May it please the Court, I wish to file a short addendum to my brief in response to Nakari's brief as it presents a slightly different argument than that made previously:

(03-30-2019, 02:07 PM)Nakari Wrote: [...] So I suppose the question really is "Do we count the NS onsite moderation process as due process and as reasonable?" [...]

Assuming NationStates moderation is all well and good, due process must still be established at the regional level. HCRR1801 requires that banjection procedure be written and available in order to satisfy due process (see my main amicus curiae brief above). To my knowledge, there is no written guideline (let alone a publicly-available one) which stipulates that action by NationStates moderators is sufficient proof of a conduct violation. Without a written and available process, a banjection fails the test for due process at the regional level. As such, the fine qualities of NationStates moderation is immaterial to the question at hand - they can not make up for the lack of due process at the regional level.