The Court extends its thanks to Pencil Sharpeners for their answers, and to Flakey and Seraph for their contributions. It further wishes to ask the following questions:

To Pencil Sharpeners:

• Even if one operates under the assumption that Malayan Singapura was indeed given warnings for their behaviour, were they given a clear indication by a Local Councillor of what exact rules they were breaking, either through telegram or by quoting the offending post or posts?
  
• While the opinions of regular members can be useful to inform the judgement of the Local Council, should the Court understand your answer to mean that regular members, meaning nations who are not Local Councillors or may not even hold any kind of government office, are empowered, or were empowered at the time of the events relevant to this case, to issue official warnings, or that the warnings they issue will be considered material at the time of deciding on a punishment for the violation of posting guidelines?
  
• If the answer to the preceding question is yes, was this situation made evident to the general population by means of a publicly available publication? If not, can the Court assume that the public was not aware of which officials or individuals were empowered to deliver official warnings for the violation of posting guidelines?
  
• If not any individual is empowered to deliver official warnings, or if not all warnings are considered equally material, what standard did the Local Council employ, both in general and in relation to this case, at the time of the events relevant to the case, to determine which warnings were material?
  
• Could you confirm to the Court that there was no codified ruleset that contained posting standards for the Regional Message Board at the time of Malayan Singapura's posting and subsequent ban?
  
• If the answer to the preceding question is yet, can the Court assume that the public had no way of knowing, from an official and publicly available source, to what posting standards were they being held, and therefore could have been penalised, however harshly or leniently, for violating rules of whose existence they were not aware?
  
• Do you believe that the lack of explicit and publicly available posting guidelines is an impediment of any kind on the delivery of objective moderation?
  
• What is your opinion on the adherence of the ban on Malayan Singapura to Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to due process in cases of ejection or ban?
  

For Seraph:

• If the posts provided by Pencil Sharpeners do not fully reflect the attitudes for which Malayan Singapura was banned, yet you insist that the attitude existed, which posts do reflect this attitude?
  
• Do you believe that the lack of explicit and publicly available posting guidelines is an impediment of any kind on the delivery of objective moderation?
  
• Do you believe Malayan Singapura had a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and confront the accusations levied against them?