| Criminal Complaint (charge someone with a crime under the Criminal Code) [1910] New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab |
"RMB politics are more of a shitshow than IRL politics tbh."
The newly elected Local Council is relentlessly suppressing all consecutive posts. While this isn't a problem, I, New Haudenosaunee Confederacy, protested this on the RMB. However, I believe the way Concrete Slab reacts to this is violating the criminal code:- NHC in Discord Quote:(9) Extortion shall be defined as the threatening of any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.Throughout the entire RMB discussion in which I am trying to convince the LC to make consecutive posts legal, I am disagreeing with Concrete Slab. To try and stop me from making my disagreement with him extremely noticeable to those viewing the RMB, Slab threatens me multiple times, both of which would involve him using his power as an LC. The first time, he threatens to suppress my point of view, and actually does. Unfortunately, I did not think to take a screenshot, but the context of the posts on the next RMB page show that he suppressed it. Later, he threatens to have me banned from the region. I believe these threats are trying to influence my behavior and to stop me from expressing my viewpoint where everybody can see it. Slab claims that it's "spam", but it's not anymore spammy than his own posts are, therefore it is clearly because the content of the posts.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
Nat's amicus curiae on the justiciability of this case:
NHC's complaint seeks to demonstrate that Concrete Slab has committed extortion through exercising and threatening to exercise the powers invested in him as a government official. If the court holds that Concrete Slab's actions were lawful and proper exercise of his official power, it would be absurd to find him guilty of extortion. While it may fit the definition, the lawful and proper threat of using official powers can not be found to be extortion lest anarchy is to be instituted. Because of this, I submit that the court needs to establish whether Concrete Slab's actions were a lawful and proper exercise of official power. If there is no misuse of office, there cannot be any criminal extortion. In essence, that would make this charge about corruption rather than about extortion.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
(03-07-2019, 09:11 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: Throughout the entire RMB discussion in which I am trying to convince the LC to make consecutive posts legal, I am disagreeing with Concrete Slab. To try and stop me from making my disagreement with him extremely noticeable to those viewing the RMB, Slab threatens me multiple times, both of which would involve him using his power as an LC.To clarify, I did not threaten to suppress his posts because he I "disagreed with him" or "didn't want it to be extremely noticeable." If you read the post he linked, I said that his objections to our policy were noted and that if he wanted to continue, he could take it to telegrams. However, he blatantly disregarded the authority of Volaworand and I and continued to spam the rmb with his posts. He claims that "if he was spamming so was I," but all I was doing was trying to stop him from spamming the rmb and asking him to contact me through telegrams. However, he has blocked both Volaworand and I from his telegram list. He has blocked me because I mentioned him once after a post that pertained to him. He blocked Volaworand because NHC double posted massively yesterday, and Vola's attempts to help him fix him were disregarded. In the new legally approved RMB Rule and Etiquette dispatch, Clause V states " The only form of debate banned on the RMB is that over suppression." I believe NHC's complaints on the rmb fell under this category of rule breaking and thus, warranted suppression. Furthermore, NHC even admitted breaking the law in a form of protest, but breaking the law is illegal no matter what. I made it very clear this was not allowed, but he refused to listen to authority. (03-07-2019, 09:11 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: Later, he threatens to have me banned from the region. I believe these threats are trying to influence my behavior and to stop me from expressing my viewpoint where everybody can see it. I did not "threaten" to have him banned. I was simply referring to the Border Control Act in the Charter which states, "(1) The Delegate, or a majority of the Local Council, may order a border control action against a nation they determine to be spammers or trolls. The assent of the Council on Regional Security is required if the nation in question is not a low influence nation." I was warning him that if he continues this line of spam, the Local Council would be forced to enact this act to stop his further trolling of the rmb. With the power vested in me by the LC, I am completely within my rights to do this, thus rendering his only argument void. Lastly, I just want to point out that in the High Court discord last night at 8:29 p.m., NHC admitted to double posting on purpose explicitly against the laws in the new RMB rules dispatch. I apologize for not being able to provide a direct link. In the past, I have put on trial based on the laid back Local Council rules. Now, even though the LC has a direct base of rules, NHC thinks he can just fly in their face and undermine them. Thank you justices.
Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member 5x Local Councillor TSP Legislator and Citizen Ambassador to the League Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271 Co-author of SCR #300 Founded 1/25/18
(03-08-2019, 10:41 AM)Concrete Slab Wrote: Lastly, I just want to point out that in the High Court discord last night at 8:29 p.m., NHC admitted to double posting on purpose explicitly against the laws in the new RMB rules dispatch. I apologize for not being able to provide a direct link. In the past, I have put on trial based on the laid back Local Council rules. Now, even though the LC has a direct base of rules, NHC thinks he can just fly in their face and undermine them.If it pleases the Court, I submit into evidence a snip of the conversation that took place last evening, 7 March 2019. All times from the image are EST.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
Also under Charter Section three it says:
(1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies. Considering “critical discourse” falls under expression and speech means we also have the figure out if the 4 hour debate was reasonable. Here’s a testimony from The Solar System Scope when it occurred: https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687728 https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687750 https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687775 TSSS is my moral compass for this kind of thing, being a well respected part of the community, even he thought the, and I’m not exaggerating, 4 hour debate was toxic and if that was the case then moderation would have been reasonable. I put it to the court that the reason this toxic discourse was not suppressed was because CS was afraid of another NHC corruption case. I’d also like the court to note the irony. Letting NHC break the rules because of judicial fear isn’t a good thing. (All debaters should’ve stopped, but that would’ve allowe NHC to continue breaking the rules and ignoring their request to go to telegrams was a blatant attempt to clutter the RMB with toxic spam).
Quote:To clarify, I did not threaten to suppress his posts because he I "disagreed with him" or "didn't want it to be extremely noticeable." If you read the post he linked, I said that his objections to our policy were noted and that if he wanted to continue, he could take it to telegrams. However, he blatantly disregarded the authority of Volaworand and I and continued to spam the rmb with his posts. He claims that "if he was spamming so was I," but all I was doing was trying to stop him from spamming the rmb and asking him to contact me through telegrams.I once again state that merely disagreeing with you is not spam. My logic behind saying that it's just as spammy as your posts is posts where you provide a counterargument that doesn't mention any form of a threat, such as this post. If it's span on the RMB, then it would logically also be spam in telegrams as well. Quote:However, he has blocked both Volaworand and I from his telegram list. He has blocked me because I mentioned him once after a post that pertained to him. He blocked Volaworand because NHC double posted massively yesterday, and Vola's attempts to help him fix him were disregarded.If you relentlessly annoy me and give me unnecessary notifications then I'm obviously going to block you. Quote:In the new legally approved RMB Rule and Etiquette dispatch, Clause V states " The only form of debate banned on the RMB is that over suppression." I believe NHC's complaints on the rmb fell under this category of rule breaking and thus, warranted suppression.This is not one person just talking into a mirror or something like that. I was not the only one involved in this, you were part of the debate as well, therefore making you deserving suppression as much as I do and making the moderation policy not consistently enforced. Quote:Furthermore, NHC even admitted breaking the law in a form of protest, but breaking the law is illegal no matter what. I made it very clear this was not allowed, but he refused to listen to authority.I only actually broke your damn policy in the double posts. The actual suppression of consecutive posts is not what this complaint was submitted for. Quote:I was warning him that if he continues this line of spam, the Local Council would be forced to enact this act to stop his further trolling of the rmb.Disagreeing with you is not trolling, and this is still a threat. Quote:Lastly, I just want to point out that in the High Court discord last night at 8:29 p.m., NHC admitted to double posting on purpose explicitly against the laws in the new RMB rules dispatch. I apologize for not being able to provide a direct link. In the past, I have put on trial based on the laid back Local Council rules. Now, even though the LC has a direct base of rules, NHC thinks he can just fly in their face and undermine them.And this is relevant because...? This is not a complaint about the suppression of consecutive posts. Quote:Considering “critical discourse” falls under expression and speech means we also have the figure out if the 4 hour debate was reasonable.Whether the actual debate was reasonable or not wouldn't change that Slab only threatens to suppress one point of view, which is not a reasonable moderation policy as he and Volaworand deserve suppression (and being banned from the region) as much as I do, by Concrete Slab's own logic.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
(03-08-2019, 12:15 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: I was not the only one involved in this, you were part of the debate as well, therefore making you deserving suppression as much as I do and making the moderation policy not consistently enforced. I was not "part of the debate". You were blowing up the rmb with your complaints. I was not refuting you, rather telling you to shut up and take it to telegrams. (03-08-2019, 12:15 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: I only actually broke your damn policy in the double posts. The actual suppression of consecutive posts is not what this complaint was submitted for. Then why does literally none of your rebuttal including my section from the Border Control Act. You are trying to find me guilty of extortion, so all this stuff about "spammy posts" is irrelevant. (03-08-2019, 12:15 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: Disagreeing with you is not trolling, and this is still a threat. It was a warning... a warning I am legally allowed to enforce. It was one of the many ways I was trying to get you to stop blowing up the rmb. (03-08-2019, 12:15 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: Whether the actual debate was reasonable or not wouldn't change that Slab only threatens to suppress one point of view, which is not a reasonable moderation policy as he and Volaworand deserve suppression (and being banned from the region) as much as I do, by Concrete Slab's own logic. That's not what your complaint is about.
Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member 5x Local Councillor TSP Legislator and Citizen Ambassador to the League Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271 Co-author of SCR #300 Founded 1/25/18 (03-08-2019, 12:15 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: Whether the actual debate was reasonable or not wouldn't change that Slab only threatens to suppress one point of view, which is not a reasonable moderation policy as he and Volaworand deserve suppression (and being banned from the region) as much as I do, by Concrete Slab's own logic. (03-08-2019, 11:26 AM)Lily Pad Wrote: I put it to the court that the reason this toxic discourse was not suppressed was because CS was afraid of another NHC corruption case. I’d also like the court to note the irony. Letting NHC break the rules because of judicial fear isn’t a good thing.You created this situation NHC, and CS was within his right to not only threaten suppressing your posts but would’ve also been if he’d contacted boarder control. You left them with no other option than to continue with the toxic debate and to escalate the situation. Edit: You’re assuming that when they suppress your post, then the debate would’ve continued with their post not suppressed. You don’t know that. The debate could’ve just as easily died once they did supress you.
(03-08-2019, 12:49 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: I was not "part of the debate". You were blowing up the rmb with your complaints. I was not refuting you, rather telling you to shut up and take it to telegrams.Are you sure about that? I took the time to take screenshots of all of these as well, as I know Slab likes to delete my evidence. If needed, I can send a .zip file containing images of all of these. (03-08-2019, 12:49 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: Then why does literally none of your rebuttal including my section from the Border Control Act. You are trying to find me guilty of extortion, so all this stuff about "spammy posts" is irrelevant.That is me trying to prove that you have no valid justification for a ban or suppression. (03-08-2019, 12:49 PM)Concrete Slab Wrote: It was a warning... a warning I am legally allowed to enforce. It was one of the many ways I was trying to get you to stop blowing up the rmb.You were also contributing to it. See the above spoiler. It's not just me; you didn't want my opinion there and it's obvious. (03-08-2019, 03:50 PM)Lily Pad Wrote: You created this situation NHC, and CS was within his right to not only threaten suppressing your posts but would’ve also been if he’d contacted boarder control.Not really. The obvious thing is that it doesn't fit the definition of spam in the RMB etiquette dispatch: Quote:Spamming is probably best described as a post that is either meaningless and unnecessary, a.k.a. a post that repeats the same thing multiple times, multiple posts of the same thing, a series of posts that have no apparent meaning,etc.It's not meaningless, it's not necessary, it has apparent meaning, and it's not any more repetitive than anything else that happens on the RMB (such as most of the posts here). (03-08-2019, 03:50 PM)Lily Pad Wrote: You left them with no other option than to continue with the toxic debate and to escalate the situation.It's literally an option to just exit. (03-08-2019, 03:50 PM)Lily Pad Wrote: The debate could’ve just as easily died once they did supress you.That would've dragged it on longer. That's basically what the entire thing was about.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
(03-08-2019, 04:18 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote:(03-08-2019, 03:50 PM)Lily Pad Wrote: You created this situation NHC, and CS was within his right to not only threaten suppressing your posts but would’ve also been if he’d contacted boarder control.Not really. The obvious thing is that it doesn't fit the definition of spam in the RMB etiquette dispatch: You’re right, I’m being intellectually lazy and grouping all the rules you did break under “spam”. The site rules you did break: Flambating: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...260044#005 You admitted yourself that you double posted to anger the LCs (if I’m remembering that correctly, if I’m not it’s really self evident). You could’ve easily have had a civil discussion without that. Bad faith: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...#bad_faith It’s clear after you made your opening remarks you were no longer interested in the subject at hand but instead at making a scene (why else would you not momentarily allow telegrams, why else are you bringing this to the high court instead of talking to your LCs directly, why else would you insist on using a public forum and not a private one?) Trolling I’d like to call special interest to this section: “Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.“ Specifically “Honest belief does not excuse trolling.“ And “A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.” In this case a corruption court case: https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688716 As for the option to just “exit,” that would’ve allowed you to continue break the rules. Imagine if someone decided to spam (I’m being intellectually lazy again) a board, but then having the LCs do nothing about it because it “has meaning”. “That would’ve dragged it on” Again, you don’t know if the debate would’ve dragged on. They would’ve probably just have seen you as another spammer and ignored you save for suppressing your speech. Yes, both parties are guilty of these things to some extent, but you refused to allow this to go into the private sphere just so you could make these accusations against CS. I repeat, CS is in the right for trying to suppress the debate. Whether or not he would’ve continued the debate after suppressing your posts is pure speculation and would be corruption if he actual would have. |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Image![[Image: prVZxOa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/prVZxOa.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |