He removed you because he had evidence of you harassing a player and threatening to read people's private mail.... I don't see how that reason helps your case, Belschaft.

(This post was last modified: 04-06-2014, 10:18 AM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

That's an interesting accusation, especially the second part, which I've never heard before. Also utterly irrelevant.

The reason why we have new forums is, unless you have forgotten already, because the admin team refused to accept the unilateralism of Hileville. Stop criticizing people for behavior they had no part in and opposed. There was only one member of the admin team who was banning citizens illegally.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I will not have that nonsense in this forum. This is a discussion about organising our new admin team. Keep it in topic and take other arguments elsewhere.

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

Stop criticizing people for behavior they had no part in and opposed. There was only one member of the admin team who was banning citizens illegally.

One of the problems we need to discuss is: what Hileville did was total legal.

It's a loophole in our laws. You can ban X and X will still be a citizen and X will no longer be able to vote in our Assembly, despite X's rights and privileges established under our constitution. X's ban cannot be challenged as being illegal because the adminship does not observe our constitution.

(This post was last modified: 04-06-2014, 01:14 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

Stop criticizing people for behavior they had no part in and opposed. There was only one member of the admin team who was banning citizens illegally.

One of the problems we need to discuss is: what Hileville did was total legal.

It's a loophole in our laws. You can ban X and X will still be a citizen and X will no longer be able to vote in our Assembly, despite X's rights and privileges established under our constitution. X's ban cannot be challenged as being illegal because the adminship does not observe our constitution.

Actually, no; some of what Hile did was illegal. His removal of six admins over a three week period was in breach of the procedures of the admin team - and thus illegitimate, but not illegal. His banning of you, however, was illegal; in accordance Article 8 of the Charter there was an established set of moderation policies, which prohibited the banning of any individual without prior discussion and vote within the admin team. A breach of the moderation policies is therefore a breach of Article 8, and therefore illegal. Your ban could have been and should have been challenged - it couldn't be, because we had a rogue root admin who refused to obey the rules.

The issue is a really as simple as that.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I like the current admin team as I feel comfortable with all three of them and feel that they have shown the ability to be objective.

I agree that if the admin team would like to add a member, there should be an Assembly vote of confidence.

There are certain people who I would feel uncomfortable with being admin, that is anyone who has behaved in a way that is not objective, apolitical, or unbecoming of the people who are expected to moderate (if an admin engages in multiple acts of behavior that needs to be moderated or would receive a a moderator warning, then that person should not be on the team).

As for moderation policies. The forums are the host of the regional governance. It is the admins responsibility to make sure that TSPers are respectful of a certain level of behavior towards each other. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that citizen's right should be protected and that they can vote, etc according to the BoR.

My thoughts and suggestions:

1. Admins give out unofficial warnings for first offenses. Keep a a document tracking exactly when such a warning was sent out and screenshot of the PM and any response.

2. Give out official warnings for second offenses and if using points the point that the member has earned as well as a reminder of how many points result in what kind of consequence (2 points = a 12 hour ban for example, etc.).

3. For further offenses continue to tally the points accumulated, links to the offending posts. That way it is utterly transparent and public.

4. We did have an issue with moderation on the old forums where certain people were give warnings while others were not. Moderation will work best when all citizens, regardless of whether they are a delegate, former delegate, new citizen, veteran, popular, unpopular, etc. are all treated the same and held to the same standards.

5. Civil discourse in the Assembly and what that means as well as positive examples of it are necessary. The worst thing is the fear of entering Assembly discussions because of fear of discussion spiraling into name calling and personal attacks. What's worse is encouraging this type of discourse to the point where people start adopting it.

There is a such a thing as constructive dialogue and then there is resorting to attacks on character, attacks on motives, attacks on unprovable long past actions or associations, and other attacks.

It is not only quite possible but integral for the community that we learn to dialogue rather then pontificate.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

(This post was last modified: 04-06-2014, 03:38 PM by Rebeltopia.)

Reply

Thanks Escade. Perhaps discussing what specific measures the Assembly could put in place would be helpful - does anyone want to draft something?

Reply

Just to agree with Bels from before, yes, some of Hile's action were, in fact, illegal. And -- especially Uni's second ban -- would have been overturned had the forums remained in place.

Further, I think a draft of moderation from the Assembly would be ideal. I warn, however, that this needs to be a balancing act of sorts. We certainly want constraints, but also need some leeway for extraordinary circumstances.

Reply

Article 8: Forum and Forum Administration
1. The Coalition's official regional forums are located at http://forums.thesouthpacific.org.
2. The Regional Forum is administrated by its administrators and moderation team.
3. Forum Administration must establish moderation policies.
4. Changes in Moderation policies must be announced 1 week prior to the change taking effect.
5. Forum Administration will be responsible for enforcing the moderation policies.
6. The Forum Administration shall be regulated under the Forum Administration Act.

Forum Administration Act

Preamble

We, The Assembly of The South Pacific, recognize the failings of the previous administration to observe our laws, commit to internal policies and uniformly apply a standard of moderation to all.

Bearing this in mind, we find the need for more oversight, due process and accountability in a comprehensive but adaptable set of measures to help foster a fairer, more responsible administration.

Article 1: General Expectations

1. All staff are expected to be,

1. Citizens of The South Pacific.
   
2. Law-abiding.
   
3. Trustworthy.
   
4. Responsive and active.
   
5. Observant.
   
6. Objective, fair and non-partisan.
   
7. Tolerant, patient and reserved.
   
8. Helpful to new players.

2. All staff should apply policies uniformly without favour or prejudice.
3. All staff should recognize all internal policies.
4. Punitive measures and the closure of threads should only be exercised insofar as necessary and justifiable in a free and fair democratic society.

Article 2: Appointment Process

1. Only the administration (having first taken a vote internally on the decision) may propose the appointment of a new staff member.
2. All staff members should be approved by the Assembly by a 65% vote – 75% in the case of administrators.
3. All staff members must maintain a Conflict of Interests thread that discloses their involvement in other regions and organizations.

Article 3: Moderation

1. Moderation policies should be simple and freely available to all (i.e., even those who do not have access to the forums).
2. Warnings should elapse or decay over a fixed, reasonable amount of time.
3. For first offences, players should be given an unofficial warning.
4. All warnings should be recorded and documented. This process should aim to be transparent and open.
5. A free and fair system of appeal shall be open for all members of the forum to seek recourse over staff decisions.
6. Policies and bans should not be applied retroactively (i.e., ex post facto).
7. Players should not be banned from The South Pacific’s forum without this decision being approved via a vote between all administrators.
8. No member should be removed from the staff without this decision being approved via a vote between all administrators.

Article 4: Recall

1. In the event that a member or former member of The South Pacific’s board believes that an admin or moderator has not met the expectations articulated in Article 1-3, they may request a review of this staff member’s behavior to the judiciary.
2. The judiciary upon receiving a request for review shall open a topic asking for citizens to come forth with evidence that the staff member in question has failed to meet the expectations laid out in Article 1-3.
3. If the claimant cannot make its request for review or submit its evidence directly (i.e., due to being banned), communicating to the judiciary via other means shall suffice for the purposes of Article 4.1-2.
4. After one week for open solicitation of evidence, a fact-finding report shall be published by the judiciary in a timely fashion and presented to both the Administration and the Assembly. The report should cover the past conduct of said staff member and whether or not the preponderance of evidence suggests that they have failed to meet this Act’s expectations.
5. The Administration may elect to remove this member or the Assembly may do so via a vote of non-confidence provided that this vote (i) meets a 65% threshold of support, (ii) takes place after Article 4.4 has been fulfilled.

(This post was last modified: 04-06-2014, 09:11 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

I'll take articles 1 through 3, although with some of the wording (ie. 3.2) I think we should get more specific. I don't want the admin team being accused of not being "reasonable."

I would also be in favor of encoding infractions, as long as we're not getting down to "threadjacking can only be applied to ..."

I don't like Article 4. I think we should have an appeal process -- which may overseen by the judiciary -- and a "recall" process, but I don't like an "independent review" per se. The only way to do that would -- more or less -- grant the judiciary admin status, or else they won't be able to get at all the information.

Reply