View Topic

In any case, I prefer the second option.

Having read through the act, the discussion thread, and Chanku's disagreements, I'm in favour of most of this act as written and the second version specifically, mainly because it is more clearly written.

In this version, Section 4 now has:

...Rulings may be appealed to the Monarch, who shall decide...

Which ensures the Monarch will decide and can't ignore it.

Section 5 now allows for the Storting to define procedure for appeals.

Now we come to Section 6. I have to say, but I agree with Chanku on this one. What do you define as harm? That's a very broad statement to give the administrative team, and I'd prefer something a little more definitive.

I have a couple of questions for @Wintermoot here, in the role of the Winter Nomad. What would you define as 'harm to the region or community'? The original Article VI Section 4 of the Fundamental Laws states that there is a terms of service of the provider of the Wintreath property. Who controls this terms of service, and where is it?

Then one question to everyone in this thread, including Wintermoot. *takes in breath*

Since the Winter Nomad is the root owner of the forum, is also fully in control of the forum and its assets (even to the extent of having direct access to the file system and hosting), with the fact that in this position the Winter Nomad is responsible for keeping the forum administratively managed, and given the fact that in other forums outside of NationStates the administrative staff is the sole manager of forum affairs (for good reason), what would be the opinion of the community in granting the Winter Nomad the power to provide a well defined terms of use of this forum in addition to the terms of service with the sole purpose of managing appropriate behaviour and conduct while using the forums?

Phew, try saying that out loud in one breath.

Thank you for your input, Wuufu!

To answer your question, during Govindia's revocation attempt, many people felt that there should be a greater variety of possible actions we can take in response to problems in the community, especially those that may not warrant revocation or a court trial. Initially we talked about having a government-ran warning system, but that idea honestly makes me uncomfortable...any warning system would require administrative authority that I'm not sure the government should have. After giving the matter much thought over the past month, I believe the best way to address this issue is to free the administration to take action when needed.

With passage of this Act, the forums would be ran similarly to the IRC, and the founder and any moderators/staff would have the authority to give warnings, temp bans, place people on post moderation, etc. Without an amendment to the Fundamental Laws, we're limited to reacting to narrow cases where extreme transgressions have occurred, and temp bans/post moderation could even be considered a violation of the Declaration of Rights. While I understand that granting vague authorities to an arbitrary position may make some uncomfortable, I don't believe there should be any issue with the provision, seeing as the IRC has ran by it for nearly two years with little problem.

That's not to say there isn't a place for a court system alongside it. The role of administration is to take quick action to maintain the peace and to discourage those who repeatably disturb it, while I envision that a court system would definitely resolve disputes, establish sentences within the realm of Citizenship and governance, and determine what someone's 'debt to society' is in response to their transgressions...perhaps in the form of community service that would have to be done that benefits the region. As seen on IRC, administrative action does not preclude having court cases...it's possible for chat ops to take action in response to something that also independently goes to court.

I think that between an empowered administration and a reformed court system, the region will have the tools to deal with anything that comes up in the future, and I think could even become a model system for other regions.

@Wintermoot, you have answered my post without answering any of the questions I asked in it. That's quite impressive.

While I understand that granting vague authorities to an arbitrary position may make some uncomfortable, I don't believe there should be any issue with the provision, seeing as the IRC has ran by it for nearly two years with little problem.

This is really the nugget of what you're saying, and I have to say I completely disagree with the fact that there shouldn't be an issue. The issue is that the forums and the IRC are completely different beasts.

The difference is simple. The forums are where the lifeblood of the region is, and the IRC is not. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the forums are the region; that if I would have to point to the literal digital location of Wintreath as it is, these forums would be it. The IRC is just an extension of the forums, a way for those participating in the region (and who are friends of the region) to easily communicate.

Put it this way. If the IRC chat were to completely vanish right now, would Wintreath suffer? Not really. We'd find a new chat software, regain what we had, continue on. There's no real loss. Could you say the same for the forums?

As such, the rules governing the forums and governing the IRC have to appreciate the fact that if you were to be banned from the IRC, it has a totally different effect from if you were banned from the regional forums. One prevents easy communication, the other prevents access to the core part of all regional activity. That's a much, much bigger beast, and as such, it needs a much, much finer hand, and definitely above all needs to be defined.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for an empowered administrative team and an empowered court system, but I think people deserve to know exactly what they can and can't do on the forums so clear boundaries are laid out.

I think I agree with Wuufu.  It's not unreasonable to have a list of forum rules that define acceptable and unacceptable conduct on the forums.  I think's it's exceptional that Wintreath has gone on so long without having more than a few (if any) "Read this first" or "forum rules" topics.  These are pretty standard among online communities.

I also wish to point out a ban from the forums is also a ban from voting, participating in regional politics, ect. In effect someone being banned is prevented from participating in the region in a large capacity..

Anyone subjected to an administrative ban is most likely committing a serious terms-of-service or terms-of-use violation.  Citizen, Jarl, ambassador or otherwise, all users of the forum are expected to abide by those rules.  If you don't, you're forfeiting the privilege of interacting with our community.

I was just adding to Wuufu's point. Honestly tbh being banned from the forums isn't just being unable to interact with the community it prevents you from being able to interact with the regional government. Although yes, being banned would be reserved for those that have done very badly, this should still be considered.

@Wintermoot, you have answered my post without answering any of the questions I asked in it.

Then I'll answer your questions now if I didn't adequately do so before.

What would you define as 'harm to the region or community'?

The definition of 'harm to the region or community' is intentionally broad because of the role of administration the proposal is advocating: a role that responds to immediate disturbances in the peace as quickly as possible or problems that require administrative tools that aren't at the government's disposal. It could be continuing behaviour that harms the community and needs to be stopped asap, either on its own or in anticipation of a court trial. It could be in response to some action that technically breaks no laws but is disturbing the peace or hurting another member of the community. It could be a problem that needs to be handled privately in a manner a government proceeding can't do. It could be something very major that simply must be stopped immediately, but most of those are probably covered in terms of service or real-life laws.

I can't tell you all the possible instances that could come up, because the region is so peaceful that very few of those potential cases have actually came up. I hope they never do, but it never hurts to be prepared just in case. Attempting to narrow the definition, or to produce a set or rules, would not only defeat the purpose of that section of the proposal...in part to handle unexpected, urgent, issues, but would essentially produce a second code of laws. Is that really necessary in a region that hardly exercises admin powers even where there's broad authority to such as on IRC? And is it even appropriate given that you're already having to just trust regional founders to keep their word and be honourable?

The original Article VI Section 4 of the Fundamental Laws states that there is a terms of service of the provider of the Wintreath property. Who controls this terms of service, and where is it?

The terms of services are from the providers of each service...Steam's TOS for the Steam Group, HostGator's TOS for the website, etc.

That's quite impressive.

Thanks for the snark, I'm glad you were impressed.

This is really the nugget of what you're saying, and I have to say I completely disagree with the fact that there shouldn't be an issue. The issue is that the forums and the IRC are completely different beasts.

The difference is simple. The forums are where the lifeblood of the region is, and the IRC is not. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the forums are the region; that if I would have to point to the literal digital location of Wintreath as it is, these forums would be it. The IRC is just an extension of the forums, a way for those participating in the region (and who are friends of the region) to easily communicate.

Put it this way. If the IRC chat were to completely vanish right now, would Wintreath suffer? Not really. We'd find a new chat software, regain what we had, continue on. There's no real loss. Could you say the same for the forums?

As such, the rules governing the forums and governing the IRC have to appreciate the fact that if you were to be banned from the IRC, it has a totally different effect from if you were banned from the regional forums. One prevents easy communication, the other prevents access to the core part of all regional activity. That's a much, much bigger beast, and as such, it needs a much, much finer hand, and definitely above all needs to be defined.

When I brought up IRC, it was to point out that in spite of it being a bigger source of disputes than the forums, it's ran very well over the past two years. There's yet to have been a controversial banning, and we've gone to great pains to avoid even temporary bans as anything but a last resort, at times to the point of ridiculousness, and I have personally reversed administrative actions of others that I felt were unfair. So no, I don't think there should be an issue, because there's no basis for anyone to believe that our Citizens are going to find themselves unfairly or extra-judicially banned or otherwise unfairly treated.

Furthermore, what benefit would it bring to me to abuse my authority to take such actions? As I said earlier, trust that a regional founder will keep their word and behave honourably is necessary, but that doesn't mean they can avoid the consequences of their actions, especially if it results in a bad reputation or people leaving the region to find someplace better. There's no benefit for me to pursue tyrannical actions, and I would hope that nobody would actually believe that I have or would approve of unfair treatment or extra-judicial bans.

There's yet to have been a controversial banning

I'm pretty sure some people would disagree

and we've gone to great pains to avoid even temporary bans as anything but a last resort, at times to the point of ridiculousness

This is true. Although then again some people might disagree

Sorry for the delay in replying, I got bogged down with RL stuff.

Before I begin, I'm glad you enjoyed my snark. I did have a grin on my face as I wrote it, and it was only meant to be taken lightly

Attempting to narrow the definition, or to produce a set or rules, would not only defeat the purpose of that section of the proposal...in part to handle unexpected, urgent, issues, but would essentially produce a second code of laws. Is that really necessary in a region that hardly exercises admin powers even where there's broad authority to such as on IRC? And is it even appropriate given that you're already having to just trust regional founders to keep their word and be honourable?

You say that adding a more well defined definition than "harm to the region or community" would produce a second code of laws, but we already have multiple codes of law. We have the Hostgator Terms of Service, which is completely outside of our control, and is for all purposes above the law, and which covers content on the forum. I don't know what's in the ToS, as I haven't read it, but I doubt it'll ever need to be enforced.

Anyway, the simple benefit of having a well defined definition is twofold. First, it makes it far easier for those who participate on this forum to know where the boundaries lie. Second, it makes it far easier for those who would criticise the administrative bodies for their actions in a particular incident to argue against it. If the statement is wooly, so is the interpretation, and so are the viewpoints of those who view the incident. You may cause more of an issue by the incident that occurs because of the administrative actions to an incident you are trying to solve.

It isn't that I don't trust the administrative team to do what they are supposed to, as they've proven they are more than capable on this regard so far, it's that the more clearly defined something is, the less likely you're going to get problems and complaints when you actually need to use the power. It also increases the trust in the administrative team when people know where they stand on things.

However, given all that I've said, and while I still would prefer a more well defined statement on just what behaviour is deemed to be harmful to the community, if this were to pass into law, I now won't be too uncomfortable on the matter. You've definitely given a rather good answer, and if it's the community's will, so be it. Point:

Furthermore, what benefit would it bring to me to abuse my authority to take such actions? As I said earlier, trust that a regional founder will keep their word and behave honourably is necessary, but that doesn't mean they can avoid the consequences of their actions, especially if it results in a bad reputation or people leaving the region to find someplace better. There's no benefit for me to pursue tyrannical actions, and I would hope that nobody would actually believe that I have or would approve of unfair treatment or extra-judicial bans.

I have updated the OP to exclude the Monarch from judicial panels. It doesn't make much sense for the rulings of panels headed by the Monarch to be appealed to the Monarch.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I got bogged down with RL stuff.

Before I begin, I'm glad you enjoyed my snark. I did have a grin on my face as I wrote it, and it was only meant to be taken lightly

Attempting to narrow the definition, or to produce a set or rules, would not only defeat the purpose of that section of the proposal...in part to handle unexpected, urgent, issues, but would essentially produce a second code of laws. Is that really necessary in a region that hardly exercises admin powers even where there's broad authority to such as on IRC? And is it even appropriate given that you're already having to just trust regional founders to keep their word and be honourable?

You say that adding a more well defined definition than "harm to the region or community" would produce a second code of laws, but we already have multiple codes of law. We have the Hostgator Terms of Service, which is completely outside of our control, and is for all purposes above the law, and which covers content on the forum. I don't know what's in the ToS, as I haven't read it, but I doubt it'll ever need to be enforced.

Anyway, the simple benefit of having a well defined definition is twofold. First, it makes it far easier for those who participate on this forum to know where the boundaries lie. Second, it makes it far easier for those who would criticise the administrative bodies for their actions in a particular incident to argue against it. If the statement is wooly, so is the interpretation, and so are the viewpoints of those who view the incident. You may cause more of an issue by the incident that occurs because of the administrative actions to an incident you are trying to solve.

It isn't that I don't trust the administrative team to do what they are supposed to, as they've proven they are more than capable on this regard so far, it's that the more clearly defined something is, the less likely you're going to get problems and complaints when you actually need to use the power. It also increases the trust in the administrative team when people know where they stand on things.

However, given all that I've said, and while I still would prefer a more well defined statement on just what behaviour is deemed to be harmful to the community, if this were to pass into law, I now won't be too uncomfortable on the matter. You've definitely given a rather good answer, and if it's the community's will, so be it. Point:

Furthermore, what benefit would it bring to me to abuse my authority to take such actions? As I said earlier, trust that a regional founder will keep their word and behave honourably is necessary, but that doesn't mean they can avoid the consequences of their actions, especially if it results in a bad reputation or people leaving the region to find someplace better. There's no benefit for me to pursue tyrannical actions, and I would hope that nobody would actually believe that I have or would approve of unfair treatment or extra-judicial bans.

I suppose we just have a fundamental disagreement on this issue...if we were like most other forums and administration was entirely responsible for determining and upholding the rules of the site, I would agree. However, I believe that providing a list of rules and trying to enforce them here would be counterproductive at best...it would make the court system and the code of laws redundant and potentially obsolete while reducing the flexibility needed for administration to take on the role I have in mind for it: to uphold the community peace is to step in where the court system can't with the specific goal of ending the incident at hand, not necessarily to dole out punishment.

In this context, bans shouldn't be seen as a punishment, but the last option in putting an end to situations that can't be resolved otherwise. That's probably why bans are so rare in IRC. In fact, in looking at the IRC ban list, the only person that's ever been indefinitely banned by administration (and not as part of a government persona non grata declaration) is Alterra, and that was only after several months of trolling the channel and harassing some of its members. It should be noted that this ban has never extended to the forums. I think most people would see that situation as more than reasonable, and I that's why I think the question of trust should be non-issue at this point. There's just too much history to show that fear of unfair bans isn't justified.

I know I'm mostly repeating myself, but I think it's important to point these things out. Even if this provision passes, given the past we can presume that its use would be rare and in cases that would be easy to justify as they stand.

Perhaps just add a list of what is considered ban-worthy, but for the most part, I like the flexibility of the proposed act.

EDIT: In the real world, something like this just wouldn't work, but this isn't the real world. This is a forum community where the mood is supposed to be friendly, and where we come to escape from the real world.

I'm honestly not sure what would warrant an indefinite administrative ban of a Citizen. It should be noted that Alterra was not a Citizen when he was banned from the IRC.

If there's no more discussion to be had, I would request that it be considered asap, so that it can potentially be passed in time to be included in the next election.