| Appeal to the Ban of Malayan Singapura |
Your honor, there doesn't appear to be a local dispatch detailing local RMB etiquette until the day before Malayan Singapura was banjected from the region. However, there are posts by members of the LC regarding etiquette on the RMB.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=885165
Your honour,
In answer to your questions: Individually, the warnings didn't count for much. It's the combination of warnings from multiple different people, both inside and outside our government, which served to show Malayan Singapura that his behaviour was unacceptable. Anybody with a modicum of courtesy would have changed their posting style/content, or not posted at all if they weren't capable of self-restraint. Malayan Singapura, however, never made any attempt to stop himself from annoying everyone unfortunate enough to frequent the RMB. While there weren't official rules at the time, there were established rules which have been in consistent use for a long time. Double (or more) posting, for example, has been a faux pas for over 6 years[1], while roleplay posters have been told to use Knowhere since it was founded almost a year ago[2]. Due to the nature of the RMB, with hundreds of posts per day covering a wide range of topics (and spamminess), there is always going to be some level of subjectiveness when it comes to applying the laws. It's impossible to give proof that laws are applied fairly, regardless of the system used, since the nature of 'spam' and 'annoying posts' will always be subjective, whether the laws are written down or not. Malayan Singapura had no way of verifying that these were the lawful standards, but neither did he make any attempt to. While he usually just completely ignored any warnings he was given, whenever he did acknowledge them, he accepted them as law (and then proceeded to ignore them after that)[3][4][5] Yes, I believe that the determination that he was entering regional politics in bad faith can be extended to a determination that he was in the region in bad faith, given that he admitted he was here temporarily until TNP took him back[6][7]. Someone who is here purely to improve their reputation with the intent of moving elsewhere when allowed to would be considered an invader, though their 'invasion' is on behalf of themselves solely, rather than an organisation. [1] Link [2] Link [3] Link [4] Link [5] Link [6] Link [7] Link Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.
You conveyed the view of the Local Council regarding the ban of Malayan Singapura with the following post:
Pencil Sharpeners 2 Wrote:The LC has unanimously decided to ban Malayan Singapura from the region, citing repeated spam and bragging on the RMB, along with their view of TSP being merely a stepping stone to TNP (a region they are already banned from), which had already led to their legislator application being rejected. This banjection has been done in accordance with the Border Control Act section III. I want to focus on a part of that post, which indicated that the ban was partially based on "their view of TSP being merely a stepping stone to TNP". Does that mean that the Local Council considers certain reasons for residing in the region, excluding those that involve actual attacks on the integrity of the delegacy, to be illegitimate reasons for residence? Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
In my opinion, I don't think that alone can be interpreted as... And I quote... "An Attack on the integrity on the delegacy" in this region. Although now that statement doesn't apply my stance here now, I'm still noting that I posted that back then willingly. Nevertheless, I have never made any implications that I came to this region to ruin the South Pacifican way of Authoritarian Democracy whatsoever. I thought I was kicked out for "trolling" but it seems the implications behind it are a bit deeper and more vague than I previously thought.
Correct me if I'm wrong ?
Your honor,
I continue to see many more flaws in regards to Pencil Sharpener's testimonies against Malayan Singapura. Their first paragraph states that it's apparently a combination of warnings that would serve to show Singapura to change his behavior. The evidence brought to us in the first testimony says that MS joined on August 5th, and was subsequently banjected on September 17th by the LC. That means it was merely a month until the banning. It can take months or years for people to become comfortable, to become comfortable learning and start to integrate with a community. So long as they aren't malicious, you should give them that chance and time. I believe that MS was still ajusting from TNP life and into TSP life. While ajusting, he was not malicious, only being a good member of the community until his unfair banjection. However, you go as far as to say that he would be considered as an invader. I say otherwise. So you claim he is a serial spammer who would clog up the RMB. You first go back on his triple posting. Malayan Singapura was not notified that triple posting is against the RMB rules. You yourself say that there weren't official rules at the time, only established rules. Another testimony by Frost states that there was never local dispatch about rules until MS was banjected. It would seem ludicrous to publish a rules set until around his banjection. He was not given adequate time to review the rules and re-evaluate his posting habits to conform to the rules. As I said, people need time to integrate into a community, and MS was not given an absolute rule book to use as a guide, but only warnings. So back to triple posting. MS has only triple-posted once due to not having previous knowledge of this rule. He hasn't double posted since, which shows he can modify his behavior. He only triple posted due to probably not knowing he could put multiple quotes in one post. Anyways, I see no evidence of him disregarding the double post rules. Now you mention that MS is disregarding Knowhere rules along with double posting rules. Yes, he may've needed some reminders to go there, but eventually learned the ropes. Now you mention at the end of your testimony, you believe MS had joined in bad faith. If had merely joined as a stepping stone, then I'd wager he wouldn't care about his ban if it was merely a stepping stone. He'd just step onto another stone and go on. But that's not the case. He made the effort to appeal his ban. Stepping stones usually aren't supposed to receive this much attention, but merely be a useless rock people don't care for. You source two pieces of evidence that you claim supports your belief that MS is an invader. One was given in your first testimony, but the last one [7] shows zero proof of this accusation. It only shows what MS thinks about the TNP delegate race, and nothing about him christening the south as a stepping stone. That's all I have currently, your honor.
Citizen of the South Pacific
Legislator for The South Pacific
(02-02-2018, 12:51 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Your honour, The reason why his residency was considered illegitimate was really down to his specific circumstances: - He had no interest in TSP prior to being banned from TNP - As per the evidence previously posted, he made no secret of the fact that his goal was to be accepted back into TNP and rise to power there. Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.
(02-15-2018, 08:07 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote:(02-02-2018, 12:51 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Your honor, I'd like to question this testimony If Malayan Singapura didn't have any interest in The South Pacific, then why would he have left The Rejected Realms to go and join The South Pacific if it would be easier for him to stay there, as there are no regional bans in that region? This fact shows that Malyan Singapura did have interests in the region. That doesn't make Malayan Singapura’s residency illegitimate as he has never stated how there would be any so-called "rise to power". So frankly, it cannot be easily assumed that this could spell a foreign banject entering a foreign region with the sole intention to parlay local politics with the only goal in the of raising influence in his/her Mother region, when it could be a banject taking a foreign region solely as a denizen until the situation in his home region has cooled down naturally. You may also say that, ‘the statement on a rise to power is enough to consider his residency illegitimate’. I dispute any claims on an illegitimate residency on Malayan Singapura. Is there even anything legal outlining how a residency is considered ‘illegitimate’? How do you consider any residency illegitimate? Where are your guides? Tell me how you consider any residency illegitimacy? These are all of my questions to Pencil Sharpeners.
Citizen of the South Pacific
Legislator for The South Pacific
For Immediate Release
04 March 2018 The Court provides notice to the general public that the ruling on HCRR1801: Review of the Ban on Malayan Singapura will be released on 05 March 2018 at 12:00 EST. The Court will thereafter entertain questions and doubts regarding the legal reasoning expressed in its ruling, and the process it followed in the consideration of the legal question, but it will not consider questions regarding the political ramifications of the same, nor will it express opinions of a political nature on any other unrelated subject. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
- HCRR1801 - REVIEW OF THE BAN ON MALAYAN SINGAPURA APPEAL TO CONTEST THE BANJECTION OF MALAYAN SINGAPURA ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2017 05 MARCH 2018 Justice KRINGLE delivered the Opinion.
Summary of the Verdict It is the opinion of the Court that the ban on Malayan Singapura violates Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, and should be lifted. This is supported by a lack of written and publicly available posting guidelines at the time of the offending behaviour, the ambiguous and unclear nature of the warnings given, and the overall nature of the procedure employed by the Local Council. While the Local Council does have the power to expel spammers and trolls, this must follow certain procedures and guarantees, namely the public availability of written guidelines and the existence of a reasonable moderation process. Malayan Singapura was not afforded these minimal due process guarantees, as required by Article III, Section 3 of the Charter.
Residency has long been a subject at the core of the rights of members. How can one participate in the region if one is kept from residing in it? How many guarantees must there be to ensure that residency is properly protected? While this Court will not answer these questions in this particular setting, it will address a specific case where residency rights were allegedly violated, and seek to determine if the protections afforded were sufficient and proper for the situation.
I
A. Background
Malayan Singapura arrived to the South Pacific on 06 August 2017, having been previously expelled from the North Pacific. He admitted to various behaviours and views that were seen as unwelcome by various South Pacificans, particularly Mostly Benevolent Tyranny and SJS Republic, who repeatedly chastised him for it. In his posts he admitted to being a bully, bragged about his family or personal wealth, warned others about what he called his "dark side", dismissed posts that expressed others' interest in certain subjects and engaged in occasional roleplay. This resulted in several posts from a variety of South Pacificans who asked him to tone down his line of posting, advised that his posts might be suppressed and requests that he refer to Knowhere for any gameside roleplaying. It is important to point out that most of these reminders were given by Mostly Benevolent Tyranny and SJS Republic, respectively a Local Councillor and a Security Councillor at the time. While additional reminders were given by other members, the Court takes note that most were indeed given by figures of authority within the Government, whose roles allow for the use of Border Control powers in certain cases. Malayan Singapura was banned on 17 September 2017, after a full month of residence, upon the unanimous decision of the Local Council. In its statement, the Local Council cited "repeated spam and bragging" and further noted as a third cause for the ban that Malayan Singapura had considered the region "merely a stepping stone to [the North Pacific]". Article 3 of the Border Control Act was cited as the legal justification for the ban. Malayan Singapura was not banned from the regional forum, and has continued to participate in the same in a limited capacity since his ban from the region. B. Testimonies by Both Parties Malayan Singapura provided testimony to the Court on the circumstances surrounding his ban. In his contributions, he challenged the assertion of the Local Council that he was given repeated warnings, and instead argued that most were responses to his posts. He further indicated that none of his posts were made with the intent to offend, instead calling them "recollecting old memories that have happened as a child", and offered to apologise to anyone who might have been offended by those posts where he bragged about his wealth. Upon further questioning by the Court, he admitted that he did not believe a "lack of ill intent is an excuse to be blind to regional posting guidelines", but also argued that "not everything" he had posted was contrary to regional posting guidelines and that he had trouble finding an authoritative listing of guidelines at the time of his ban. Pencil Sharpeners 2 is the only individual who was a Local Councillor at the time who also provided testimony to the Court. He defended the ban, arguing that "the sustained occurrence of bragging posts was considered to be spamming", and indicating that "Malayan Singapura was repeatedly informed of the reasons he was being warned". In his initial testimony, he provided evidence of multiple posts on the Regional Message Board as proof of the various warnings that, to his view, were given to Malayan Singapura prior to his ban. He also acknowledge that there had not been a formal set of posting guidelines prior to this event, and that moderation was given on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific situation and the history of the individual. In fact, he indicated that "RMB moderation was always done on an informal basis", and consequently there were no official warnings given to Malayan Singapura. While admitting this, Pencil Sharpeners 2 defended the ban by reminding the Court that abundant advice had been given to Malayan Singapura by authoritative figures, where he has informed that his posting was inadequate and could lead to moderation enforcement. II
A. Existence of Objective Posting Guidelines
Over the course of Oral Argument, the Court discovered that there were no formal posting guidelines at the time of the ban. Aside from the acknowledgement provided by Pencil Sharpeners 2, a cursory review of official dispatches by the Local Council reveals that the dispatch titled "RMB Etiquette" was published on 16 September 2017, the day before Malayan Singapura was banned, and after the offending behaviour took place. This leads the Court to ask two important questions. How could Malayan Singapura know what standards or rules he was violating? If there were no rules, what objective and lawful criteria did the Local Council employ when deciding the ban? These two questions were posed in various ways to Pencil Sharpeners 2. He admitted that, due to the lack of formal posting guidelines, "the public had no way of knowing what standards they were held to", but countered by arguing that Malayan Singapura had been repeatedly informed that their conduct violated posting standards. This is a potentially problematic argument, since these alleged warnings were cautioning against behaviour that, by the own admission of a Local Councillor, were not truly prohibited. Just like Stephen Strange found it odd that warnings on the use of the Eye of Agamotto should be given after the incantation, the Court is troubled by the fact that members should be informed of the existence of rules only after they had broken any. This also means that the Court has no objective way to verify if Malayan Singapura truly broke posting guidelines, or if the Local Council adequately considered them when deciding the ban. Pencil Sharpeners 2 acknowledged that there was no formal warning system either, so the Court cannot assess if objective criteria were employed in this particular case. While the Court concurs that truly objective moderation is difficult, it does believe that there must be certain objective criteria and written guidelines to which members can refer, lest they be punished for breaking rules whose existence they, quite understandably, ignored. B. Validity of Warnings A second issue to be considered is the validity of the warnings given to Malayan Singapura, and whether they the consideration given to them by the Local Council was reasonable and adequate. To support the ban issued by the Local Council, Pencil Sharpeners 2 cited thirteen different warnings. Out of these, seven were issued by SJS Republic, three by Mostly Benevolent Tyranny, and one each by Mezonpotania, Erinor and Aramanchovia. There are three issues to be considered with regards to the warnings cited, which are explained below. One issue is that not all warnings considered were issued by proper authorities. It is true that an overwhelming majority of the warnings were issued by either a Security Councillor or a Local Council, those being SJS Republic and Mostly Benevolent Tyranny, respectively, but three warnings were still given by individuals who had no role in the posting moderation process, under the Border Control Act or any Local Council Ordinance. This concerns the Court because, together with the fact that there was no clear moderation process, this means there is no way to verify how much weight was given to warnings delivered by proper authorities, as opposed to those given by individuals who, while prominent members, have no official accountability or responsibilities with respect to the Border Control Act. This is admittedly offset by the fact that the overwhelming majority of warnings cited was given by a relevant authority, but the Court does have a concern for the broader matter of consideration of warnings. A second issue is that not all alleged warnings should qualify as such, in the opinion of the Court. Many of these were responses or comments to posts by Malayan Singapura, while others were instructions to move any roleplaying to Knowhere, but few were unambiguous warnings in the context of a formal moderation process. Such is the case with the warning by Mezonpotania, which merely said "there is Knowhere to go to say that stuff" or one of the warnings by SJS Republic, whose sole content was "*cough* Knowhere *cough*". There were undoubtedly more unambiguous warnings, and the Court recognises their existence. One such case is when Mostly Benevolent Tyranny indicated the following: "We've been over this several times. RP is not allowed on the RMB, and belongs in our dedicated RP region, Knowhere. You've received warnings on this topic several times, yet have continued to ignore them. Suppression is the result." These, however, comprise a minority of the warnings cited, and do not form a compelling case that Malayan Singapura had abundant and clear knowledge that he was being subjected to a formal moderation process. A third issue is that, even in those cases were warnings were arguably unambiguous, they did not clearly cite the rules that were being broken, and instead limited themselves to ordering that specific behaviour cease, without reference to the laws or ordinances that supported such order. Out of all the warnings cited by Pencil Sharpeners 2, none cites the rules being broken, or refers to the legal authority of the Local Council to regulate standards of behaviour under the Border Control Act. Therefore, it becomes difficult for the person concerned to determine if they are being given reminders, informal warnings, or formal warnings that would count towards a future moderation action. This ambiguity endangers the certainty that must be present for any process that conforms to due process, since the accused is entitled to know when charges are being levied against them, what those charges are, and what laws support such accusations. C. The Charter and the Border Control Act An examination of the ban on Malayan Singapura must also consider whether such an action is allowed by regional law, and if so, what standards must be met for it to be lawful and valid. Article III, Section 3 of the Charter indicates that "no member, who had joined the region in good faith, may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law". While the Charter does not offer a conclusive definition of "due process", the Court understands it within the context of a series of procedures and guarantees that ensure expulsions are not arbitrary, can be reasonable contested and are consistent with the general values espoused by the Charter. There is also a requirement that the concerned member have joined in good faith, a subject that was briefly referenced by the Court in Members of the Coalition [HCLQ1708]. In that regard, the Court refers to its stated opinion, which indicates that participation in bad faith would refer to "a nation or forum user who displays a clear intent to violate the sovereignty of the Coalition, without any accompanying intent to participate in good faith in the affairs of the region". That comes in contrast with the stated belief by Pencil Sharpeners 2, and referenced in the statement from the Local Council, that Malayan Singapura's intent to reside in this region only until his return to the North Pacific constituted a display of bad faith. Authority to expel members is given to the Local Council by virtue of Article 3 of the Border Control Act. In particular, Article 3, Section 1 indicates that "a majority of the Local Council, may order a border control action against a nation they determine to be spammers or trolls". Section 3 further indicates that the Local Council may enact policy that allows Border Control Officers to perform actions unilaterally. While this clearly establishes an ability to expel members who are either spammers or trolls, it is still subject to Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, which requires that due process be afforded to any member before an expulsion may take place. Does this mean a full criminal trial is required to expel a mere spammer? Should the Court hold a hearing before a troll can be banned? While the Court does not presume to know what the law should say, it is fairly confident in its belief that this is not currently required. Instead, the Charter does require that there be a reasonable and reasonably flexible definition for what could constitute a spammer or troll, and also that there be a procedure for how such behaviour should be handled. Such as there is a Criminal Code that outlines the crimes for which a member may be charged, and a Court Procedures Act to establish the process that the Court must follow to process said charges, so must the Local Council provide certain written guidelines, and establish a basic procedure, for how Article 3 of the Border Control Act will be implemented. These guidelines and procedure need not be as complex or as detailed as the Criminal Code or the Court Procedures Act, but they do need to provide the public with a basic knowledge and understanding of the rules under which posting in the Regional Message Board is governed. This would be compliant with the overall values of the Coalition. III
Malayan Singapura most definitely earned the ire and animosity of several South Pacificans, which is why few expressed regret when the Local Council ordered his ban. Some have even argued that, regardless of the legal validity of the ban, it was morally right. It is not the duty of the Court to make these determinations, but rather to look at the facts. As the Peruvian saying goes: "papelito manda", meaning that words and actions are only as good as the document that supports them. If there are legal impediments to an expulsion, the Court has no option but to overturn it, even if the individual is unpopular. If the legal argument is sound, even if the individual is well-liked, the Court has a duty to uphold the ban. Such is the nature of upholding the law for all, so that none may suffer injustice.
When examining the background of this case, the Court was surprised to find that there were no written procedures in place for how posting was to be regulated: not for what behaviour was prohibited or how moderation would be handled. In effect, Malayan Singapura could not refer to any legal document that clearly explained how the Local Council interpreted the Border Control Act, because such a document only came into being the day before he was banned. An argument could be made that, in the absence of clear guidelines, the default interpretation would be that spam is whatever the Local Council deems it to be through its warnings. That argument makes sense, to a limited extent, but even then the Court believes that the Local Council failed the test. As was indicated above, warnings were not clearly articulated, or even properly identified as such, so Malayan Singapura had no way to identify and distinguish regular responses from warnings, and stern reminders or unofficial warnings from official warnings. This negatively affected his ability to properly respond to them, since he was operating on a different level of understanding from that of the Local Council. In short, the Court is troubled by the ban on Malayan Singapura, because it did not meet the minimum standards that must be afforded, as per the due process guarantees of Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, to any member who faces expulsion from the region. He was not given proper and clearly recognisable warnings, and he recourse to a publicly accessible document that outline the standards to which he was held. The Court disagrees with the arguments proposed in support of the ban, and believes that the Local Council did not follow a proper and lawful procedure when deciding to impose said measure In view of the above, and pursuant to its power to review the laws, orders and actions of government institutions, the High Court rules that the ban on Malayan Singapura violates Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, related to the right of a member not to be expelled without the guarantees of due process, and further orders that his ban be lifted and considered never to have been valid, so that he may be allowed to rejoin the region with the full privileges and responsibilities of membership. Regional Officers are hereby instructed to implement this order as appropriate. It is so ordered. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honour,
In accordance with you ruling, Malayan Singapura has been removed from the regional ban list. Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |