The court ruling has ensured that allowing the LC to use their judgement to NOT suppress a post is then going to later be used as evidence that a later suppression was corrupt.  So as much as I hate to do so, the courts have tied the hands of me as a Local Councilor and forced this level of stringent enforcement.  Are we apparently not allowed to pick and choose?  How should any LC determine what is spam at this point?

Please do explain how that’s the case. I’m interested in hearing your side of the argument.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

There seems to be some dissonance between the argument that the RMB is a fast moving behemoth (and so the LC needs wider moderation power) and that something like a double post can get you banned. If someone posts something spammy, and it falls many pages behind by the end of the day, is it really that big of an issue? How much of a negative impact did it really make?

I think your double posting rule really needs to be reanalyzed. If somebody is responding to two different posts, why should it be a ban-worthy offense to make two posts back to back? Is that really something that warrants kicking someone out of the region? It’s not exactly spam, if the responses are genuine and not irrelevant nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

The court ruling has ensured that allowing the LC to use their judgement to NOT suppress a post is then going to later be used as evidence that a later suppression was corrupt.  So as much as I hate to do so, the courts have tied the hands of me as a Local Councilor and forced this level of stringent enforcement.  Are we apparently not allowed to pick and choose?  How should any LC determine what is spam at this point?

Please do explain how that’s the case. I’m interested in hearing your side of the argument.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 

If any single double post goes unsuppressed then all suppression of double posts would be deemed inconsistently applied, leaving me open to complaints of Corruption by picking a choosing what is reasonable.

I feel the the court ruling has forced me to automatically suppress every double post without regard to it's content or context.  Any missed suppession would then leave me open to a charge of corruption for not fairly enforcing the RMB guidelines.

I would note that in my campaign dispatches I specificly came out against the suppression of double posts, however I am one of three LC and did not win that debate, so I am left with the duty to fairly and impartially enforce the policy or risk a corruption charge.  Even the opportunity to argue that I have the leeway to use my own individual judgement is currently under active litigation, so until then this is all I can do.

We have a member who has taken every opportunity to publicly point out any unsuppressed double posts and then claim the entire LC is hypocritical.  Even if it is only up for minutes before being seen.  So I feel I must simply continue this thankless work of double post suppression in order to protect the integrity of the LC and comply with the courts ruling, despite my own misgivings.

I certainly didn't run for LC to spend my time before the courts.

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

There seems to be some dissonance between the argument that the RMB is a fast moving behemoth (and so the LC needs wider moderation power) and that something like a double post can get you banned. If someone posts something spammy, and it falls many pages behind by the end of the day, is it really that big of an issue? How much of a negative impact did it really make?

I think your double posting rule really needs to be reanalyzed. If somebody is responding to two different posts, why should it be a ban-worthy offense to make two posts back to back? Is that really something that warrants kicking someone out of the region? It’s not exactly spam, if the responses are genuine and not irrelevant nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well the instances I'm thinking you are thinking was part of an hours long "protest" event that was exhausting to say the least.  And unnessarilly personal and public in my opnion.

However on that topic, what rule wording would you propose replace it?

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

The court ruling has ensured that allowing the LC to use their judgement to NOT suppress a post is then going to later be used as evidence that a later suppression was corrupt.  So as much as I hate to do so, the courts have tied the hands of me as a Local Councilor and forced this level of stringent enforcement.  Are we apparently not allowed to pick and choose?  How should any LC determine what is spam at this point?

Please do explain how that’s the case. I’m interested in hearing your side of the argument.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 

If any single double post goes unsuppressed then all suppression of double posts would be deemed inconsistently applied, leaving me open to complaints of Corruption by picking a choosing what is reasonable.

I feel the the court ruling has forced me to automatically suppress every double post without regard to it's content or context.  Any missed suppession would then leave me open to a charge of corruption for not fairly enforcing the RMB guidelines.

I would note that in my campaign dispatches I specificly came out against the suppression of double posts, however I am one of three LC and did not win that debate, so I am left with the duty to fairly and impartially enforce the policy or risk a corruption charge.  Even the opportunity to argue that I have the leeway to use my own individual judgement is currently under active litigation, so until then this is all I can do.

We have a member who has taken every opportunity to publicly point out any unsuppressed double posts and then claim the entire LC is hypocritical.  Even if it is only up for minutes before being seen.  So I feel I must simply continue this thankless work of double post suppression in order to protect the integrity of the LC and comply with the courts ruling, despite my own misgivings.

I certainly didn't run for LC to spend my time before the courts.

Which ruling?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

-stuff-

Which ruling?     

In the ruling finding Concrete Slab guilty of the crime corruption the Court rightly reminds the local council of the importance of standard reasonable moderation.  Since that case was resolved then rarely does a day or two goes by on the RMB without allegations of hypocrisy, and veiled or express threats of legal action. 

The court stated that the suppression of a post is a denial the right to free speech which must be justified, as opposed to a mere housekeeping action similar to placing a post-it not over top that says "click to show".  No, it is a deadly serious decision over the very limits of free speech and democacy, akin to placing protesters in desigated protest area's.  Even though the speech is still there, viewable, readable, quoteable, and open to discussion to anyone wanting to lift the post-it note.   And if you dear Local Councilor make the wrong choice or the right choice for the wrong reason, well you are pretty much guaranteed to be found corrupt.  Your corrupt criminal nature is cut and dried and will follow you forever.  And did I mention the vocal group actively trying to bait you into making that mistake?  well, welcome to public life:  this is what you signed up for!  Want to make TSP even better?  Well, once you're done in court each day feel free to use whatever time, energy and goodwill you have left to make that happen:  Good Luck with that.  And asking those criticizing you to be truthful is a bridge too far:  how dare you suppress critical speech?  "Now we see the violence inherent in the system" to quote Dennis the Constitutional Peasant of Monty Python fame.

It seems corruption is this seasons new black!  It's likely the reason my "Corrupt Villains of Classic Cinema" themed campaign gained traction with the region:  why else would people vote for the guy presenting himself as a  cross between a Penguin of Madagascar/mafia boss/King George III/Delores Umbridge of Harry Potter infamy/Charlie Chaplin playing a role where he mistaken for Hitler/Rick Astley!  And somehow, despite having never run for anything before, I received more votes than any LC candidate in TSP history.  Corruption:  It's clearly what is "on trend" right now.

Anyway, enough about my crowd size (It was YUGE!) and back to the situation at hand.  If the prohibition against double posting were applied narrowly by one local councilor and broadly by another, then it seems highly likely that all moderation actions would then be subject to challenge as not "standard".  Subsequent use of such a suppression power would then be open challenge on the grounds it was not standard, and therefore not lawful.  This is in fact already before the court.

One nation almost immediately challenged terms in RMB moderation guidelines itself and cited two posts which were not suppressed at the time as evidence challenging the justicability of the RMB guidelines.  So despite my pressing for the terms allowing us to use our discretion to allow me to show leniency to new nations, and during the roll out of the new policy, my hands are now tied.

Also I would note that the last Local Council took over a month to create, debate and run polls on their RMB guidelines, and the RMB became a wild west during which time the case against Concrete Slab arose for corruption, and another over the use of the word "Damn"... all before they ever updated the policy of the prior council.  By the time the new guidelines were posted the LC seemed essentially already beaten down and largely withdrew from regular moderation of the board.  I suspect that this is the reason that Concrete Slab was reelected where Aidenfieeld was not.  People wanted someone who would actively moderate the RMB, and so despite his corruption conviction he was re-elected by a wide margin.  That's just my impression, and not meant to denigrate the outgoing non-corrupt LC members ... I love them dearly and am hoping to build on the work they began.  But I think people wanted an LC that was willing to put themselves out on that limb.

Posting a new RMB guidelines on day one with a one month review of the new guidelines was our way of seeking to avoid that chaos the previous council had during the month of debate and polls.  Within a day it was being tested before the Court and in order to not leave ourselves open to accusations of corruption, I feel it has to now be applied absolutely strictly and universally without any exception.  And now, in the case of one player, it apparently must debated publicly on the RMB itself, or before the courts.

With a challenge of the RMB Guidelines instituted by the Local Council now already before the court I feel I am left with little choice but to suspend the use of my own judgement and instead suppress on sight every instance of double posts.  It's already to the point that it's automatic...  I see two of the same flag, check if the names are the same, click suppress.  I don't even read the posts anymore.  Once that's done then I scroll back to the top of the page and actually read the RMB, clicking show on anything that seems to be referred to in the remaining conversation.

I would note that I've received more messages thanking me for suppressing posts than any complaints about specific suppression's, however since the complaints about suppression have dominated the board I suspect these nations do not want to disagree publicly with a very vocal minority or be attacked themselves, with every one of their own posts placed under a microscope for then further public discussion and criticism.  It seems to me that we have some players who have made it their mission to undermine every local council for the past 2 terms.  I knew that going into council, and was even prepared to work with one of them should they have won a seat.  I have no personal beef against those to cling to the security of clear and precise rules, in fact in my own work life I always want to know what rules and policys are required up front and strive to follow them precisely.  I was raise to Comply then Complain and never the other way around.

What I have learned thus far from my first few days as a local councilor:  We need a transition training program for incoming Local Councillor, and resolved to develop one before I leave office.  Anything would probably be better than a mention ping alerting you that you have been assigned officer powers and *boom!* off you go newly minted LC, go figure out what you can do with nary a word of advise or warning.  Anyway,  I'm a grown up, I can deal with on the job learning, but I can see how some folks could very easily step into trouble.  Maybe The training and development of future Local Councilors will be my legacy? (in addition to my Kentucky Fried Penguin restaurant chain which I know will live on forever, of course!) 

Wow, I have gone very far afield of my intended use of this thread! I really do wish this thread to be a forum to collect feedback on the new guidelines, and not become a "oh poor me" venting thread. 

On that feedback topic:

I am really genuinely surprised about the lack of uptake on the relaxing of the prohibition on roleplaying in the main RMB, and had expected a few nations to take up the fine art of collective storytelling.  I'm still waiting for a thousand flowers to bloom.  or maybe just one or two  :-)

Relaxing the prohibition on mild profanity rule has made my job simpler in that respect.  If I don't feel it merits reporting to NS moderators I don't bother suppressing the casual use of damn, hell, poo, frickty etc.  How do folks in the RMB feel about this change?

Is the Help section helpful?  A few people have telegramed me asking for a suppression to be reviewed, and I've gotten quite a bit of use of my un-suppression power, in addition to that "other" power.  This is the first attempt by an LC to implement an appeal process, and I for one would love to hear some thoughts on how to firm that part up?

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

(This post was last modified: 03-09-2019, 08:24 PM by Volaworand.)

Reply

_{^{Can I have a TLDR please?}}

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

Reply

-snip-

I'm interested, have you actually been getting thank you notes for suppressing double posts? I might have been wrong that nobody cared about it in which case I'll drop my annoyance over it, I just can't imagine how someone could be disturbed in the slightest by a double post.

Also sorry vola, hope you feel better 

I do like the relaxing on swearing rules and also I don't really rp much so the new rp rules are irrelevant to me for the most part. The only discussions that bother me are the big ones on protesting and lc discretion (which are already huge enough that I won't talk about it for either side of the issue here), and my hate of the double posting ban. Sorry the transition has been hectic ;-;

_{^{Can I have a TLDR please?}}

Just read it, you can do it    I'm far to lazy to both read it and also write a summary for you :p

Nation: 073 039 109 032 080 111 112 112 121
I'm more active gameside than here but either place I'd love to talk ^-^

Reply

_{^{Can I have a TLDR please?}}

The double-posting suppression policy needs to be consistently applied, otherwise it is a gateway to corruption cases.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

(This post was last modified: 03-10-2019, 01:06 AM by The Sakhalinsk Empire.)

Reply

This is not exactly related to RMB guidelines but as a thought, would it be beneficial to create a larger RMB government and relocate discussions relating to governing to another region created specifically for that purpose?

You would have the present Local Council (Cabinet) and a Local Assembly (Parliament) which would work towards the betterment of the gameside community.

Reply