| Security Powers Discussion |
(03-11-2017, 05:01 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Kris makes good points. I'd also suggest a more communicative/open approach; if the CRS thinks someone is an in-game security threat, ask them to temporarily drop WA to clear they're endorsements rather than banjecting them. A lot of bad-blood and bitterness can be avoided by communicating with people, explaining your concerns, and giving them a chance to address them. You mean something like this? Quote:(1) Declaration of a security risk For what it's worth, I agree with you but, again, we don't have these powers at the moment. We have about ... no power, tbh. The proposal was set up toward a step-by-step approach. We'd decide a security risk, investigate with that person being involved, and then decide if more action is appropriate/needed. To Kris' point — I'm done with half measures. If someone is too much of a threat to be in the government, they are too much a threat to be on the forums and/or in the region. We've tried to parse all this out, but we've just allowed ourselves to get into a cluster over it. Until we come up with a better solution The Government = The Forum = The Region = The RMB. When someone is removed they are removed from all of them. (And should be removed from Discord and IRC, too.)
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Something like that, yes, but with better protections and established due-process. Such investigations would need to be formalised, time limited, have a factual basis, etc; the CRS can't just point at someone and say "we're investigating you" and leave it like that for months.
I also think that Kris' argument is more about due process, and less about "half measures". 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)
(03-11-2017, 05:11 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: To Kris' point — I'm done with half measures. If someone is too much of a threat to be in the government, they are too much a threat to be on the forums and/or in the region. We've tried to parse all this out, but we've just allowed ourselves to get into a cluster over it. I don't think that's an entirely fair conclusion. It's possible to be a threat to the political side of the region while still being a generally nice person with whom to interact in areas like Treasure Islands, the Hall of Spam or offsite venues like the regional chat.
In addition, I think it's only natural that full bans be reserved for the truly worst offences, those that actually require someone to be fully removed from the region. If someone engages in doxing or unrepentant flaming, that probably requires full removal from the forum. If someone has been convicted of treason, that is our highest crime, and it obviously demands full removal from the region and forum. I get where you're coming from, and I definitely see the logic behind that. I just think there's a difference between being declared a threat and being a proven offender. Both are very serious, but one is arguably worse, and that distinction needs to be made. To be clear, this doesn't extend to gameside actions. I don't have any problem whatsoever with removing a security threat from the actual region. -- No idea if you were referencing Breaking Bad with that half-measures comment, @Tsunamy, but you'll be awesome if you were.  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
If we're thinking about another group advising or assisting the CRS in decisions, why not the General Corps? We're an apolitical body made up of the best R/D players TSP has to offer, and part of SPSF's job does involve security and intelligence for TSP, and did I mention we're an apolitical body?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
I'm not in favor of full bans for anything short of crimes proven before the Court. There are options other than going from one extreme, the CRS having almost no power to handle security threats, to the other extreme, giving the CRS the power to ban citizens from the region, the forum, the Discord server, etc., with very little oversight, due process, or the high threshold of evidence that is standard in criminal proceedings.
I can support security threat legislation like this to remove and prohibit legislator status and holding office, but not to impose full bans. That's just too far.
(03-11-2017, 05:16 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Something like that, yes, but with better protections and established due-process. Such investigations would need to be formalised, time limited, have a factual basis, etc; the CRS can't just point at someone and say "we're investigating you" and leave it like that for months. Those points I'm on board with. (03-11-2017, 05:21 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:11 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: To Kris' point — I'm done with half measures. If someone is too much of a threat to be in the government, they are too much a threat to be on the forums and/or in the region. We've tried to parse all this out, but we've just allowed ourselves to get into a cluster over it. I wasn't ... some of us haven't seen Breaking Bad  I just think it's easy for someone to be like "Hey, that person's great in Treasure Island ... why are they banned as a legislator?" It's the same argument Glen has made about things. I'd sooner a ban on running for office or the like, rather than banning them from having any action in the government and still letting them hang around.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I actually agree. Trust me, I'd love to have completely banned so many people from the forum and the chat, even if I don't use it. I think much trouble and controversy could've been avoided if we simply removed someone from the forum, so they won't be able to mess with the region. What you mention does happen, and it's a very real problem that has affected the region for years.
At the same time though, I think a forum ban is something so significant that it should be reserved for the very worst offences. At the very least, I think there should be some kind of mechanism so that it isn't a normal option that the CSS could use with any security threat. I'd be on board if we somehow could ensure that it was a last resort option, or only used when its necessity was clear. I'm just not sure we can have that kind of guarantee. Also...here's the Half Measures scene.  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
I'm in general agreement with Tsu here.
One point I'd like to make, though, is on this issue of conflating security actions with criminal prosecution. If we, as a region, have a very good idea that somebody is conspiring to commit treason... why should we wait until we've suffered the costs of their treason to take any action? The point of the CRS is to prevent egregious acts that harm our community. Criminal laws are good for the aftermath, when somebody manages to evade everybody's suspicions and carries out their attack. But, to me, there's an issue when we require ourselves to suffer before we address the most serious offenses. Also, what exactly is the real likelihood of anything going to trial afterwards? I'm gonna have to beat that drum and point to Hileville's coup. We can also look at Milograd's coup, where there was a "trial" that went nowhere because Milo wouldn't show up after committing the act. If the CRS has good intel that somebody is that level of a threat to the region, and has conducted a thorough investigation, then all responses should be on the table. I get the need for it being a last resort measure. But sometimes "last resorts" are appropriate. And waiting for a trial, by definition, necessitates letting someone go through with that we should be trying to be prevent in the first place.
I fully agree that sometimes last resorts are needed, but right now there is no guarantee that forum bans would be used only as last resorts. I can't speak for others, but my main concern isn't that we could impose bans (though I don't see the point in having that power) but rather when and how we impose them.
I don't think forum bans should even be on the table, but if they are, they shouldn't be just one more option, they should be the very last one, when it's clear all else would fail. After all, what really would be the goal of a forum ban that couldn't be accomplished with government involvement bans? 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 (03-12-2017, 12:26 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Perhaps it would be better to take a tiered approach. So, for example: - The CRS could revoke (or prohibit) legislator status, with Court oversight as in this legislation. - The CRS could impose in-game bans with Cabinet approval and Court oversight. - The CRS could impose forum/Discord bans with Cabinet and Assembly approval and Court oversight. That may not be the exact formula we would want to use, but it's just an illustration of what I mean by taking a tiered approach rather than just leaving it all in the hands of the CRS. Another option would be to create a kind of warning system. The first infraction gets legislator status revoked, and further behavior that demonstrates a continuing security risk could lead to in-game and forum ban. I think there should still be some kind of oversight mechanism for the latter, either from the Cabinet or the Assembly. I'm all right with giving the CRS more security powers. I think that's necessary. But we need to make sure such powers aren't abused as well, not only by the current CRS members -- whom I pretty much trust not to abuse such powers -- but also by future CRS members, down the road. I think a tiered system or a warning system as I've described above would help to do that, by imposing some checks and balances without overly constraining the CRS. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |