![[Image: BYEo2lg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BYEo2lg.png)
Determination of JusticiabilityWhereas Ever Wandering Souls has appealed his proscription from the region, done on 24 July 2018, through the following request:
I believe the proscription in its current state contains 4 claims which, besides being flawed in the nature of what they are claiming, cannot be construed as “acts of hostility” under the Proscription Act even at face value. It also contains a fifth claim which does appear to meet the criteria for an “act of hostility” under the Proscription Act at face value, but which fails to provide “a report detailing the hostile acts,” as mandated by 3.2, which additionally renders me unable to properly challenge its accuracy. As such, I believe the proscription should be struck down.
Whereas this Court is empowered by Article IV, Section 1 of the Proscription Act to review the validity of determinations of hostility and overturn those found in contravention of the Proscription Act.
It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:
- It is deemed justiciable.
- It shall be assigned the case number HCRR1803 and be referred to in full as Review of the Proscription of Ever Wandering Souls.
- The Court requests that the Cabinet provide testimony to account for its actions on 24 July 2018, and invites the Cabinet to refute any claims made by Ever Wandering Souls, no later than 02 August 2018.
- The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
- The Court will consider this review request as a legal question for the purposes of the Charter and the Judicial Act, and retains the sole right to issue an opinion on the same.
It is so ordered. Kris Kringle
Chief Justice
Annex A
A screenshot of the original review request by Ever Wandering Souls is provided below:
Annex B
A plain text version of the original review request by Ever Wandering Souls is provided below:
Code: Morning, Kris. As requested, I’ll attempt to be as thorough and full of citations as possible. Apologies for lack of formatting beyond line breaks, and feel free to add boxes etc as you feel will help make this more presentable. Also apologize for any typos. Will be happy to clarify anywhere they confuse my phrasing. I've also sent you a discord friend request, and would be happy to provide this in (similarly unformulated) word document form.
I’ll begin by entering the Proscription act, under which I am being charged, as an exhibit. The Proscription act can be found at http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6204.html . This act has been invoked to proscribe me, as an individual, as noted here: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6362.html .
It is my understanding that the latter thread, consisting of the formal proscription of myself, and noting in its introduction…
“The criteria mentioned below relate to Article 1 of the Proscription Act, which lay out the Acts of Hostility that establish eligibility for proscription,”
…is serving in this case as a fulfillment of section 3.2 of the Proscription Act, which requires…
“A proscription must be issued publicly, and be accompanied with a report detailing the hostile acts.”
The standing for this case comes from section 4.1 of the Proscription Act, which states
“Individuals subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.”
As an individual now subject to proscription, I am indeed challenging the issuing authority’s determination of hostility.
“Acts of Hostility” are clearly defined in section 1 of the Proscriptions Act. 1.1 through 1.5 detail specific descriptions of what qualifies as “hostility” in this context. 3.1 gives two bodies the ability to proscribe individuals or regions whom are determined to be hostile as per the definitions in 1.1-1.5. Thus, the proscription rests on the validity of the supposed “acts of hostility,” a validity that 4.1 allows me to challenge. Repeating myself a bit, but want to be clear on that. Ultimately, I will be arguing that I do not fit the items in section 1, and thus am not eligible for proscription.
For the purposes of these arguments, I will generally be drawing any other definitions of terms first and foremost from the TSP Criminal Code, as found at http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4114.html . These include, but are not limited to:
1(3) Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates in official South Pacific discussion areas, excluding private messages, without the express written permission of the relevant officials or institutions shall be considered Espionage.
1(4) Blackmail shall be defined as demanding private gains from a player in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information.
1(10) Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules.
I will also refer to line items in report of my proscription by letters A through E, as labelled below:
Ever-Wandering Souls of The Black Hawks (criteria 1, 3, 4)
A) Outright considers TSP an enemy force as-is
B) Attempted to manipulate the SPSF in 2016 by using unrelated incidents to coerce Imki into firing SPSF soldiers deemed detrimental to TBH using SPSF for its operations, to the detriment of the well-being of SPSF
C) Is the singular reason why TWP proscribed his entire region, relating to ill-suited conduct during a joint raid.
D) Is the singular reason why TEP (an ally) proscribed his entire region, relating to blackmailing the EPSA military commander
E) Sensitive intelligence suggests he has conspired, or is conspiring to, overthrow the Coalition and "cleanse" it.
You can note that the proscription specifies I am generally being accused of hostile acts 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 in the Proscription Act, so I will not bother to address any of the claims in terms of their relevance to 1.2 or 1.5.
I will address each line item individually, and may make several different cases for why it is not a valid item. I apologize for lack of conciseness originating from having to discuss each line item in the context of three different criteria – it is my only option, given that specific line items are not cited with specific criteria.
Item A
“Outright considers TSP an enemy force as-is”
Off the bat, this statement would better read “Outright considers The SPSF an enemy force as-is.“ While I personally consider several high-ranking members of TSP enemies, I do not consider the region, or even it’s military, a personal enemy. On behalf of the region The Black Hawks, I can soundly confirm that I have stated that TBH considers the military of TSP an enemy force. Attempts at proscription of such, even if they should be valid, would thus be better aimed at the region, and not at myself.
That noted, I believe that Item A does not meet the standard for an act of hostility. The lines of the Proscription Act cited in my report are 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. Item 1.1 requires me to have been “actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners.” Item 1.3 requires to have “engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners.” Item 1.4 requires me to have “attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.” Considering the region an opposing force on the normal field of raiding and defending gameplay does not meet any of these criteria.
Item B
“Attempted to manipulate the SPSF in 2016 by using unrelated incidents to coerce Imki into firing SPSF soldiers deemed detrimental to TBH using SPSF for its operations, to the detriment of the well-being of SPSF”
Based on the content of this item, I will be presuming it is meant to apply to criteria 1.4, “has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.”
This claim is flawed in two steps.
Firstly, it is disingenuous in its characterization of events. The long and short of the situation is that the SPSF was at the time exploring the possibility of cooperating with The Black Hawks. At some point in the exploration, I spoke with Imki on behalf of The Black Hawks, raising concerns about things including Roavin’s ability to separate sides of the R/D game. Our ultimate viewpoint was that, at the time, we were unsure if we were interested in working with the SPSF going forwards, given these concerns. To these concerns, Imki gave the following reply: https://i.imgur.com/DufdQX6.png . Said reply validates the general direction of the concerns raised, while defending Roavin’s intentions, and ends with an apology for the situation, and a fairly typical offer – as always, you’re welcome to choose to not work with us. Ultimately, TBH would choose to make that choice via its leadership body. It is wrong to characterize a fairly common concern that TBH, as a raider region, has when working with independent regions (that of how exactly they in reality operate on both sides) as an attempt to manipulate TSP. Given that our two regions had no notable standing history of close cooperation, it’s not like there was anything to be held over anyone’s head, or even the ability to threaten ending anything. What was there to be used as any force, even, with which to “manipulate” or “coerce?” There was the possibility of a future relationship, TBH made clear that it had some concerns, TSP replied to those concerns, and TBH chose not to enter into a relationship. To claims that such a course of events, such a raising of concerns, in any way would force TSP to oblige, is so ridiculous as to imply that it was practically a necessity for our regions to work together from TSP’s point of view; that the mere idea of us saying “no thanks, because x y and z” could potentially be powerful enough to drive change in your region, and that anyone who explains why they choose not to create a relationship with your region is guilty of trying to coerce the region into making changes that would render those reasons null. Which, frankly, is absurd. If TSP raised any concerns about TBH’s operations in return, would they be guilty as such? Is Euro guilty of such manipulation and coercion every time TBH follows their Rules of Engagement in order to invite them along on an operation? Such interactions are normal transactions in gameplay diplomacy. Manipulation and coercion cannot occur without a threat, and deciding not to pursue a brand new relationship without prior pedigree can hardly be construed as any serious threat.
Further, I again believe that this line item does not meet the requirements for an act of hostility as per 1.4. Representing a region to another region in a discussion of a potential future of cooperation, including covering potential roadblocks to such a cooperation, and what it would take in the eyes of either potential ally to clear said roadblocks, are entirely “normal” elements of the “raiding and defending dynamic.” These are conversations engaged in regularly, sometimes so regularly that they become givens more so than conversations. Every time that Europeia participates in a TBH raid on condition that we follow their rules of engagement, or we join an ally’s operation on condition they meet criteria of ours like not inviting our enemies or not using scripts we have not approved, such a conversation has occurred in the past, often to the point of being a given assumption. TSP is welcome to consider conditions of cooperation offered by TBH to be unreasonable. As Imki said on your behalf – “if you don’t want to work with us…that is your choice.” This, organizations choosing whether or not to work together, and describing what the latter would take to happen, is a common, “normal” element of GP, and thus 1.4 should not apply.
Additional note: I happen to have had that reply from Imki handy already in screenshot form, but can provide more of the conversation if there are more specific and relevant claims concerning it to be made.
Item C
“Is the singular reason why TWP proscribed his entire region, relating to ill-suited conduct during a joint raid.”
The proscription named can be viewed here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=391428&start=75#p33725125
While perhaps TSP has had claims presented to them not publicly stated, the proscription makes no such claims of me or my actions.
The proscription named has been rescinded here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=34200047#p34200047
Without a specifically detailed statement from TWP explaining why they chose to revoke the proscription to be entered, I think it is generally fair to presume that if the proscription has been rescinded, any issues that may have been named (which again, did not include the claim made here by TSP in the first place) have been resolved.
I’m probably reaching here, since this is likely not the intended definition in this case, but I have not broken any NS rules in quite some time, so I think my “conduct” in TSP legal terms has been acceptable.
Even at face value, assuming I was in fact the sole reason for a proscription, and the reason for such was behaving poorly in a joint raid, no part of that claim could be considered an act of hostility – it does not claim any attempt to overthrown government of an ally or commit espionage against an ally, which are the only times allies are mentioned in 1.1, 1.3, or 1.4, as cited.
Finally, though I’d rather not go down this rabbit hole at all given the above, I’d be more than happy to dispute the nature of the event I believe is being mentioned. That noted, I don’t plan on digging up those particular old logs unless it can first be demonstrated that doing so would be relevant to an act of hostility as described by the Proscription Act. To be asked to do so without first demonstrating the relevancy would be a senseless act.
Item D
“Is the singular reason why TEP (an ally) proscribed his entire region, relating to blackmailing the EPSA military commander”
The proscription named can be viewed here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=439108#p33725127
While perhaps TSP has had claims presented to them not publicly stated, the proscription makes no such claims of me or my actions.
The proscription named has been rescinded here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=439108&start=75#p34200113
Without a specifically detailed statement from TEP explaining why they chose to revoke the proscription to be entered, I think it is generally fair to presume that if the proscription has been rescinded, any issues that may have been named (which again, did not include the claim made here by TSP in the first place) have been resolved.
Even at face value, assuming I was in fact the sole reason for a proscription, and the reason for such was an act of egregious blackmail of TEP’s military leader, no part of that claim could be considered an act of hostility – it does not claim any attempt to overthrown government of an ally or commit espionage against an ally, which are the only times allies are mentioned in 1.1, 1.3, or 1.4, as cited.
Roavin has clarified in gameplay that this line was directed at a testy diplomatic interaction between TEP (represented by GreyGhost) and TBH that I have described a few times publicly prior (as well as my regret over aspects of my representation of the Council of Hawks in said interaction). While an interaction did occur, and I could detail it further, I don’t plan on digging up those particular old logs unless it can first be demonstrated that doing so would be relevant to an act of hostility as described by the Proscription Act. To be asked to do so without first demonstrating the relevancy would be a senseless act.
Finally, as to the nature of said interaction in general, given the definition of blackmail in 1(4) of the TSP Criminal Code, I believe GreyGhost would be glad to confirm that I have not “demanded private gains from her in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information.” I somehow doubt we’d still be close friends if I had done such a thing.
Item E
“Sensitive intelligence suggests he has conspired, or is conspiring to, overthrow the Coalition and "cleanse" it.”
Well, at least I can say that this line is, in fact, somewhat more relevant to the Proscription Act than the rest of the items, specifically I presume to 1.1. I will, however, soundly dispute that I have been “actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise,” with the intent “to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific.”
I have, in fact, probably said at some point that I’d find pleasure in most of TSP current government members being gone from the region. I’ve probably even idly said at some point that I’d be down for theoretically doing the purging myself, and rebuilding from the ashes. It’s a fair assessment to state that I do not consider several of those who have held office in TSP to be people I particularly like. All of this noted, expressing such thoughts are not an act of hostility as described by 1.1 – being actively involved or complicit in an attempt to commit the *action* of overthrowing the government is. These are, after all, ACTS of hostility. Idle chatter about imaginary futures does not a plan for action make.
I can’t much further dispute this item without more specific claims being made. I see from both the original proscription text and Roavin’s claims in Gameplay that the relevant evidence is being hidden behind the claim of “sensitive intelligence,” of which the sharing of could compromise the source. Unfortunately, no part of the Proscription Act provides such overzealous protection for the source in question. Rather, 3.2 demands that the proscription must be issued with “a report detailing the hostile acts.” I would like to insist that 3.2 be enforced, and that the claim made in item E be supported with a detailed description of exactly what attempts I am supposedly complicit in, when they occurred, and so forth. I believe the burden of proof here lies on those issuing the proscription to prove the positive – that I have committed these acts - rather than on myself to prove the negative, that I have never done so. I cannot further not dispute the existence of any such acts, their nature, or whether I think they can fairly fir the criteria for an act of hostility, without specific accusations and evidence being detailed in order for me to address.
In conclusion, I believe the proscription in its current state contains 4 claims which, besides being flawed in the nature of what they are claiming, cannot be construed as “acts of hostility” under the Proscription Act even at face value. It also contains a fifth claim which does appear to meet the criteria for an “act of hostility” under the Proscription Act at face value, but which fails to provide “a report detailing the hostile acts,” as mandated by 3.2, which additionally renders me unable to properly challenge its accuracy. As such, I believe the proscription should be struck down.
I am more than happy to answer further questions about this case, provide further relevant information as requested, and answer any counter-claims made in the course of this case.
Ever-Wandering Souls.
|
![[Image: lyhwrVh.png]](https://i.imgur.com/lyhwrVh.png)
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)