Users browsing this thread:

New Haudenosaunee Confederacy · 12-02-2018, 11:58 AM

(12-01-2018, 10:50 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: This doesn't mean I was aware of the court case being created. I already told you I thought it was a joke. Just because I said that, doesn't mean I knew you were actually gonna make a complaint.

You implied that you thought I was serious. Why would you think I won't be serious about it but then not even actually do it? And once again, the now deleted post still existed by 11:48 PM EST on November 27th, when you were definitely aware of the court case, as I have previously said.

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

Concrete Slab · 12-02-2018, 01:00 PM

Dude, I didn't know anything about the forums when you mentioned the High Court. I didn't even know we had one! I was just playing gameside at the time.

North Prarie · 12-02-2018, 01:02 PM

(12-01-2018, 03:26 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: NHC, I thought you were making a jest... but apparently not.

You also thought NHC was half-joking when he was dead serious, previously.
After someone clearly voices their dislike and says something is illegal, do you think they wiuld be joking about taking a case to the Court?

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

North Prarie · 12-02-2018, 01:05 PM

(12-02-2018, 01:00 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: Dude, I didn't know anything about the forums when you mentioned the High Court. I didn't even know we had one! I was just playing gameside at the time.

This is incorrect, as A. You have been in TSP since January of this year, and have been on discord, and I guarentee that things on the forum have been mentioned, B. There has always been the link on the WFE and C. You applied to be a legislator on November 15th. A full 9 days before the incident.

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

New Haudenosaunee Confederacy · 12-02-2018, 01:11 PM

(12-02-2018, 01:05 PM)North Prarie Wrote:
(12-02-2018, 01:00 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: Dude, I didn't know anything about the forums when you mentioned the High Court. I didn't even know we had one! I was just playing gameside at the time.

This is incorrect, as A. You have been in TSP since January of this year, and have been on discord, and I guarentee that things on the forum have been mentioned, B. There has always been the link on the WFE and C. You applied to be a legislator on November 15th. A full 9 days before the incident.

To add to this, Concrete Slab is aware of my previous complaint against Auphelia, as previously shown in this thread multiple times, which happened months ago in June. It would be really awkward if he was aware of a complaint in the court but not the actual court itself.

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

Concrete Slab · 12-02-2018, 01:11 PM

That doesn't mean I knew we had a court. Also, how I was supposed to know that NHC was serious? We don't interact irl, so I don't know his emotions.

Concrete Slab · 12-02-2018, 01:11 PM

I was aware because I explored the court after my case surfaced!

Awe · 12-02-2018, 02:26 PM

Pardon my intrusion into this courtroom, Your Honour, but it appears that the plaintiff and defendant have recalcitrantly lapsed into incessant bickering despite repeated reminders not to do so. I suggest that Your Honour ought to consider locking the thread to prevent further comments that are wholly immaterial to the case, until such time when a judgment can be reached on this matter.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

***Kris Kringle*** · 12-24-2018, 09:50 PM

For Immediate Release
25 December 2018

The Court provides notice to the general public that the verdict on HCCC1802: New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab will be released on 26 December at 12:00 EST. The Court will thereafter entertain questions and doubts regarding the legal reasoning expressed in its verdict, and the process it followed in the consideration of the review request, 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

***Kris Kringle*** · 12-26-2018, 11:00 AM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
-
HCCC1802
-
NEW HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY V. CONCRETE SLAB

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CONCRETE SLAB FOR THE COMMISSION OF CORRUPTION

18 DECEMBER 2018

CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE delivered the opinion of the Court, signed also by JUSTICE BELSCHAFT.

Summary of the Opinion

It is the finding of the Court that Concrete Slab did suppress a post that criticised their interpretation of regional law, thereby violating the Article III rights of New Haudenosaunee Confederacy and obtaining an advantage in the form of the suppression of critical speech. However, Concrete Slab does not have a record of unlawful actions and undid the suppression minutes after the fact. In consequence, Concrete Slab is found guilty of corruption, but shall face no penalties or further instructions from this Court.

To hold an office of trust under the Government of the South Pacific is a privilege and an opportunity that few ever receive. It must be abundantly clear, to those few, that their position is not an opportunity to impose their views on others, but rather a chance to serve the people and, through their actions, make the region a better place for all. When an official loses view of that guiding principle, and uses or abuses their power to gain a personal benefit, that act of corruption must be identified, investigated and, if proven, condemned, lest the nature of democratic and representative government be altered.

I

A. Facts of the Case

This case arises from an exchange between New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (hereafter “NHC”) and Local Councillors Concrete Slab and The Solar System Scope (hereafter “TSSS”) on the Regional Message Board (hereafter “RMB”) on 25 November 2018.

The aforementioned exchange began when Concrete Slab instructed NHC to move their ongoing roleplay away from the RMB and into Psomewhere, a region established specifically for non-map-related roleplays [1]. This advice was consistent with the RMB Roleplaying Act (hereafter “the Act”), which indicates the following:

Both types of roleplay [nation-based and character-based] are legal on the RMB, but are required to move to their allocated roleplay regions after 5 posts. Local Councillors (or other Regional Officers) may suppress posts beyond the allowed 5, and should encourage the usage of our roleplay regions. [2]

This is contradicted by the RMB Etiquette and Rules, a dispatch maintained by Midand, which indicates that “RP is currently allowed in the TSP RMB but nations are advised to move it to the Wheres [3]”. Indeed, NHC referenced this dispatch when arguing that, contrary to Concrete Slab’s indication, there was no reason why the roleplay should be moved to Psomewhere.

Concrete Slab could have pointed to the Act as the legal justification for the order, but instead raised the level of the confrontation and suppressed at least one post by NHC. What follows is a transcript of the exchange that took place on the RMB, with any unrelated posts removed:

[#1] Concrete Slab: I think this should do Psomewhere else…
[#2] New Haudenosaunee Confederacy: From the RMB etiquette dispatch: RP is currently allowed in the TSP RMB… [4]
[#3] CS: Depends on the LCer. It is getting excessive. Take it Psomewhere else.
[#4] NHC: Absolutely nowhere does it say that it depends on the LCer.
[#5] CS: *shrugs* I don’t care… Move it
[#6] NHC: You’re saying that you don’t care about what the RMB etiquette dispatch… Reminder: You’re an LC.
[#7] CS: Tell me, what does the dispatch recommend?
Also reminder, I can do what I want…
[#8] NHC: No you can’t. We have rules for a reason. If we could just do what we want, then all forms of opinion would just be suppressed and this wouldn’t be a real democracy.
[#9] CS: Huh? New Haudenosaunee Confederacy? What did you say? I couldn’t quite hear?
[#10] NHC: Sorry, but nothing allowed you to suppress like that. You can’t just suppress every post that disagrees with you.
[#11] CS: *puts hand to ear* I can’t hear you bro!!
(XD)
[#12] The Solar System Scope: Concrete Slab, that did not merit a suppression.
[#13] NHC: Tell me, what RMB etiquette lets you suppress that?
Error 404: Not found.
[#14] CS: ALl [sic] right, I’m just playing. I’ll unsuppress.
Rmb [sic] etiquette ain’t the law, I am
[#15] NHC: No. We have RMB rules for a reason. You can’t just suppress whatever the hell you want. Can the president of the United States murder 20 people and get away with it?
[#16] CS: Now? probably… Anyway… I’m done lol. Playing dictator was fun!
[#17] TSSS: [re: #14] That is horribly incorrect. [re: #15] That is correct. We have passed laws to stop any LCer try to oppress unfairly. [5]

While there were further posts in the exchange, the confrontation largely subsided when TSSS intervened. It was on the evening of the date of the exchange that NHC filed a criminal complaint against Concrete Slab, arguing that the latter had engaged in corruption when suppressing post 8 of the exchange.

B. Elements of Corruption

In addition to knowing the facts of the case –what happened, who did it, under what circumstances did it happen–, it is also necessary for the Court to be aware of the elements of the crime, as defined by the Criminal Code. This is fundamental, so that it can then be established if such elements are present in the case; that is, if the crime was committed.

Article I, Section 7 of the Criminal Code defines corruption as follows:

Corruption shall be defined as the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage. [6]

This definition provides two elements: the misuse of public office, and the advantage that would come as a result of said misuse. This is interesting, because an argument could well be made that any misuse of public office would inherently result in an advantage; after all, if power is being misused, there must be a reason, which more often than not will be a selfish one. If any misuse comes with an advantage, why add a separate clause that mentions the gain of an advantage?

It is possible that, in defining corruption like that, Unibot sought to emphasise the nature of the advantage. For one, the advantage would have to be clear and more tangible than what would extend from the mere misuse of a public office; or, in any case, that the advantage should be clear enough that any reasonable person, in possession of the relevant facts, would be able to identify its nature without problem. If the advantage were not as easily identifiable, or if it was of a relatively insignificant nature, then that could be an indication that, while there would be misuse, it would not qualify as corruption.

A second point to consider is the language used to refer to the advantage; it does not merely refer to it, but it also clarifies that the advantage can be either private or personal: an official can misuse their power for their own advantage, or to deliver an advantage to a third party. This clarifies the nature of the possible scenarios under which corruption may take place, by ensuring that third-party involvement will also be covered under this crime.

Insofar as these two elements must be present for there to be corruption, these are the points to be considered when looking at a case. Is the charge that of an official who has misused their power? Did that misuse result in a clearly identifiable advantage for themselves or a third party? If so, then it is possible that corruption may have taken place.

II

A. Findings of the Court

This case rests on a succinct question: did Concrete Slab engage in corruption when they suppressed content on the Regional Message Board? To reach a conclusion on this matter, the Court reviewed the events that prompted this case, considered the broader context of these events, and confronted these facts and context against the two elements that constitute the crime of corruption.

In their testimony to the Court on November 26, Concrete Slab admitted to suppressing a post by New Haudenosaunee Confederacy:

[New Haudenosaunee Confederacy] immediately disrespected and insulted me, and I lost my temper. For this, I have no excuse. I am still new at this, it’s only my first week, and I suppressed his next two posts just to get back at him and under his skin. In no way am I corrupt, I only have the best interests of TSP in mind. Not to mention, I unsuppressed the posts about five minutes later and publicly apologized. [7]

There are important issues to consider from this testimony. The first is that Concrete Slab confirms NHC’s claim: they did in fact suppress posts for a reason not related to legitimate moderation. This runs contrary to the claims made by various third parties, one of whom insisted that this criminal complaint was “a simple case of griefing [8]”.

Based on the evidence, the Court would have to disagree with those assertions. This case is no simple instance of an individual refusing to abide by roleplay regulations on the Regional Message Board. Such would be the case if Concrete Slab only suppressed roleplay posts, in accordance with the process laid out in the RMB Roleplaying Act.

This is not what happened, however. Concrete Slab went beyond that, and suppressed a post in which NHC attempted to cite laws and regulations, in an apparent attempt to argue the legality of their roleplaying. While this action was undone minutes after, a reversal that the Court welcomes, this does not change the fact that the right to free speech was denied to New Haudenosaunee Confederacy, for the simple act of challenging the actions of their Local Councillor.

There are two concepts upon which the democratic system of government must be built upon. The first is that citizens may criticise their public officials, and that they may also challenge the actions of said officials. The second concept is that officials are elected or appointed not to exercise power as they see fit, but rather to serve the citizenry. These two concepts cannot be ignored by out officials, who must understand that the power they exercise is not theirs, but rather it belongs to the office they temporarily hold.

These concepts are rightfully enshrined in the Charter, whose Article III, Section 1, says that all members shall “enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies [9]”. There is nothing reasonable about a public official suppressing criticism by the people they are meant to represent. Concrete Slab should consider themselves admonished by this Court for what constitutes a violation of New Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s Article III rights, and a violation of their responsibility as a Local Councillor.

There are mitigating factors at play, however, and the Court would be remiss to ignore them. It is true that Concrete Slab undid the suppression shortly after. It is also true that, through the intervention of The Solar System Scope, Concrete Slab was made aware that their actions were unlawful, and such awareness was made evident through their testimony. It should also be pointed out that this was not a large-scale incident, but rather a single dispute in which tempers may have run high. Indeed, the Court is not aware of Concrete Slab having a record of unlawful behaviour.

For there to be true justice, the Court must account not only for all facts of the case, including those that mitigate the severity of the charges, since they provide context to the nature of the events.

B. Verdict

In view of the facts and circumstances outlined above, Concrete Slab is found guilty of the crime of corruption. On account that the suppressions subject to this case have been undone, and considering other mitigating factors, Concrete Slab is admonished for their behaviour, but shall face no further instructions or penalties from this Court.

It is so ordered.

Sources

[1] Concrete Slab. (2018). “I think this should go Psomewhere else…”. Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=33465630
[2] Local Council. (2018). Legislation of the Local Council. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t9xb...bjVpo/edit
[3] Midand. (2018). RMB Etiquette and Rules. Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=991786
[4] Concrete Slab and New Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (2018). “I think this should od Psomewhere else…”. Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=displa...art=323100
[5] Concrete Slab, New Naudenosaunee Confederacy & The Solar System Scope. (2018). “Depends on the LCer. It is getting excessive. Take it Psomewhere else.”. Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=displa...art=323125
[6] Assembly of the South Pacific. (2016). Criminal Code. Retrieved from http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4114.html
[7] Concrete Slab. (2018). “I provide the following statement for the court”. Retrieved from http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6631-post-17...#pid178166
[8] Volaworand. (2018). "I would point out to the court that the post referenced is in relation to LC not accepting HNC’s campaign advice during the LC election…”. Retrieved from http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6631-post-17...#pid178253
[9] Great Council of the South Pacific. (2016). The Charter of The South Pacific. Retrieved from http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4111-post-12...#pid129935

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: 12-26-2018, 11:01 AM by Kris Kringle.)