Criminal Justice Act

[Cormac]

1. High Crimes
1. Treason is defined as any attempt to overthrow, rebel against, or participate in war against Taijitu.
2. Espionage is defined as the unsanctioned disclosure by an officer or agent of Taijitu of confidential information relative to the interest or security of Taijitu to a foreign region or its representative.
3. Off-site property destruction is defined as any attempt to phish, crash, or spam any off-site property belonging to any region or organization in NationStates.
4. High crimes will carry a maximum sentence of permanent or indefinite regional and/or forum ban, revocation of citizenship, and/or prohibition of future citizenship.
5. In order to be valid, a high crime complaint must be brought within twelve months of the date on which the alleged offense occurred.

2. Felony Crimes
1. Administrative abuse is defined as any attempt by administrators or moderators to use administrative or moderation power to improperly access, edit, or delete the account(s) or post(s) of any user of Taijitu off-site property; to improperly restrict the right to free expression guaranteed to citizens; to commit or aid in the commission of any other crime; or to conceal such behavior.
2. Citizenship fraud is defined as any attempt to provide false or misleading information, or to conceal required information, on one's application for citizenship.
3. Election fraud is defined as any attempt to manipulate the outcome or results of any election through means which include, but are not limited to, violating election law or lawfully established election practices, impeding proper election administration, or officially misrepresenting election results.
4. Bribery is defined as any attempt to offer favors or gifts to voters or any election official(s) to influence any election or to the relevant official(s) to influence any appointment.
5. Conspiracy is defined as any attempt to enter into a plot with one or more others to commit or conceal a high or felony crime or to aid any others in the commission or concealment of a high or felony crime.
6. Incitement is defined as any attempt to incite another to commit any high or felony crime.
7. Felony crimes will carry a maximum sentence of regional and/or forum ban, revocation of citizenship, and/or prohibition of future citizenship, for a period not to exceed twelve months.
8. In order to be valid, a felony crime complaint must be brought within six months of the date on which the alleged offense occurred.

3. Misdemeanor Crimes
1. Illegal recruitment is defined as any attempt to recruit residents of Taijitu to another region or organization in NationStates through any Taijitu off-site property, through the Regional Message Board, or through telegram.
2. Official impersonation is defined as any attempt, for non-satirical purposes, to misrepresent one's self as an official of Taijitu.
3. Misdemeanor incitement is defined as any attempt to incite another to commit any misdemeanor crime.
4. Misdemeanor crimes will carry a maximum sentence of regional and/or forum ban and/or suspension of citizenship, for a period not to exceed one month.
5. In order to be valid, a misdemeanor crime complaint must be brought within three months of the date on which the alleged offense occurred.

We still don't have a criminal code, and with our community growing all the time and with us becoming more active in foreign affairs and thus also more likely to be targeted for espionage, etc., it seems to me this is a good time to start thinking about criminal law. Suggestions on the above draft would be appreciated.

We still need some actual way to deal with prosecution and trial for crimes, as well, and I'm hoping someone else will work on a proposal to deal with that soon.

[Delfos]

omg this is abhorrent to our revolutionary values

also fcking hypocrite to write in law you can't overthrow the government, admin abuse, election fraud, bribery, for who do you write these laws? Certainly not for those whose consequence would certainly be carried out. (see what I did there? hahaha)

No, a case by case loose system sort-of how we've been rolling works for our context and is welcomed to stay.

[Myroria]

Part of me agrees with Delfos on this, and part of me agrees with you that we should have some formal system.

I'll have to think on this more before giving my formal opinion. It's an excellent draft, though, and if we were to formally define what is a crime, these all look like things that should be crimes.

[Khem]

I'm not so sure I like the treason charge. The only part of section 1.1 I like as a crime is war against us.

[Bustos]

eh...more laws?

is this really needed?  Is our current system failing or something?

[Cormac]

also fcking hypocrite

I will respond to the other points later, but I'm getting to this first because I'm completely sick of it.

Delfos, I'm not going to reply to any points you make in the Ecclesia anymore after this reply, nor work to incorporate any of your suggestions into any legislation I author, nor work to address any of your concerns. You oppose virtually everything anyone authors, usually with the most caustic tone possible. Even when people do try to address your concerns, you almost always continue opposing the legislation and vote against it, with this terrible attitude toward everyone around you. I've had it and I'm through entertaining your seemingly burning and insatiable desire to troll the Ecclesia. You will simply be ignored from now on, at least by me, and I would encourage others to do the same until you can contribute something positive.

For the record, I don't mind that people are disagreeing with this legislation. This is about Delfos and his disagreement with virtually all legislation, and the way he goes about disagreeing with it.

[St Oz]

I'm not so sure I like the treason charge. The only part of section 1.1 I like as a crime is war against us.

Yeah what would a spy even report, "man these people are a bunch of grumpy old nerds who like cat pictures"

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.
 

[Cormac]

Now, in regard to the legislation:

I wasn't aware that we had any provision allowing the Ecclesia to just vote to remove citizenship for any reason. If the Ecclesia can vote to remove citizenship for any reason, then a list of crimes and penalties isn't necessary -- we can just look at issues together on a case by case basis and make a decision. I'm actually fine with that way of doing things, I was just under the impression that we didn't have any way of addressing someone doing things the community isn't okay with, like treason and spying.

I've never been a fan of judiciaries in NationStates anyway, so to be honest I would prefer a simpler method. I'm fine with this legislation not moving forward.

[Delfos]

I will respond to the other points later, but I'm getting to this first because I'm completely sick of it.

Delfos, I'm not going to reply to any points you make in the Ecclesia anymore after this reply, nor work to incorporate any of your suggestions into any legislation I author, nor work to address any of your concerns. You oppose virtually everything anyone authors, usually with the most caustic tone possible. Even when people do try to address your concerns, you almost always continue opposing the legislation and vote against it, with this terrible attitude toward everyone around you. I've had it and I'm through entertaining your seemingly burning and insatiable desire to troll the Ecclesia. You will simply be ignored from now on, at least by me, and I would encourage others to do the same until you can contribute something positive.

For the record, I don't mind that people are disagreeing with this legislation. This is about Delfos and his disagreement with virtually all legislation, and the way he goes about disagreeing with it.

This might earn the first ever use of the Mediator. Apparently I was wrong, you can't take it.

[St Oz]

I will respond to the other points later, but I'm getting to this first because I'm completely sick of it.

Delfos, I'm not going to reply to any points you make in the Ecclesia anymore after this reply, nor work to incorporate any of your suggestions into any legislation I author, nor work to address any of your concerns. You oppose virtually everything anyone authors, usually with the most caustic tone possible. Even when people do try to address your concerns, you almost always continue opposing the legislation and vote against it, with this terrible attitude toward everyone around you. I've had it and I'm through entertaining your seemingly burning and insatiable desire to troll the Ecclesia. You will simply be ignored from now on, at least by me, and I would encourage others to do the same until you can contribute something positive.

For the record, I don't mind that people are disagreeing with this legislation. This is about Delfos and his disagreement with virtually all legislation, and the way he goes about disagreeing with it.

This might earn the first ever use of the Mediator. Apparently I was wrong, you can't take it.

Probably not, chill out. He's the author, people decide whether that's sound or not. Put it to vote and if it doesn't pass then maybe he should listen to you.

But you know if it does pass, maybe you have to reevaluate how you respond to legislation.

Democracy means we talk about things, even in an argumentative manner, then put things to vote. It doesn't mean we have to all be force fed bullshit from every single citizen.

[Delfos]

exactly, we do talk about things in democracy, so why can't I voice what I dislike? Why voice what I like besides voting for? It's undemocratic to want to rule without opposition, or is he saying that whenever I'm against something I should zip it? That's what he wants? Censorship? I'm chilled, he's the one that posted something without a cool head.

unfortunately he's the "initiator", his job description doesn't seem to allow to ignore.

[Cormac]

exactly, we do talk about things in democracy, so why can't I voice what I dislike? Why voice what I like besides voting for? It's undemocratic to want to rule without opposition, or is he saying that whenever I'm against something I should zip it? That's what he wants? Censorship? I'm chilled, he's the one that posted something without a cool head.

unfortunately he's the "initiator", his job description doesn't seem to allow to ignore.

One more reply, and one more only.

1. You can voice what you dislike, which appears to be everything, ever. That doesn't mean I have to listen to you or respond, and I'm not going to in the future.

2. I don't want to "rule" -- and by the way, my "rule" consists of bringing all legislation to vote when someone motions it and seconds it, and maintaining a spreadsheet -- without opposition. You're free to oppose. The problem is that you oppose nearly everything without providing much in the way of decent reasoning, and I'm tired of listening to it. So I'm not going to.

3. You called me a "fcking hypocrite," so let's not pretend me saying I'm going to ignore you is the worst thing that's happened in this thread. Go ahead, call for a Citizen-Mediator. Perhaps while he or she is mediating we can also talk about your behavior in this thread.

Ignoring you isn't tyranny, Delfos, nor is it negligence of my duties. If you motion for a vote, second a motion, or want to change the nation listed for you on the citizenship spreadsheet, I will pay attention to what you're saying. Otherwise, I won't, and I don't have to. It isn't in my job description to coddle you and enable your bad behavior, we don't have a Citizen-Babysitter. I have no intention of continuing to feed your trolling. If you don't like my legislation, vote against it. If you don't like me, vote against me if I run for re-election. Otherwise, we'll talk again when you start making positive contributions instead of just telling everyone how much you hate what they're doing.

[Delfos]

also fcking hypocrite to write in law you can't overthrow the government, admin abuse, election fraud, bribery, for who do you write these laws? Certainly not for those whose consequence would certainly be carried out. (see what I did there? hahaha)

Where does it say I called you a "fcking hypocrite"? Also "that thread" is worthy of Mediator use, but not for what you think.

also, you don't know what I'm talking about either I'm sure, you weren't around. This isn't about you.

[St Oz]

omg this is abhorrent to our revolutionary values

also fcking hypocrite to write in law you can't overthrow the government, admin abuse, election fraud, bribery, for who do you write these laws? Certainly not for those whose consequence would certainly be carried out. (see what I did there? hahaha)

No, a case by case loose system sort-of how we've been rolling works for our context and is welcomed to stay.

Cormac and others have a right to ignore you for ad hominem insults.

Cormac's just joining on a long established club of ignoring you Delfos, and I first started ignoring you ages ago. He isn't saying anything that's too new or provoking. Just not acknowledging unpleasant tantrums.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions Delfos, but you have to back up your opinions with reasoning, discourse, and observations. People who call people fucking hypocrites just have no better reasoning for their opinion other than to be a closed-minded contrarian.

So that's why Cormac is ignoring you, not because he opposes you, and even he opposed one of my laws, but I don't call him a fucking twat. Cormac has his own opinions that are reasonably backed, and he doesn't resort to fallacy or name-calling to anyone else's opinion. Make your case, people will agree or disagree, but don't turn into a whiny, victimizing asshole just because nobody agrees with you.

So there is your tough life lesson. That's why nobody likes you. That's why we snide at you in private messages.

So if you treat people right, that won't happen, because nobody hates you, they're just annoyed. Everyone has their amicable side, but you just burn any bridge, dig out any path, and derail any chance of receiving that friendliness.

That's just life, tough, get over yourself. 

[Delfos]

so I say it's hypocritical to write laws against things you (in general, not Cormac) have done in the past and suddenly this isn't reasoning, an observation? This is an observation about people who can do whatever they want because this laws will never apply to them, and for any other person who can't do whatever they want these laws wouldn't apply to them either because the plebe can't do them anyway. This isn't reasoning? I think you're reading things that aren't there instead of reading the things that I wanted you to read. I've proof of past examples where these laws have never applied, if you want we can go through them, some time, I don't have time now.

Also it's also incorrect to assume I don't support things, there might even be more laws I've supported than the ones I didn't, make a statistic if you want, but "everything ever" is a lie created by your (in general) snide.

Having a different world view from yours just makes it different, nothing else. Believing in a different way for Taijitu is also the opposite of what you think, it's beneficial, if you can't see that, you're the close minded one. When have I not treated people right? When have you not treated me right? ahhh again your view is very self-centered.

Make your case, people will agree or disagree, but don't turn into a whiny, victimizing asshole just because nobody agrees with you.

I make my case, check first post