I don't like forced apologies. It conflicts with the Bill of Rights.

But I would like to see defamation back, though.

(04-02-2015, 01:09 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I am not comfortable with subjecting that to the Criminal Code. We have a clear procedure for the Team to deal with admin misconduct and cannot support moving away from it. This would unnecessarily politicize Forum Administration, for no substantial benefit.

"If an admin does it, it's not illegal." Citizens do not have a recourse if they're targeted by an admin.

Kris, can you outline the Admin procedure here? {Edited} Here it is - >http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-567.html

Yeah I don't think the Court needs to be involved in this at all. In fact, right now the Court hasn't shown itself to be a capable body.

I will not support defamation or this entire amendment because its being wielded by some as a politically manipulative tool. What does espionage entail of as well? Is it sharing IRC logs from the Lampshade Bar & Grill IRC between TSP citizens? Is that espionage or is that a different kind of illegal, smarmy, or vexatious act? Or maybe is it defamation?

Rather then further toxicity, I think we should think about out of court ways to deal with players who have issues with each other and if that fails then rely on the courts. When the courts show they are a consistent and actually trustworthy institution then I'd be willing to believe in their values which right now are nonsense Latin. After all certain members of the outgoing court haven't been impartial this term for sure with some of the things going on behind the scenes. Such as log sharing. Class act, there.

Sopo, I would appreciate it you did not twist my words. As tempting as it might be to equate what I said to Richard Nixon, you well know that to be false.

I remain fully convinced that any moves to place Forum Administration under the direct jurisdiction of political institutions is wrong. We already can appeal certain moderation decisions, and that is good. But anything further is not desirable, and will lead to no good. I encourage the Assembly to have more confidence in Administration. None of us has edited profiles, unduly deleted posts or anything of the sort, nor are we likely to ever do it.

--

Escade, I have no idea what you mean by "admin procedure". Anything that you might find useful is already in the Admin Policies. Doing some research in the appropriate section of the forum would suffice.

Oh and here are relevant sections of the charter and code as well detailing administration and its responsibilities. Actually, its similar or exactly the same as we had on the old forums.

Research is fun! And it prevents people from reinventing the wheel! 

Quote:Section 5 - Administrative Appeals
1. To appeal an administrative team action, a citizen must file a notice with the High Court within fourteen (14) days of the action in question.
2. The notice must include a legal argument for why the administrative team action violated the Charter, violated the tenants of democracy, or unnecessarily infringed upon the rights of citizens.
3. Actions taken by the administrative team that involve any of the following may not be appealed to the court:
..........a. Real life threats or harassment
..........b. Pornography
..........c. Illegal Content
..........d. Spambots
..........e. Exposure of real life information
..........f. Espionage of the region
..........g. Hacking of the Board
4. Actions taken by the administrative team that involve any of the following may not be appealed to the court unless the action is argued to be excessive or unjust:
..........a. Temporary (being defined as under 96 hours) suspension of a member
..........b. Placing a member on post moderation
..........c. Altering signature / avatar content
5. The High Court has five (5) days to decide whether to hear the Appeal.
6. If an appeal is heard the administrative team must select up to two members to defend themselves before the court. Refusal to participate in the appeal process may result in the court issuing a summary judgement in favor of the appellant.
7. If the Court chooses to hear the case, it is required to do so in a timely manner. The High Court may issue summary judgments due to excessive absenteeism.
8. If the High Court orders the overturning of an administrative team decision, it must officially notify the administrative team of this decision via a public post.
9. If the administrative team responds with a majority vote rejecting the appeal court verdict, the Appellate Court decision may be stayed for up to 30 days. If the Administrative Team remains opposed to the decision after 30 days, the Assembly shall hold a formal vote to settle the matter.

Quote:Article 10: Forum and Forum Administration

1. The Coalition's official Regional Forum is located at http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/index.php.
2. Should the Regional Forum cease to exist or otherwise become permanently unavailable then the Cabinet is authorized to establish a replacement Regional Forum.
3. Barring circumstances outlined in Section 2 the Assembly reserves the sole right to authorize the creation of a new Regional Forum.
4. The Regional Forum is administrated by the Admin Team and moderated by the Moderation Team.
5. The Admin Team must create both Administrative Procedures and Moderation Policies and present them to the Assembly for discussion and feedback.
6. Any proposed alterations to the Administrative Procedures or Moderation Policies may not be implemented until a minimum of seven days after such presentation.
7. The Moderation Team will be responsible for enforcing the Moderation Policies.

Seeing as the discussion has died off, I am motioning the proposal stated in the original post to vote.

There hasn't been enough discussion on the original proposal? The discussion kind of went off-topic?

(04-10-2015, 06:44 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Seeing as the discussion has died off, I am motioning the proposal stated in the original post to vote.

Second.

(04-10-2015, 06:46 PM)Escade Wrote: There hasn't been enough discussion on the original proposal? The discussion kind of went off-topic?

Happy to hear any further comments people have, otherwise I will be putting this to vote later today my time (probably a bit over 12 hours time). It has been over a week with no comments, so I am guessing most people have said what they want to already.

A quick late question from me... will this all be brought to the vote en bloc? I ask because while I could support most of this I'm not keen on the issue of defamation being brought back to the Charter.