaty-votes/the-judiciary-act-citizen-mediator/)
-
You should also read the 5 page long discussion on that vote Khem posted. the Citizen-Mediator got approved but not much else.
http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/judiciary/
I suspect we may need a mediator to reach a compromise over a criminal code. I mean, maybe we can have an opinion poll and figure out that everyone (except Bustos) is in favor of a list of offenses whichever that may be, we can even throw the lists together and work from there, and see how much support ostracism or setting penalties is really worth anything.
I say, the mediator should work without barriers of a minimum/maximum sentence, and when that fails he will request Ecclesia to set it regarding the case. I doubt there will be that many offenses to the collective Taijitu region that aren't preemptively acted upon by the admins anyway, so why bother pretending Ecclesia has a say about those? You're all concern with "high" crimes, come on what can anybody really affect Taijitu with them "high crimes"? Espionage, we already said how ridiculous that was. Most of the crimes, if any, will be offending specific parties, there's no need to talk about permabans or any of that crap, admins already permaban at will following whatever rules they already have or think they have. Ecclesia or Mediator deals with "civil" issues, admin issues are for admins, if you want we can set the admin rules but I doubt that's necessary or will bear any effect at all.
-
In general I agree that the mediator should be the main force of civil law.
However, I also strongly support criminalizing things like couping treatied allies. I think few regions would be inclined to sign a treaty with us if they can't expect us to punish a citizen that works against their government.
-
If we do adopt a criminal code, it should not include things already covered by RL law and the forum terms of service. Mostly likely it will primarily focus on things related to NationStates, like the integrity of our democracy and the in game security of the region.
When I tried drafting something on my own a while back, I came up with the following list of possibilities (which I don't feel equally sure about):
- Seizing the ingame regional delegacy of Taijitu without having been elected Citizen-Delegate;
- Impersonating a member of the government or armed forces;
- Unlawfully seizing the delegacy of an allied region of Taijitu;
- Knowingly submitting false information on a citizenship application;
- Distributing militia secrets without the permission of the Citizen-Sergeant;
- Knowingly distributing false information about any election or vote of the Ecclesia;
- Distributing information which could be used to identify the real life identity of a person with their permission;
- Disrupting the regional message board of Taijitu with excessive or inappropriate messages;
- Distributing chat logs or private messages without the permission of all those involved; and
- Impersonating a private person.
I also included a conspiracy clause stating "[p]lanning, attempting or knowingly abetting anticivil activity or coercing another to engage in anticivil activity will be considered equivalent to engaging in it" and exceptions for when forced to commit the act or required by law.
Another thing the draft had was categorizing offenses into "major anti-civil activity" and "minor anti-civil activity" which determined how long someone could be banned for the crime and whether the Citizen-Delegate could ban or eject someone immediately if caught in the act.
Are we looking to draw a line between civil and criminal disputes? If civil disputes are handled by a mediator one-on-one how are criminal disputes, for a lack of a better word, tried? By the Ecclesia as a whole? Who brings charges? One option I see is letting anyone make a complaint of criminal behavior if they're the one affected, whether as a private citizen or government official, and possibly handle it procedurally in a fashion similar to what we've called "civil law" and not have such a stark distinction.
-
I feel like judgement of criminal offences should require more than a single person chosen to stand in judgement. Maybe a tribunal? I'd prefer criminal charges not be brought forth before the entire Ecclesia and in fact having a system of handling such cases anonymously until such time as judgement is achieved would be ideal to me. However I wouldn't want one Citizen or Officer to be in charge of such in case charges were to be levied against them. I prefer no distinction made between "major" and "minor" crimes with the sentencing to be determined as per the individual situation rather than a rigid standard of "X" time. Also loving the list.
-
Honestly, I just think the defendant should be able to choose whether to have a (public) bench trial judged by the Mediator, or a jury trial consisting of either a few members of the Ecclesia or the entire Ecclesia.
About the list, I enjoy it thoroughly, but I would personally take out the clauses relating to political matters. I think Taijituan crimes should be personal, not political.
-
Honestly, I just think the defendant should be able to choose whether to have a (public) bench trial judged by the Mediator, or a jury trial consisting of either a few members of the Ecclesia or the entire Ecclesia.
About the list, I enjoy it thoroughly, but I would personally take out the clauses relating to political matters. I think Taijituan crimes should be personal, not political.
I vehemently disagree, Political crimes are those I most want to see make it into a final bill. Without capacity to punish those who do such things as threatening a treaty by illegally seizing an allied regions delegacy our criminal code will be pointless. I believe firmly in criminalizing political offences.
-
What judgement? He either did it or didn't, Mediator serves to reach a settlement between people, he won't judge crimes against the humanity, wtf. Ecclesia will do that, whether or not through interpretation of a Mediator to look up the "case" a present it in the most proper manner to Ecclesia, but he will never Judge. Jury? Ecclesia is the Jury, why are we talking about americanized justice system when we already established Ecclesia rules all, if you want parallelism, it's like Jury is Ecclesia, there's no Judge, we take a vote and that's the judgment. Anything "civil" will be handled for settlement between offended and offender, the idea here is that we want people to get along. Political crimes? Where the hell did that concept spawned from? You're going to judge them commies? How likely is it we're going to have an allied region complaining that some random dude participated on a raid that he shouldn't have anyway? Did that ever happened even? Come on guys, deal with reality, if sht happens we shall deal with it together in Ecclesia, where everybody is free to come up with a case and a fix, a fix!, not a freaking death penalty. You crazy people, calm your hammer-of-justice-rain-hell-upon-them-wicked scenarios.
-
What judgement? He either did it or didn't, Mediator serves to reach a settlement between people, he won't judge crimes against the humanity, wtf. Ecclesia will do that, whether or not through interpretation of a Mediator to look up the "case" a present it in the most proper manner to Ecclesia, but he will never Judge. Jury? Ecclesia is the Jury, why are we talking about americanized justice system when we already established Ecclesia rules all, if you want parallelism, it's like Jury is Ecclesia, there's no Judge, we take a vote and that's the judgment. Anything "civil" will be handled for settlement between offended and offender, the idea here is that we want people to get along. Political crimes? Where the hell did that concept spawned from? You're going to judge them commies? How likely is it we're going to have an allied region complaining that some random dude participated on a raid that he shouldn't have anyway? Did that ever happened even? Come on guys, deal with reality, if sht happens we shall deal with it together in Ecclesia, where everybody is free to come up with a case and a fix, a fix!, not a freaking death penalty. You crazy people, calm your hammer-of-justice-rain-hell-upon-them-wicked scenarios.
THIS. EXACTLY.
-
What judgement? He either did it or didn't, Mediator serves to reach a settlement between people, he won't judge crimes against the humanity, wtf. Ecclesia will do that, whether or not through interpretation of a Mediator to look up the "case" a present it in the most proper manner to Ecclesia, but he will never Judge. Jury? Ecclesia is the Jury, why are we talking about americanized justice system when we already established Ecclesia rules all, if you want parallelism, it's like Jury is Ecclesia, there's no Judge, we take a vote and that's the judgment. Anything "civil" will be handled for settlement between offended and offender, the idea here is that we want people to get along. Political crimes? Where the hell did that concept spawned from? You're going to judge them commies? How likely is it we're going to have an allied region complaining that some random dude participated on a raid that he shouldn't have anyway? Did that ever happened even? Come on guys, deal with reality, if sht happens we shall deal with it together in Ecclesia, where everybody is free to come up with a case and a fix, a fix!, not a freaking death penalty. You crazy people, calm your hammer-of-justice-rain-hell-upon-them-wicked scenarios.
a page ago you said that having the ecclesia deal with people after they did something uncodified was terrible and that we definitely needed a written criminal code
Also, let's be honest, half the things we're talking about banning are already forbidden in the ToS and we're playing a political simulation browser game. What would we put in a criminal code if not offenses against treatied allies and whatnot?
-
I am opposed to a criminal code for Taijitu.
Despite the system never being tested, I am perfectly content with a pure form of ostracizing. If someone truly did commit some terrible act, I expect the citizen's ecclesia would be fully competent to ostracize that individual. Codifying these laws are useless. It leads to people relying strictly on text. That is to say that they will scrutinize that text and try to find loopholes and paltry ways to get out of being prosecuted for a crime.
By contrast, ostracizing does not allow for loopholes and adherence religiously to text. I think that the circumstances around a crime and their punishments should be on a case by case basis, and the examinations of each situation similarly would be on a case by case basis.
-
What judgement? He either did it or didn't, Mediator serves to reach a settlement between people, he won't judge crimes against the humanity, wtf. Ecclesia will do that, whether or not through interpretation of a Mediator to look up the "case" a present it in the most proper manner to Ecclesia, but he will never Judge. Jury? Ecclesia is the Jury, why are we talking about americanized justice system when we already established Ecclesia rules all, if you want parallelism, it's like Jury is Ecclesia, there's no Judge, we take a vote and that's the judgment. Anything "civil" will be handled for settlement between offended and offender, the idea here is that we want people to get along. Political crimes? Where the hell did that concept spawned from? You're going to judge them commies? How likely is it we're going to have an allied region complaining that some random dude participated on a raid that he shouldn't have anyway? Did that ever happened even? Come on guys, deal with reality, if sht happens we shall deal with it together in Ecclesia, where everybody is free to come up with a case and a fix, a fix!, not a freaking death penalty. You crazy people, calm your hammer-of-justice-rain-hell-upon-them-wicked scenarios.
a page ago you said that having the ecclesia deal with people after they did something uncodified was terrible and that we definitely needed a written criminal code
Also, let's be honest, half the things we're talking about banning are already forbidden in the ToS and we're playing a political simulation browser game. What would we put in a criminal code if not offenses against treatied allies and whatnot?
judge on civil disputes, yes that would be terrible, half of you would convict Govindia just for being Govindia.
As said before, most things are already "illegal" and it will be very rare the use of mediator or Ecclesia to judge on some event. When was the last time there was trial in Taijitu in any form? It was probably me in trial, how familiar is that, I get to be on trial every now and then, better than banning me without one.
All we gotta do is make a freaking list, if we in the future think it's better to have penalties associated with the offenses, sure why not, I doubt it's necessary or productive, as I doubt we'll have a "trial".
Don't the treaties already predict the citizens of each party have to follow through? Doesn't being a citizen already say we have to follow through? Then why do we have to write that we have to follow through a third time? Isn't a treaty with a region a "law adopted by the Ecclesia" like our oath says?
If you want descriptive stuff like that then maybe we should also be protected by the law, maybe we can't be convicted if we're following orders in Militia, or for following orders from an allied military dude.
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/ftXvsSyRzKXXG/giphy.gif)
-
I'd suggest those against the idea just vote against it if it ever comes to a vote. In the meantime this discussion is about what shape this should take (aside from the already existing ostracism and mediator) and compiling a logical list of offenses. As of this moment it is not illegal for a Citizen to break one of our treaties, seize the delegacy, falsify information, or divulge military secrets. These are the sorts of offenses I would like to see codified. Yes they are all political crimes because as Myro said...
Also, let's be honest, half the things we're talking about banning are already forbidden in the ToS and we're playing a political simulation browser game. What would we put in a criminal code if not offenses against treatied allies and whatnot?
Focusing on anything other just seems silly to me.
Now that I have stated that moving on to the next point of who specifically would sit in judgement of such. I would prefer that we structure this in a way where any trial would be presided over by a neutral party, with the Ecclesia casting votes of guilt or innocence and voting on specific penalties in the same time-frame. I would prefer such voting period be brief, yet the discussion lengthy.
-
I'd suggest those against the idea just vote against it if it ever comes to a vote. In the meantime this discussion is about what shape this should take (aside from the already existing ostracism and mediator) and compiling a logical list of offenses. As of this moment it is not illegal for a Citizen to break one of our treaties, seize the delegacy, falsify information, or divulge military secrets. These are the sorts of offenses I would like to see codified. Yes they are all political crimes because as Myro said...
Also, let's be honest, half the things we're talking about banning are already forbidden in the ToS and we're playing a political simulation browser game. What would we put in a criminal code if not offenses against treatied allies and whatnot?
Focusing on anything other just seems silly to me.
Now that I have stated that moving on to the next point of who specifically would sit in judgement of such. I would prefer that we structure this in a way where any trial would be presided over by a neutral party, with the Ecclesia casting votes of guilt or innocence and voting on specific penalties in the same time-frame. I would prefer such voting period be brief, yet the discussion lengthy.
For me, political crimes make no sense. It takes more than one person to seize a delegacy in another region, so it makes no sense for me to single out one person for such "crime." Besides, Taijitu is a region that is known for avoiding the NS "raiding/defending" game, anyways.
-
High Crimes
1. No Taijituan shall post, in an illegal fashion or that would be considered illegal to Taijitu and such Taijituan's "real-world" nation, any post to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB.
2. No Taijituan shall, repeatedly and with malicious intent, harass, bully, torment, stalk, or perform any action to another Taijtuan or group of persons that causes such Taijituan or group of persons anguish, embarrassment, or any other extreme negative emotion.
3. No Taijituan shall post any link to the regional forum, IRC board, Skype board, or RMB that, if clicked, would cause the clicker's computer to be infected with a virus, or would provide the clicker's private information to the original poster.
- Misuse of personal information (i.e. doxxing)
- Impersonation (of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu)
- flaming (personal attacks) or spamming (egregiously) on the RMB
- (willfully?) breaking NS rules
- lying in your citizenship application
- lying about an election on the RMB or by telegram
- having been ostracized
- acting in Taijitu as an agent of a foreign power
- couping an ally of ours (TNP/TRR)
- deliberately endorsing a rogue/invader delegate of an ally
- Seizing the ingame regional delegacy of Taijitu without having been elected Citizen-Delegate;
- Impersonating a member of the government or armed forces;
- Unlawfully seizing the delegacy of an allied region of Taijitu;
- Knowingly submitting false information on a citizenship application;
- Distributing militia secrets without the permission of the Citizen-Sergeant;
- Knowingly distributing false information about any election or vote of the Ecclesia;
- Distributing information which could be used to identify the real life identity of a person with their permission;
- Disrupting the regional message board of Taijitu with excessive or inappropriate messages;
- Distributing chat logs or private messages without the permission of all those involved; and
- Impersonating a private person.
List of Offenses:
- Breaking the Terms of the forum, NS rules, laws and treaties of Taijitu;
- Harass, bully, torment, stalk other members;
- Hate speech, xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia;
- Misuse or distribution of personal information;
- Distributing chat logs or private messages without the permission of all those involved;
- Impersonation of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu;
- Abuse of flaming, spamming or inappropriate messages;
- Willfully misinform regarding someone, some event or official policies of Taijitu;
- Disrupting Taijitu in any way as an agent of a foreign power;
- Deliberately seizing the ingame regional delegacy of Taijitu without having been elected Citizen-Delegate;
- Deliberately participating in a disruption,take-over or raid against an allied region;
- Deliberately submitting false information on a citizenship application;
- Disruptive distribution of Militia's activities to foreign agents.
shall we say they're applicable to any of Taijitu's official community platforms ie. RMB, IRC, Forum and official Skype/TS?
-
List of Offenses:
- Breaking the Terms of the forum, NS rules, laws and treaties of Taijitu;
- Harass, bully, torment, stalk other members;
- Hate speech, xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia;
- Misuse or distribution of personal information;
- Distributing chat logs or private messages without the permission of all those involved;
- Impersonation of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu;
- Abuse of flaming, spamming or inappropriate messages;
- Willfully misinform regarding someone, some event or official policies of Taijitu;
- Disrupting Taijitu in any way as an agent of a foreign power;
- Deliberately seizing the ingame regional delegacy of Taijitu without having been elected Citizen-Delegate;
- Deliberately participating in a disruption,take-over or raid against an allied region;
- Deliberately submitting false information on a citizenship application;
- Disruptive distribution of Militia's activities to foreign agents.
shall we say they're applicable to any of Taijitu's official community platforms ie. RMB, IRC, Forum and official Skype/TS?
Yes.
And the fact that you said "participate" instead of "lead" actually makes me somewhat agree with your list. I think with a bit of improvement, this list could work! :D
-
List of Offenses:
- Breaking the Terms of the forum, NS rules, laws and treaties of Taijitu;
- Harass, bully, torment, stalk other members;
- Hate speech, xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia;
- Misuse or distribution of personal information;
- Distributing chat logs or private messages without the permission of all those involved;
- Impersonation of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu;
- Abuse of flaming, spamming or inappropriate messages;
- Willfully misinform regarding someone, some event or official policies of Taijitu;
- Disrupting Taijitu in any way as an agent of a foreign power;
- Deliberately seizing the ingame regional delegacy of Taijitu without having been elected Citizen-Delegate;
- Deliberately participating in a disruption,take-over or raid against an allied region;
- Deliberately submitting false information on a citizenship application;
- Disruptive distribution of Militia's activities to foreign agents.
shall we say they're applicable to any of Taijitu's official community platforms ie. RMB, IRC, Forum and official Skype/TS?
This I approve heartily, it is a good list of offenses. Do we need a paragraph stating that breaking these laws will make one subject to trial by Ecclesia and a trip to the guillotine?
-
Guillotine! Guillotine!
Well this says we gotta follow the laws: http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Citizenship_Act
This says we're protected by law, there are public trials and whatnot: http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Taijitu
This Citizen-Mediator says it exists and deals with complaints against other citizens: http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act
I think we just have to "explain" how things are processed, who can start a trial of an offense against the "collective"? any citizen can ask for a Mediator to start a case to present to Ecclesia?
Judiciary Procedure
- Citizens offended by other citizens may request the Ecclesia to elect a Citizen-Mediator to solve the dispute between offended and offenders;
- The Citizen-Mediator may request Ecclesia to judge a dispute between citizens if no agreement is possible;
- Any citizen may request the Ecclesia to elect a Citizen-Mediator to present a case to the Ecclesia prosecuting a citizen for an offense to the region of Taijitu;
- The Ecclesia shall list the offenses to the law of Taijitu.
This might be the easiest way, but you guys' first language and lawyer this up better.
-
I'd suggest those against the idea just vote against it if it ever comes to a vote. In the meantime this discussion is about what shape this should take (aside from the already existing ostracism and mediator) and compiling a logical list of offenses.
Not necessarily. My intention for this discussion was for the option of what Funkadelia suggested to be on the, but with keeping in mind that going this route would likely require amending the Bill of Rights. In truth, I am not entirely opposed to handling things on a case by case basis and having the Ecclesia decide when presented with the case whether it constitutes a grievous crime, just a bit wary.
For me, political crimes make no sense. It takes more than one person to seize a delegacy in another region, so it makes no sense for me to single out one person for such "crime." Besides, Taijitu is a region that is known for avoiding the NS "raiding/defending" game, anyways.
Any criminal code would, I hope, include a clause stating that abetting a crime is also a crime as in my drafts, so that would cover assisting the seizure of a delegacy among other things. Also, while a portion of the community is not involved in raiding and defending, others (including myself) are and the the Citizens' Militia exists for this purpose.
If we do want to list crimes, again we should cut out things already covered by terms of use and focus on things which are in fact related to NationStates.
- Breaking the Terms of the forum, NS rules, laws and treaties of Taijitu;
- [st]Harass, bully, torment, stalk other members;[/st]
- [st]Hate speech, xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia;[/st]
- Misuse or distribution of personal information;
- Distributing chat logs or private messages without the permission of all those involved;
- Impersonation of a specific person or of a particular role in Taijitu;
- [st]Abuse of flaming, spamming or inappropriate messages;[/st]
- Willfully misinform regarding someone, some event or official policies of Taijitu;
- Disrupting Taijitu in any way as an agent of a foreign power;
- Deliberately seizing the ingame regional delegacy of Taijitu without having been elected Citizen-Delegate;
- Deliberately participating in a disruption,take-over or raid against an allied region;
- Deliberately submitting false information on a citizenship application;
- Disruptive distribution of Militia's activities to foreign agents.
I do not believe the Citizen-Mediator or any other nominally impartial investigator or arbiter should be leading the prosecution in a criminal case, the two roles are necessarily contradictory. If the Citizen-Mediator is going to be involved in criminal cases as well their role should be limited to finding of fact. Also In selecting a Citizen-Mediator, it might also be good for it to be possible for the parties involved to veto candidates they consider partial (with some limit to avoid there being no viable candidates). Sortition might also be a better alternative to election, and having there be more than a single one in (an empowered jury of sorts) potentially in more serious cases.
Refining on Delfos's rough process what I see now is:
- A citizen my make a complaint and ask for the selection of a mediator/jury to arbitrate/investigate.
- Mediator/jury arbitrates/investigates and decides whether a dispute can be resolved "out of court" and if not whether the matter is serious enough to bring to the Ecclesia.
- If they decide it should be brought to the Ecclesia they present their findings for a vote on whether the complaint holds water (possibly with a super-majority threshold)
- If guilt is established by the vote, a remedy or punishment is later decided separately. By who I'm not sure.
Note that this works regardless of whether we decide crimes and offenses should be explicitly listed in law or not. It only really changes what the standard for deciding if their is actionable evidence or if someone should be considered guilty is.
A vote establishing guilt could be the precedent for an ostracism vote, though that doesn't really make sense in this context since a single person has already been singled out as guilty. Perhaps a modified version? Alternatively we could drop ostracism or have it as an entirely separate mechanism.
-
I've added an actual poll to get hard numbers on what people feel about whether crimes should have to be written or not. Either way I think the actual process of investigating an accusation will likely be similar.
-
I don't know...I mean...there's more versions than being written or not...written a certain way with penalties or not...maybe an opinion poll could sort this pickle.