Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 02-07-2016, 02:00 PM

Black and white-ness doesn't help anything. Not all instances of admin impropriety are moral outrages that need to be punished by death. Treating everything like there's a clear definition of right and wrong, and any deviation is the end of the world, is part of what caused this mess.

A dose of reasonableness is desperately needed when we're talking about admins.

@Bel: Admins and covered by our laws and we're citizens. We're not going to shoot first and ask questions later, because that's not how our laws work. You guys can't demand that admins fall under the law and even political oversight, then say that we're not allowed to question if a request is legal to carry out. That doesn't make any sense.

If the Cabinet asks us to start banning users without a trial or security threat declaration, we're not going to ban those users just because we're told to. That's just ridiculous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drugged Monkeys · 02-07-2016, 02:01 PM

(02-07-2016, 01:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The forum administration position is a technical, not governmental one; it's absolutely not the place of admins to say "I'm not doing that, I think it's illegal" - if they do they compromise themselves, and politicise administration. They have to be facilitators, and follow the instructions they receive from elected officials. If they think the instruction was illegal, they should then raise the issue in the court as any other citizen would.

I'll have to agree with Bel here. This is absolutely correct, and a very simple yet accurate way to say it.

Semi-Unretired

HEM · 02-07-2016, 02:04 PM

(02-07-2016, 01:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The forum administration position is a technical, not governmental one; it's absolutely not the place of admins to say "I'm not doing that, I think it's illegal" - if they do they compromise themselves, and politicise administration. They have to be facilitators, and follow the instructions they receive from elected officials. If they think the instruction was illegal, they should then raise the issue in the court as any other citizen would.

100% right.

@ Glen-Rhodes: If an admin truly believes their request is a terminal violation of law, they should respond to the request:

"Your request is pending after clarification from the courts."

Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-07-2016, 02:04 PM

(02-07-2016, 01:37 PM)HEM Wrote: A coup is an act (on NS) that substitutes power from the rightful government for the will of another individual, or collective, outside the government. While I understand that the word is inflammatory, disregarding the elected government is essentially a miniature version of this that.

Unless a specific order was blatantly illegal. There are such things as unlawful orders. I am not saying every time an admin might disregard a government request will be because it is illegal. I am simply saying that if such a situation does arise, it should not be portrayed as some sort of admin coup. Things need to be examined in their own context and assessed based on that.

Like others have said, that should be dealt with the Court. But I need to emphasie the fact that refusing to automatically comply cannot be taken as a coup. If there is a reasonable doubt that a request might be unlawful, that should be examined by the relevant authorities, not simply complied with.

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

***sandaoguo*** · 02-07-2016, 02:11 PM

(02-07-2016, 02:04 PM)HEM Wrote: @ Glen-Rhodes: If an admin truly believes their request is a terminal violation of law, they should respond to the request:

"Your request is pending after clarification from the courts."

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Others (largely those who supported Hileville's coup) have been arguing that admins shouldn't even do that. That they should do whatever the cabinet says, and *then* go to the courts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 02-07-2016, 02:12 PM

Quote:What, if any, powers do we want the administrators to execute?

Administrators should be limited, as much as possible, to backroom technical roles - keeping the forums working, creating new sub-forums when requested, and masking/setting permissions when a government official is unable. They should not be involved in moderation of behaviour, or anything relating to the political process.

Quote:Who should become admins?

A balance needs to be struck between technical ability, long term involvement in the region, general attitude/trustworthiness, and personality/ability to work with others.

Quote:How do you want to select admins?

Admin election is awful idea; admins should be appointed by the root/chief admin, on the advice of the rest of the admin team. Such appointments should be subject to the Assemblies approval.

Quote:How do we want to remove admins?

There should be two methods of admin removal; dismissal by the root/chief admin, on the advice of the rest of the admin team, and dismissal/recall by the Assembly.

Quote:Who should have moderating power?

The relevant government officials should have moderation power over their areas of responsibility, and members of the community over areas they manage (ie; RP, Spam, etc). Further, I would argue for a composite judicial/global moderator system where judges/senators/whatever act as general forum moderators, policing conduct.

Quote:What checks should there be on moderating powers?

There should be a general right of appeal in regards to moderation decisions, to a board made up of other moderators. NS' system of forum moderation is, overall, a pretty good model to follow on this.

Quote:How many administrators and/or moderators do we need?

I'd say that 3-5 is the range of admins we want; never less than three, never more than five. One of these should be the root/chief admin who is mainly in position for their judgement/personality/trusted status, and the others should be technical officials. In regards to forum moderation, I think three global moderators with responsibility for policing behaviour + specific moderators to manage their areas of the forum is the right number.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 02-07-2016, 02:16 PM

(02-07-2016, 02:11 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(02-07-2016, 02:04 PM)HEM Wrote: @ Glen-Rhodes: If an admin truly believes their request is a terminal violation of law, they should respond to the request:

"Your request is pending after clarification from the courts."

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Others (largely those who supported Hileville's coup) have been arguing that admins shouldn't even do that. That they should do whatever the cabinet says, and *then* go to the courts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think forum bans is a fair example, as that is clearly not a power the Cabinet has; I can't think of any possible argument that could be made for the Cabinet having that power. We're talking about more realistic examples - things which did happen - where the Cabinet made a request that was in their power, but admins didn't think it was right.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 02-07-2016, 02:23 PM

No illegal request is a power the Cabinet has, by definition.

We have a court and we have the rule of law. When a person's rights are at risk of being violated, you aren't supposed to take the action that might violate their rights until a court decides you can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 02-07-2016, 02:34 PM

Except by refusing to follow their instructions, you are making a decision that it is an illegal request - not the court. The court is then, in effect, ruling on your decision not the Cabinets.

It's a messy issue, but it's very clear that it's a decision that politicizes administration - because you're putting your judgement ahead of the Cabinet's. If you think that a request is illegal, ask the court - don't place your judgement above the Cabinets.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 02-07-2016, 03:15 PM

It's not messy at all, really. You want to be able to remove admins who break the law. But you don't want to let admins have any opinion on what's illegal to do.

We are people. We are citizens. We're not just going to do things we think are illegal. The law applies to us, too. The Cabinet is not infallible, and if it wants to do something of dubious legality, the admin's aren't and shouldn't be their lackeys.

Whenever there is a question if an action will violate the rights of a player, as we have all agreed exist, then the question should be submitted to the courts. It's that simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk