| [2205.HQ] Legality of Local Council Post Suppression Policies |
![[Image: AO73dlC.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/AO73dlC.jpg) But look! I've gotten RIPPED carrying the team 
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Give it a week (just six days to go!) and I’ll either have more time for TSP, less time for TSP, or no time TSP - I’m getting one of two big promotions depending on who else is elected. Or losing my seat in a shock result.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Hope all goes the exact way you want it to! Good luck!
I should have a draft tonight if I am diligent, or tomorrow if I am not. (Let's be real, I probably won't have it tonight). -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
A bit late, but I digress, the draft is below. I will put the case formatting and citations in tomorrow. I struck through references to English speaking as it looks removed from the case, but left it in just in case we need to include it. Let me know what you think.
Summary: It is the opinion of the Court that the suppression of Regional Message Board posts that are not in the English language and double posts do not violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the Charter of the South Pacific. Further, the Court also is of the opinion that the larger set of moderation policies are reasonable restrictions upon the otherwise expansive freedoms of the citizens of the South Pacific. Opinion: Starting with a brief overview of the background of this case, Philipmacaroni, the petitioner of this case, argued that, among other things, suppressing posts on the Regional Message Board (RMB) for reasons such as double posting and posting in languages other than English was contrary to Article III, Section 1 of the South Pacific Charter. Their logic for the argument above is that suppression of a post is not a sufficient warning, and that the English-speaking community is given an unfair advantage while non-native speakers are put at a disadvantage. The text of the aforementioned section of the Charter is as follows, “All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies” (CITE). In order to reach the opinion for this case, the Court underwent extensive research into several past cases in order to look for precedent to guide it in this present case. A logical and relevant question that should be asked is what qualifies as a reasonable moderation policy? Is double posting reasonable? Is speaking in a non-English language reasonable? Is revealing another user's personal information reasonable? The Court does not presume to answer these questions, as it has no interest in analyzing each individual rule as they are created and challenged. In determining what constitutes a reasonable moderation policy, it is crucial to understand the definition of reasonable. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reasonable is defined as being “based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical” (CITE). With the definition of reasonable secured, the moderation policy, in other words, as viewed by people using good judgment (and acting in good faith), must be fair and practical. In precedent established by the High Court in HCRR1801: Review Of The Ban On Malayan Singapura (CITE), the Court noted that there was (at the time) a lack of a publically available and official set of guidelines for members of the community to follow. The logic was that without an official set of rules to guide and bound the community, the moderation of the RMB would largely be seen as arbitrary and not fair. It was not reasonable for moderation to be arbitrary and unfair. Today, however, it is noted that the Local Council (LC) does indeed have a publicly available and official set of rules called the “RMB Etiquette” (CITE). Since the moderation policy is officially written and publically available, the moderation policies meet the High Court’s prior requirement to being considered reasonable. With a moderation policy established, the LC has the ability to uphold the rules that govern the RMB. In the event that the LC suppresses an RMB post for violating the rules, Upon a review of the RMB, the Court notes that a legal process has been established to sufficiently judge violations of the reasonable moderation policy, further, the same spot also provides citizens a process by which to challenge a moderation action on the RMB. This process is also publicly available and even allows this Court to act as a thoroughly neutral avenue of last resort in a case concerning enforcement of the moderation policy. This aspect was missing from the RMB when the Court decided HCLQ1908: Legality of Ejections for Conduct Violations (CITE). Its presence not only gives legitimacy to the standard moderation policy of the RMB, but also does its absolute best to ensure that the system is not arbitrary or unfair, while also giving citizens the chance to appeal a potentially erroneous decision made by a member of the LC. With the legal argument deconstructed and out of the way, the Court will address the points in the petitioner's argument, specifically to the point of double-posting and posting in a language other than English. The petitioner notes that the double posting rule is arbitrary, especially considering that an arbitrary time limit is in place to allow for lawful double posting. Also noted is that unrelated topics might get confused if posted with other content within a single post. Lastly, the petitioner notes that this requirement is only found on the RMB whereas there is no such requirement for the forums or Discord. The Court must admit that the logic the petitioner applies to their argument concerning double posts has merit and the Court is sympathetic to it. However, the nature of the RMB itself must necessarily override the argument brought forth by the petitioner. The RMB is a single, ever-lengthening thread of content. Unlike the forums or Discord, the RMB has no other channels or threads where discussion can be divided and made separate. The RMB Etiquette rules provide for a set of guidelines that governs the single, ever-lengthening thread to make it work for the most number of people in a productive way. To facilitate this, posts on the RMB can include quotes, spoilers, and other editing content to structure a message. If talking about multiple subjects, perhaps a spoiler could be used for each differing topic, rather than a post for each topic. If a member needs to include more information left out of a post, the option to edit the existing post, or delete it and write it again exists as well. Lastly, the petitioner argues that suppression of posts is too high a penalty for violating a rule. The Court disagrees. There exists a process by which the owner of the suppressed post can appeal the decision. Further, a suppressed post can still be readily viewed by clicking the “show” button. If the post was auto-deleted, or the posting privileges of the user suspended, the Court would be inclined to agree, however, the injury sustained is not sufficient to warrant a strike down or remedy of either a policy or warning of the LC by the Court. As the Court reaches the end of its opinion, Reasonable moderation policies are designed to hold the community into following a set of agreed-upon rules in order to establish good-faith discourse with fellow members of the region. Because there exists a reasonable moderation policy that has rules designed to allow the community to coexist and engage in discourse on equal footing, without the need to worry about disruptive players, communication barriers, or other burdensome aspects of a multinational, multiethnic, and multilinguistic community. Similarly, the reasonable moderation policy allows for the region to maintain stability and security by providing a standard for good faith interactions within a common area of the region. It is for that reason that the Court finds that the moderation policies, including the policy on double posting and posting in the English language, on the RMB are, in fact, considered reasonable for purposes of Article III, Section 1 of the South Pacific Charter. It is so ordered.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Your argument makes sense and aligns with my own thinking but the grammar and sentence structure is confusing in places. If you can tidy up the wording to make it easier to follow I will be happy to assent.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Duly noted, I realized that after a couple of "out loud" readings, but didn't have the time to actually fix it then. I will have a new draft with citations and proper formatting, ideally tomorrow sometime. I will also formally remove the references to the English language.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Sorry for the delay. I edited for clarity, flow, and word choice. I will put the citations and final formatting in shortly. I am aiming to have this posted within the next 48 hours. So assuming you don't see anything major, the opinion itself is in its final state. EDIT: Opinion is final, barring any further critique.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2205.HQ] LEGALITY OF LOCAL COUNCIL POST SUPPRESSION POLICIES SUBMISSION 18 APR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 19 APR 2022| OPINION 11 MAY 2022 QUESTION Does the suppression of RMB posts that are considered double posts violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? Are those 'moderation' policies reasonable enough to limit the freedom of expression and speech of South Pacificans according to Article III, Section 1 of the TSP charter? SUMMARY OF THE OPINION It is the opinion of the Court that the suppression of Regional Message Board posts that are considered double posts do not violate the rights of South Pacificans under Article III, Section 1 of the Charter of the South Pacific. Further, the Court also is of the opinion that the larger set of moderation policies are reasonable restrictions upon the otherwise expansive freedoms of the citizens of the South Pacific. JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE BELSCHAFT. Starting with a brief overview of the background of this case, Philipmacaroni, the petitioner of this case, argued that, among other things, suppressing posts on the Regional Message Board (RMB) for reasons such as double posting was contrary to Article III, Section 1 of the South Pacific Charter. Their logic for the argument above is that suppression of a post is not a sufficient warning. The text of the aforementioned section of the Charter is as follows, “All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies”[1]. To reach the opinion for this case, the Court underwent extensive research into several past cases to look for precedent to guide it in this present case. A logical and relevant question that should be asked is what qualifies as a reasonable moderation policy? Is double posting reasonable? Is speaking in a non-English language reasonable? Is revealing another user's personal information reasonable? The Court does not presume to answer these questions, as it has no interest in analyzing each individual rule as they are created and challenged. In determining what constitutes a reasonable moderation policy, it is crucial to understand the definition of reasonable. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reasonable is defined as being “based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical”[2]. With the definition of reasonable secured, the moderation policy, in other words, as viewed by people using good judgment (and acting in good faith), must be fair and practical. In precedent established by the High Court in HCRR1801: Review Of The Ban On Malayan Singapura[3], the Court noted that there was (at the time) a lack of a publically available and official set of guidelines for members of the community to follow. The logic was that without an official set of rules to guide and bound the community, the moderation of the RMB would essentially be seen as arbitrary and not fair. It is not reasonable for moderation to be arbitrary and unfair. Today, however, it is noted that the Local Council (LC) does indeed have a publicly available and official set of rules called the “RMB Etiquette”[4]. Since the moderation policy is officially written and publically available, the moderation policies meet the High Court’s prior requirements to being considered reasonable. With a moderation policy established, the LC has the ability to uphold the rules that govern the RMB. Upon a review of the RMB[5], the Court notes that a legal process has been established to sufficiently judge violations of the reasonable moderation policy; further, the same spot also provides citizens a process by which to challenge a moderation action on the RMB. This process is also publicly available and even allows this Court to act as a thoroughly neutral avenue of last resort in a case concerning enforcement of the moderation policy. This aspect was missing from the RMB when the Court decided HCLQ1908: Legality of Ejections for Conduct Violations[6]. Its presence gives further legitimacy to the standard moderation policy of the RMB and does its absolute best to ensure that the system is not arbitrary or unfair while also providing citizens the chance to appeal a potentially erroneous decision made by a member of the LC. With the legal argument deconstructed and out of the way, the Court will address the points in the petitioner's argument, specifically to the point of double-posting. First, the petitioner notes that the double posting rule is arbitrary, especially considering an arbitrary time limit to allow for lawful double posting is in place. The petitioner also notes that unrelated topics might get confused if posted with other content within a single post. Lastly, the petitioner notes that this requirement is only found on the RMB, whereas there is no such requirement for the forums or Discord. The Court must admit that the petitioner's logic in their argument concerning double posts has merit, and the Court is rather sympathetic to it. However, the nature of the RMB itself must necessarily override the argument brought forth by the petitioner. The reality is that the RMB is a single, ever-lengthening thread of content. Unlike the forums or Discord, the RMB has no other channels or threads where discussion can be divided and made into separate topics. The RMB Etiquette rules provide for a set of guidelines that governs the single, ever-lengthening thread to make it work for the most number of people constructively. To facilitate this, posts on the RMB can include quotes, spoilers, and other editing content to structure a message. For example, if talking about multiple subjects, the user could use a spoiler for each differing topic rather than creating a post for each topic. If a member needs to include more information left out of a post, the option to edit the existing post or delete it and write it again exists as well. Lastly, the petitioner argues that suppression of posts is too high a penalty for violating a rule. The Court disagrees. There exists a process by which the owner of the suppressed post can appeal the decision. Further, a suppressed post can still be readily viewed by clicking the “show” button. If the post was auto-deleted or the user's posting privileges suspended, the Court would be inclined to agree and strike down such a rule or punishment for being unreasonable. However, the injury sustained under current procedures is not sufficient enough to warrant a strike down or remedy of any moderation policies by the Court. As the Court reaches the end of its opinion, reasonable moderation policies are designed to hold the community into following a set of agreed-upon rules in order to establish good-faith discourse with fellow members of the region. Because there is a reasonable moderation policy, the community can coexist and engage in discourse on equal footing without worrying about disruptive players, communication barriers, or other burdensome aspects of a multinational, multiethnic, and multilinguistic community. Similarly, the reasonable moderation policy allows the region to maintain stability and security by providing a standard for good faith interactions within a common area of the region. For that reason, the Court finds that the moderation policies, including the policy on double posting, on the RMB, are, in fact, reasonable for purposes of Article III, Section 1 of the South Pacific Charter. It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] Charter of the South Pacific; Article III, Section 3 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. [2] Definition of Reasonable; Retrieved from: https://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...reasonable [3] [HCRR1801]: Appeal to the Ban Malayan Singapura (2018). Retrieved from ORCS. [4] RMB Rules and Etiquette (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1381878 [5] Local Council Standard Moderation Policy (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1413490 [6] [HCLQ1908]: Legality of Ejections for Conduct Violations (2020). Retrieved from ORCS. 2205.HQ.O | Issued 11 MAY 2022
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I’m happy with that.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
@Belschaft The opinion is final, unless you have further comments to make. If all is well, I am ready for you to sign off.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Unless you did more than add the references in it's all fine by me.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |