Representing the Fourth Isolationist Republic of Malayan Singapura currently alive and active, I hereby file an appeal to the Supreme Court of The South Pacific to contest the banjection carried out on my nation during the 29th of September 2017, carried out by the Local Council on a unanimous vote placed under Section III of the Border Control Act for the sole reason of being persistently annoying to ultimately plead the court for leniency and the reversal of aforementioned banjection. Here are some reasons:

1. I am not trying to dismiss the spamming and negative views on the TSP I carried out in the past, rather I'm metaphorically bowing down on my head for forgiveness and a new start when I play NationStates full time come 2020.

2. I have never displayed any radicalist behaviour during my time in the TSP

3. I have not been banjected for any particular offence that is labelled as a threat, so my banjection was carried out in a rather grey area legal wise

I hope the Supreme Court will consider this to be Justiciable enough to be a case.

 [Image: crNBaOV.jpg]

Malayan Singapura

(This post was last modified: 01-13-2018, 12:10 PM by Malayan Singapura.)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY

Whereas Malayan Singapura has appealed the ban imposed on them by SJS Republic on 17 September 2017 through the following request:

I hereby file an appeal to the Supreme Court of The South Pacific to contest the banjection carried out on my nation during the 29th of September 2017.

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article III, Section 6 of the Charter to review the legality of actions by other government institutions and overturn those actions found in contravention of the freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.

It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:

1. It is deemed justiciable.
   
2. It shall be assigned the case number HCRR1801 and be referred to in full as Review of the Ban on Malayan Singapura.
   
3. The Court requests that former Local Councillors Pencil Sharpeners 2, Mostly Benevolent Tyranny and Ebonhand, and Security Councillor SJS Republic, provide testimony to account for their actions on 17 September 2017, no later than 18 January 2018.
   
4. 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.
   
5. Rikutso is appointed as Law Clerk for this case, and will provide limited assistance to the Court with the research and consideration of the present Review Request.
   
6. The Court will consider this review request as a legal question for the purposes of the Charter and the Court Procedures Act, and retains the sole right to issue an opinion on the same.
   

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Permanent Justice

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

(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018, 01:08 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Your honour,

After arriving in TSP on August 5th 2017, having being banned from TNP^[1], Malayan Singapura frequently posted upon our RMB. Unfortunately, many of those posts involved bragging, usually about his wealth^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}, along with various spam / roleplay posts^{[9][10][11][12]}.

Due to his behaviour, he was warned multiple times^{[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]}, and yet, as is evidenced by the number of warnings, proceeded to ignore them all.

Due to his repeated bad behaviour over the course of a month, refusal to listen to any warnings he was given, regular spam posts, and history of bad behaviour in TNP, on the 17th of September, the Local Council unanimously deemed Malayan Singapura to be a spammer, and invoked section 3 (1) of the Border Control Act, before SJS Republic carried out the banjection.

Note: Malayan Singapura had, at the time of banjection, a total influence of less than 4015^[26], meaning that he was a low influence nation so the LC did not need the assent of the CRS to carry out the banjection.

Sources:
[1] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26659442
[2] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26730918
[3] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26889828
[4] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26918675
[5] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27031560
[6] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27090660
[7] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27152934
[8] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27239195
[9] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26772601
[10] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26788317
[11] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26830209
[12] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26926834
[13] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26730818
[14] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26889730
[15] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26903723
[16] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26916094
[17] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26931242
[18] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26933569
[19] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26942306
[20] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=26943975
[21] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27003823
[22] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27020665
[23] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27127758
[24] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27162340
[25] https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=27178758
[26] https://www.nationstates.net/nation=mala...ensusid=65

Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.

Reply

Here’s my response to the prosecution, your Honour. I apologise for the delay as personal circumstances made it difficult to dedicate more time to this statement


As you all know, multiple warnings have been "stated" against me. I am here to try and challenge the prosecution with some corrections. Before I begin any further, I'd like to state out that any pieces of evidence which claim of "flaunting wealth" was not intended for such a thing, but was for recollecting old memories that have happened as a child, and at the time of posting, we're not meant to piss off anyone whatsoever. anyone who has been offended by this, I'll kindly send a personal message explaining and apologising for it.


[13] is indeed a warning, but that is apparently my first one, which is understandable.
[14] is not a warning, even though it was issued by Erinor, Minister of Regional Affairs for The South Pacific. It is more of a response to a post I made, that I should tone down anxiety seemingly indicated in the post. This should not be counted as a warning, but a response.

[15] Is only a response to Kyoki Chukodu's appearance in TSP's RMB, in TNP RMB-esque style. It should not be seen as Roleplay, but as a typical response in the TNP RMB not related to RP.
[16] Is about a response to Esfalsa's post.
[17] is only a triple post-response to TNP personalities, Solordia, and LaLaLand. This however, is his first case of triple-posting.
[19] was only anticipation of Nuke-con and was only mis-interpreted as roleplay by SJS Republic, by using a phrase from a Cold War song about Werner von Braun
[20] is also a recollection of events mistaken for RP
[21] isn't a troll. but a post about helping UPPERCUT in the N-day.
[22] was only a fun response to some memes
[23] is not bragging, just a recollections of events with no ill intentions meant
[24] is not a warning, but another response to MS's post on TNP personalities posting in the RMB (Refer to [15] for full explanation)
[25] was meant to be taken as a political joke on Trump's political inadequacy which got awfully mis-interpreted as spam
That is all for any pieces of evidence labelled as spam.

I'll be releasing a new string of rebuttals in the upcoming days to the High Court, your Honour. Does the prosecution have any arguments on the rebuttals posted above ?

 [Image: crNBaOV.jpg]

Malayan Singapura

Reply

The Court extends its thanks to Pencil Sharpeners and Malayan Singapura for their respective testimonies, and would like to ask them the following questions.

To Pencil Sharpeners:

• To what extent was the ban from the North Pacific relevant to the deliberations of the Local Council regarding the subsequent ban on Malayan Singapura?
  
• Do you consider the posts identified as 'bragging' to qualify as spam? Were they treated as such in the aforementioned deliberations? If not, were they considered to have violated any posting rules in force at the time of their posting?
  
• What constitutes a proper warning for the purposes of moderation in the Regional Message Board? Do the warnings or guidance given by any member of the region count towards the considerations of the Local Council?
  
• Were links 13-16, 19-23, 25 considered official warnings by the Local Council during the course of its deliberations?
  
• Does the Local Council have a formal moderation process that can be, and has been, applied to all members fairly and equally, without any unreasonable distinctions? Did it have one at the time of the alleged commission of the spam and of the imposition of the ban?
  
• Does the Local Council display in a public venue a reasonably easy to understand list of posting standards, and the moderation process that will accompany any violation of the same? Did it have one at the time of the alleged commission of the spam and the imposition of the ban?
  
• Was Malayan Singapura referred to any resource that contained posting rules, either while being warned, or separately, so he would know from a written and official source what behaviour was not permitted on the Regional Message Board?

To Malayan Singapura:

• Were you aware that your line of posting was contrary to the posting guidelines established by the Local Council?
  
• Were you informed of, referred to, or shown, said guidelines at any point between your first warning and your ban from the region?
  
• Did you consider the warnings given by various members, with the exception of those given by Most Benevolent Tyranny and SJS Republic, as official warnings from the Local Council?
  
• Why did you continue posting in such a way that you continued to be called out, either by the Local Council or by individual members of the region, on your behaviour and attitude?
  
• Do you believe a lack of ill intent is an excuse for ignoring or violating regional posting guidelines?
  

The Court reserves the right to ask additional questions.

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

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018, 12:08 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Your Honour,

I was not present during these posts. However, from reading the posts on PS2's post, I believe that this does not warrant banjection. I will point this to Freedom of Expression. Some posts may be arrogant and seen as jerky, but that can be gone with just a little reminder, which I did not see on the context of arrogance, only roleplay. If disobeying multiple orders to take RP to Knowhere warranted a banjection, Midand, one of our best community members, would not be here. He did triple post, but for most of the posts he was just saying stuff he wanted to say. It may be "nonsense" to you, but it certainly does not warrant banjection. I have seen that he has become a trusted community member. As long has he does not keep this up, I say we let Malayan Singapura back into the South Pacific.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018, 01:34 PM by North Prarie.)

Reply

Your honour,

Answering your questions:

The ban from TNP was not a major part of our deliberations, since we were far more concerned about his actions in TSP. However, it was brought up a couple of times, mainly as evidence that Malayan Singapura was unlikely to change for the better.

Individually, the bragging posts were not considered to be spam, merely impolite. However, the sustained occurrence of bragging posts was considered to be spamming.

Due to the nature of the RMB, with a very wide variety of posts, various conversations beginning sporadically, and a large turnover of nations, we do not (and didn't at the time) have a formal warning system in place. The RMB has always been moderated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a player's past history. Given that the very reason for moderating the RMB is to make it a better place for the people who use it, the opinions of RMBers, particularly those who are long-term or regular users, are taken into account by the LC.

At the time we had no RMB etiquette rules. This situation was one of the reasons we made one, though it wasn't until after the banjection that it was voted on and formally adopted.

Although at the time there was no official source of inforomation regarding the rules, Malayan Singapura was repeatedly informed of the reasons he was being warned, including several times by government officials.

Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.

Reply

Your Honor,

     I fail to see how some of the posts linked in Pencil Sharpeners' first testimony are spam posts. Post number 3, is only a response to Erinor's so-called "warning". The post includes a meaningful response, and the only real reason I see Pencil Sharpeners would list it as spam is either ignorance or or just to submit it as fake evidence. The post also includes a comment at the end that I see as intended to be humorous, and not in any way intended to be bragging/trolling, or etc. Post 4 is not spam either, only just part of the discussion on the RMB that was going on currently. The next post, post number 7, is another piece of false evidence submitted. It just seems as if Pencil Sharpeners is just accusing spam everywhere at Singapura will-nilly. Most of this so-called 'evidence' is merely just regular posts posted in regards to the current discussion in the RMB at that time. 

     This is all that I have for the court at this time.
                                                                                                                                      ~Flakey

Citizen of the South Pacific
Legislator for The South Pacific

Reply

Your honour,

If I might submit my opinion as a witness, the posts as cited by Pencil Sharpeners do not, in their isolation convey the rather overwhelming and repetative nature of Malayan Singapura's plays at the time, nor the I increasing aggravation of the majority of the RMB community. It is my reflection that Malayan Singapura was politely advised and asked to alter his posting behaviour without any clear changes in response before being more directly warned.

Whilst there may be scope for their ban to be lifted at some stage, I do not believe its original imposition was in any way unwarranted or unlawful.

Sent from my SM-J320FN 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

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

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?
  

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

Reply