View Topic

I refrained from linking to actual evidence since most of it is publicly available already. I would also much rather that stuff be left out of the statute, for professionalism and neatness reasons.

I would encourage someone (i.e., those in possession of logs or other evidence) to post it themselves in the appropriate thread in the Citizens Platform. Those threads get archived too and we could refer back to it if we need to review evidence later.

So I like what I see. Anyone else have anything to say about the legislation?

Title
1. This Act will be titled the Revocation of Govindia's Citizenship.
 1(a). The author would also like to thank Point Breeze for his work in writing the draft upon which this Act is built.

Terms
2. The Storting first and foremost recognizes the fact that proposed revocation of citizenship is a serious matter, and accepts that all other avenues of action must be thoroughly pursued before a revocation should be discussed. However;
 2(a). The Storting recognizes the Citizen Govindia's harmful - albeit unintentional - habit of pestering and harassing other Citizens, to the point that several long-lasting administrative actions have been taken against him for his behaviour both on the forums and on the IRC. Despite many efforts by multiple community members to help or otherwise mediate in disputes caused by or involving Govindia, little to no visible change has occurred and all other options have been explored.
 2(b). The Storting regrets that the community cannot help Citizen Govindia, as it understands him to be a good-natured citizen who doesn't always realize the harm he does.

3. With this in mind, the Storting hereby revokes his citizenship based on the following examples of poor behaviour, harassment or otherwise actionable poor judgement:
 3(a).  The Storting remembers the previous attempt to revoke Citizenship on April 29 - May 1, 2015, and the complaints and evidence presented therein. 
 3(b).  The Storting acknowledges the evidence provided by the Monarch detailing the events of August 8 - September 1 and October 3, 2015
 3(c).  The Storting recognizes Govindia's actions against Jarl of Information HannahB and the Monarch on January 22-23, 2016, at which time he was placed on probation, and his violation of such probation early the following month, which resulted in a permanent ban from Wintreath IRC channels. 

Notes
4. The Storting notes that it affirms the right to appeal this Act through all the lawful channels in which this may be done.
 
5. In addition, the Storting notes that future revocation Acts will require the same burden of proof in regards to evidence in order to create a process by which this unfortunate action can be carried out in the event a revocation is required again.

6. It is also noted that whilst the IRC does not technically fall under the legal jurisdiction of the Storting, actions taken there influence and impact the region elsewhere. As such, the use of IRC logs as evidence is permissible in such cases.

I cleared a few bits and pieces up and added a few things I think might otherwise be useful for future reference. Thoughts?


E: Just to be clear, I am still going to abstain from voting on this Act due to my personal feelings in the matter, but I wanted to make sure the legislation would be as tight as possible. I also used this opportunity to hopefully draw something positive; implementing or at least establishing precedent in a case like this is important, and if we so desire this version of the Act can be cited in future as a guideline for what a revocation Act should look like.

I suggest that "2a", "2b", etc. should be changed to (a) and (b), respectively, to keep in line with the formatting of other bills.
I also feel 4(a) and 4(b) are worthy of their own sections 5 and 6, respectively.

In addition, changing the word "process" to "precedent" in 4(a) seems to make more sense.

I suggest that "2a", "2b", etc. should be changed to (a) and (b), respectively, to keep in line with the formatting of other bills.
I also feel 4(a) and 4(b) are worthy of their own sections 5 and 6, respectively.

In addition, changing the word "process" to "precedent" in 4(a) seems to make more sense.

I'll change the formatting and split 4(a) and (b) into their own sections, but process is in fact the word that fits best there. We're setting a precedent, yes, but we're also creating the process which will become that precedent in the future.

E: Done. Any further flaws need fixing?

Alright then. Debate has then been extended by 24 hours as of 6:14am CDT.

I suggest we use this time to modify our bill, because otherwise I will invoke the "active discussion" clause of rule 3(b).

I would also like it noted that we've hit and surpassed the extension time period already. If no one has any issues with the Act as elucidated above, I propose a motion to vote. This has hung over the start of our term for long enough, and with Govindia's response now posted I feel we've got all the evidence we're going to get in this case.

Alright then. Debate has then been extended by 24 hours as of 6:14am CDT.

I suggest we use this time to modify our bill, because otherwise I will invoke the "active discussion" clause of rule 3(b).

I would also like it noted that we've hit and surpassed the extension time period already. If no one has any issues with the Act as elucidated above, I propose a motion to vote. This has hung over the start of our term for long enough, and with Govindia's response now posted I feel we've got all the evidence we're going to get in this case.

@North @Laurentus @HannahB @Point Breeze @Pengu I think it is safe to say we should either motion to vote or table at this point.

I second the motion to vote.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Also, which one are we using? @Point Breeze's or @Weissreich's?

I'll just mention everyone too. @North, @HannahB, @Pengu, @Barnes.

I'd go for Weissreich.

Also, which one are we using?

Mine is merely a modified version of PB's draft with a few additions to help in setting future precedent I'd rather it was used, as it'll provide a guideline for any more RoC's we might have to pass, but I'm easy either way.

Lets go with Weiss'.

Personally, I prefer Point Breeze's. It's more to-the-point, which resonates well with me.