We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Criminal Complaint (charge someone with a crime under the Criminal Code) [1911] Volaworand v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy
#1

I submit to the Court that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (hereinafter referred to as NHC) has defamated me by publicly accusing me of "Telegram Spam" in the following posts:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34686903
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34686903 Wrote:It's basically spam, how do you expect me to react?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688531
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34688531 Wrote:If you didn't want that to happen, then you shouldn't spam my TGs. If I spammed your TGs, how would you react?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688546
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34688546 Wrote:He constantly did it and it was pointlessly flooding my inbox.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688145
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34688145 Wrote:I can't, you've gotten yourself blocked for flooding my inbox.
(btw you're missing a comma after "NHC")

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688466
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34688466 Wrote:I'm not trying to change anything, that's a legal question, and I blocked you because you pointlessly flooded my inbox. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't have been blocked.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34687741
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34687741 Wrote:I only block TGs and notices. I blocked Slab (and SWAN, actually) for mention spam and you for TG spam. I haven't blocked Auphelia actually.

and finally after I posted:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688344
volaworand;34688344 Wrote:Is there some reason you choose to subject the entire RMB to your continued griefing, instead of simply having a conversation about it privately?  In game TG's are universally available to every nation.  You deceided to close that avenue of communication and are trying to somehow claim that I did some horrible thing to you.  I sent you a telegram when I suppressed your posts.  we exchanged an equal number of TG's.  

You continued to double post.  

I sent a second TG when I suppressed a that post I sent the generic, "hey I suppressed your double post, here's how you can fix that and here's our guidelines" TG... then you deceided tht you didn't want to be open to communication.

You continued to double post.  

I went to send another TG alerting you the suppression, and what you can do about it.

You chose to block communication and continue double posting for what... an hour?

Yes, Being attacked and claiming that I somehow "spammed" someone is uncalled for. 

I wold suggest personal emails but you've already told me i should fear being stalked by you.  So, no In game communication is preferable.  Feel free to TG any suggestions.

He replied:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34688401
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34688401 Wrote:If I don't like your policy, I can express that and protest against it. If I think what you are sending me is unnecessary, then I have the right to block TGs from you. If you want to stop the RMB from being like this, then fix your policy.

Our Criminal Code Section 1(10) Defamation shall be defined as the communication of false or grossly misleading information about an individual to a recipient, for the purposes of damaging the standing of that individual and done so with a reckless disregard for its factual accuracy.

I do not challenge NHC's right to block emails, however his publicly stated a false reason harms my reputation.  I did not and never have engaged in Telegram spamming.  He admits as much in declaring it part of a protest.  These false allegations are damaging and clearly made with a reckless disregard for factual accuracy.

I ask the court to review the exchanges which make it clear that NHC blocked me for political reasons and then misrepresented his reasons for doing so publicly.

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

[-] The following 2 users Like Volaworand's post:
  • Bzerneleg, Poppy
Reply
#2

Nat's amicus curiae brief on indictment

May it please the court, this charge is entirely dependent on what the definition of spam is. It seems that NHC has defined it as unnecessary telegrams. Due to the legal definition of defamation, it must be shown that NHC's statement was made with "a reckless disregard for its factual accuracy" (Criminal Code 1.10). I do not believe that NHC's definition recklessly disregards factual accuracy, it seems to be a sufficient definition of spam. Because of this, I submit that there is not probable cause that NHC committed defamation. As such, the court should not indict NHC on this charge of defamation (Judicial Act 5.1).
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Nat's post:
  • Lily Pad
Reply
#3

Whoa, I think that’s opening a door we don’t want open.

To call repeated warnings to stop breaking the rules spam? That seems as though it’ll set a dangerous precedent.

I agree that NHC wasn’t being defamatory, but it’s because the contents of the telegrams were included and he didn’t deny them. I mean, he never truly lied did he? He’s wrong about it being spam, but we shouldn’t punish such a small thing over ignorance.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lily Pad's post:
  • Volaworand
Reply
#4

I can't tell if this is a joke complaint or not, his telegrams fit his own definition of spam is his own policy.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
Reply
#5

(03-09-2019, 08:01 AM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: I can't tell if this is a joke complaint or not, his telegrams fit his own definition of spam is his own policy.

I refer the Courts attention to the referenced definition of spam in the RMB guidelines available at https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407

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.

After suppressing one of his double posts I sent was this telegram:
Sorry I had to suppress the second in a row post you made. The information is visible with one mouse click, and if you prefer you can edit into your first comment. Our RMB guidelines can be found at https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407

This Telegram clearly is not meaningless and unnecessary.

NHC replied with some mild profanity.

I replied:
just maintaining the standard policy you are pushing so hard for :-) have a great night.Kindly maintain a respectful tone with all in game communication. Thank-you.

When I suppressed an additional double post I sent this telegram:
 Once again Sorry I had to suppress the second in a row post you made. The information is visible with one mouse click, and if you prefer you can edit into your first comment.Our RMB guidelines can be found at https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407

NHC replied with a Telegram I deemed hostile.

I replied:
I'm just sending that TG when I suppress a post for double posting. Most people get the message after the first one.There's no need for such hostility. thank-you, have a great night.

NHC replied.

I replied:
 I haven't used any form of mild profanity with you, and am sending you friendly and gentle communication.What you choose to do with that isn't under my sphere of influence.Have a great evening!

NHC replied.

I replied:
Well you be you and I'll be me.Have a great night

When I suppressed third post I was unable to send a more serious as he had blocked me.  I would note that this was occurring during NHC's episode of extensive illegal double posting that evening, during which time all three local councilors were suppressing double posts.

Sending a notice and copy of guidelines is something I began doing earlier that day and in most other case it has resulting in that person either editing the double post into the first, or deleting the second post.  In no cases has it lead to a public discussion of the suppression of the initial post, which is exactly the purpose and intent of the warning.

NHC's public allegations that I am engaging in telegram spamming by sending a warning when suppressing, or replying to his telegrams is clearly false or grossly misleading information and done so to damage my standing in the region for his own purposes.  This is exactly the definition of defamation.

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

Reply
#6

Here's what I was originally going to post before I posted the other thing:
This is not defamation. While it is generally negative, it is not false or misleading, therefore not fitting the definition of defamation as defined by the Criminal Code. The telegrams sent to me were repetitive, fitting various definitions of spam.
Essentially, that long spoiler shows that Volaworand's telegrams fall under the definition(s) of spam as commonly used on the internet, ironically including his own policy.

EDIT: Not that it matters, but I only said it was long because I wrote it on mobile.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
Reply
#7

(03-09-2019, 04:09 AM)Nat Wrote: Nat's amicus curiae brief on indictment

May it please the court, this charge is entirely dependent on what the definition of spam is. It seems that NHC has defined it as unnecessary telegrams. Due to the legal definition of defamation, it must be shown that NHC's statement was made with "a reckless disregard for its factual accuracy" (Criminal Code 1.10). I do not believe that NHC's definition recklessly disregards factual accuracy, it seems to be a sufficient definition of spam. Because of this, I submit that there is not probable cause that NHC committed defamation. As such, the court should not indict NHC on this charge of corruption (Judicial Act 5.1).

I am not making a corruption complaint.  I am making a defamation complaint over the repeated falsehoods being alleged by NHC.  Judical Act 5.1 relates to the courts determination of probable cause.  The referenced posts containing the defamation are clearly visible in the RMB.

I fail to see how NHC can find separate telegrams alerting him to each of two separate instances of suppression, and a 1:1 reply to his own telegrams constitutes spam.  Carrying our the conversation in the RMB creates the same one notification as a single private telegram, but eliminates the additional mentions alerts every time someone else in the RMB invariably chimes in, so a telegrammed notice accually generates less mention spam for the receipient, not more.  And the telegram is easily deleted, so it does not "clog" an inbox.

I await the High Courts determination of justiciablity of this case.

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

Reply
#8

I draw the Courts attention to the Courts ruling in Appeal to the Ban of Malayan Singapura and note how written warnings of rule breaking are required to be issued by the Local Council.  

Specificly the section 2 of the Ruling:
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. 

In this section The Court established three basic requirements for warnings:

"One issue is that not all warnings considered were issued by proper authorities. 
...
A second issue is that not all alleged warnings should qualify as such, in the opinion of the Court.
...
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. "
(emphasis added)


To now declare such a warning that meets all three of these requirements as consituting spam would nullify the Local Council's legal duty to moderate the RMB and contradict the courts very own directives.

For NHC to falsely and publicly declare the receipt of official warnings are spam does not make them spam, and the false allegation that I have engaged in "Telegram Spam" while carrying out my legal duty is clearly  defamatory on the face of it.

I await the High Courts determination of justiciablity of this case.

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

Reply
#9

Nat's amicus curiae brief with reference to Volaworand's new claims

May it please the court, Volaworand's claim that Review of the ban on Malayan Singapura (HCRR1801) sets a precedent in this case is incorrect. The judgement of HCRR1801 relates to a ban from the region and uses Article III, Section 3 of the Charter (which applies only to ejection or banning) to require due process, in this case notification of rule violations. The facts of the present case are not similiar, so the findings of HCRR1801 do not apply. Further to this, the burden on Volaworand is not to show that their actions were legal but rather to demonstrate that NHC's comments were, among other requirements, made "with a reckless disregard for [their] factual accuracy" (Criminal Code 1.10). Hence, it does not matter if Volaowrand's actions constitute spam or not, the key is whether NHC was reckless in believing it was spam. Given the large number of spam definitions which fit or somewhat fit NHC's definition, I do not believe this threshold of recklessness has been met. As such, if the court agrees that the charges are unlikely to be true (a lack of probable cause), the case should be dismissed (Judicial Act 5.1).
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
Reply
#10

If it please the court I would like to submit the following conversation I had with NHC today on the RMB.  By his own admission his definition for spam is to be messaged repetitively.  He purposefully chose to continue to "Double Post" and violate the RMB Rules and Etiquette policy and decided that the Warning he was received by a duly elected LC member after each violation as spam.

I would also like to point out that this is not the first time NHC has run afoul of the RMB's ban on Double Post suppression as after Auphelia's first term as LC and during her first attempt to get re-elected.  NHC opened up not one but two "Corruption Cases" against Auphelia for post suppression.  One which was considered without merit due to lack of evidence and the other which was abandoned by NHC after the election and Auphelia was not re-elected. 
linguiniland;34704770 Wrote:Oh NHC I have a honest question for you.  Say you have a credit card that you are required to make monthly payments on.  You miss a few payments.  Do you consider the letters that the credit card company sends you, telling you that you need to pay your bill as spam?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34704826 Wrote:Would they send them 3 times within ~10 minutes?
 
linguiniland;34704861 Wrote:How about if they say sent one after each missed payment?
 
linguiniland;34705269 Wrote:An NHC your back.  Can I please get an answer to this question?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705289 Wrote:*you're

If it's not very rapid then it's fine.
 
linguiniland;34705326 Wrote:That wasn't the question.  The question was if you were supposed to make a payment and you missed multiple payments would you consider it spam for each reminder that you missed the payment after you missed the payment?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705383 Wrote:If it doesn't happen constantly then it's not spam because it's not too repetitive. Like, if we had only one session of *hugs* on the RMB for every week, then I personally wouldn't consider it too repetitive. This is also different from Volaworand's TGs in the aspect that this is something I should acknowledge.
 
linguiniland;34705462 Wrote:It was just an example of notification.  I supposed I could have used an overdue library book for the same effect.

The thing I am trying to understand is why you consider it spam that he notified you after each time you double posted that it was against the rules and that he was going to suppress you for doing it.  I mean if he was sending you multiple TG about suppressing TG then you were either double posting in rapid succession (which you both admitted to in the forum post) and/or there was a TG exchange between the two of you (also which you both admitted to in the same forum post).
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705487 Wrote:Not after I blocked him obviously.
 
linguiniland;34705519 Wrote:So you blocked him for sending you TG stating that he was going to suppress your double posts after each time you double posted.  And you consider it spam because it came at a rapid succession because you in turn were double posting in rapid succession.  Do I have that correct or am I missing something?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705647 Wrote:btw if you put everything in the list tag it would remove the line breaks.

Whether something is repetitive or not is really a matter of opinion, but yes.
 
linguiniland;34705681 Wrote:So in your opinion double posting multiple times in a row is not repetitive?  Sending you a TG after each time you double post telling you that its against the RMB rules is repetitive?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705712 Wrote:No, double posting is not repetitive, at least relatively. If double posting is repetitive, then so is single posting. The amount of actual posts doesn't change how repetitive it is.

EDIT: Oops, quoted the wrong post.
 
linguiniland;34705748 Wrote:I asked if double posting multiple times was repetitive.

 

Well the dye was provided by the finest dye makers in Midand and I did request Skunk Black.  Remember always support local as it helps the community as a whole.
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705773 Wrote:It's just as repetitive as singular posting, or at least the content, which is what I'm considering.
 
linguiniland;34705839 Wrote:Ok lets see if I got where you're coming from right.  If you or someone breaks a rule of the RMB and an LC member sends you ONE TG then there is no repetition and the TG is not spam.  If you or the same person continue to break that exact same rule multiple times and the same LC member sends the same or about the same worded TG to said rule breaker then the rule breaker is not being repetitive but the LC member is  and the TG's are spam?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705867 Wrote:Double posting can be repetitive, but that's the point when you're literally saying the exact same thing in 2 posts.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+repetition

Repetition is "the action of repeating something that has already been said or written."
 
linguiniland;34705953 Wrote:And the region defines Double Posting as:  Double-posting, or posting two posts in a row, is considered illegal on the RMB. To put multiple things in one post, it is advised for nations to use the edit tool or wait for another nation to post first.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407

 

So I ask again.  Based upon the rules of the RMB how is double posting multiple times not considered repetitive but sending TG's (and here is the part I am having a hard time understanding) after each time said person double posted considered repetitive?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706352 Wrote:Because they contain different content.

 

Also, got first place in National History Day. I'm going to the state competition nao.
 
linguiniland;34706476 Wrote:Congratulations that's quite an achievement.

 

As to the other topic just because your double post contain different content, by the rules and definition of the RMB and since you used Urban Dictionary (example 3) both of which state multiple posts in a row by the same person. How is it not considered repetitive if it is done multiple times.

 

RMB Dispatch  (Clause V):  https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407

Urban Dictionary (Example 3):  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ble%20Post
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706503 Wrote:It's not repetitive because it's not the same thing twice.

www.google.com/search?q=define+repetition
 
linguiniland;34706550 Wrote:Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided)  LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.

 

By your entire argument Person A is not being repetitive but LC B is.  Am I correct in stating that?
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706656 Wrote:Yes, because the content of both posts were not the same.
 
linguiniland;34706805 Wrote:Question are you purposefully ignoring my stated examples of the definition of "Double Posts" because it doesn't fit your narrative or are you not seeing it?  I only ask because your argument has devolved into conjecture and I don't know how to reword my question anymore.
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706820 Wrote:The RMB etiquette dispatch specifically says that debating is legal.What is your definition of double posting again? It's clearly different than that in the RMB etiquette dispatch.
 
linguiniland;34706868 Wrote:Ok one more time, and I suppose louder for those in the back.

 

RMB (Clause V):  Double-Posting, or posting two posts in a row, is considered illegal on the RMB

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407

 

Urban Dictionary (Example 3):  Simply two posts, by the same member, regardless of reason, after each other.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ble%20Post
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706876 Wrote:If they're not the same post then it's not repetition, what is confusing about that?
 
linguiniland;34706913 Wrote:Yep you are simply ignoring the definitions so that they fit your narrative.  I sir do cease this conversation and await my turn at the "So and so is Corrupt" case that will most likely be brought up against me on the Forums by you.

 

Edit:  You may block me on TG's if you wish I will not mind but I also will not be sending you any TG's either.
 
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706920 Wrote:You're ignoring the definition of repetition, what the hell do you mean? If I post twice in a row and if they're both different then it's not repetition.

 

EDIT: I have no reason to block TGs from you, you aren't pointlessly flooding me with notifications.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .