(Posting in the Private Halls, since the threads triggering this discussion originate here as well)

Looking past things such as the internal disunity in the CRS breaking the surface, the length of the two investigations, and whether Adytus' role as Chief Vizier in Osiris is correctly represented, et cetera et cetera - the core issue people seem to have with the report is what standard of evidence is required for such a declaration. Applied to the Belschaft/NK issue, we can reasonably summarize it as this: Yes, it's highly suspicious; no, there's no direct evidence of aiding an enemy - so by "beyond a reasonable doubt", Belschaft isn't guilty, whereas by "with probable cause", he is. 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" means "that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty" (source). In layman's terms, we can say that this standard applies if you can't think of any other reasons why the accused could be guilty without invoking aliens or magic. Markedly, if plausible deniability exists, then "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply.

"With probable cause" means "apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, [...] or that a Cause of Action has accrued" (source). In layman's terms, it means that the evidence is enough to strongly suggest that it is happening, though there could still be potentially other explanations. In contrast to "beyond a reasonable doubt", "with probable cause" can apply despite plausible deniability.

(note: I haven't gotten an education in this area, so I may have slightly butchered the above two definitions - please correct me if I have!)

So, here's my prompt for a discussion - by which standard of evidence do we feel that security threat declarations and convictions in the court should be made in our region?

Reply

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is used IRL literally just for sending people to jail. Getting banned from TSP for a month or whatever isn't deprivation of life and liberty. The notion that we need to use that standard, or that it can even be met, is unreasonable on its face. We have no DNA tests here. And frankly, what many TSPers are looking for when they say "I want beyond reasonable doubt" is actually "I want a confession."

The phrase you're looking for, though, is a "preponderance of the evidence." Which means that, on balance, the evidence and arguments presented lead you to believe there's a 51% chance that the alleged thing happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2017, 08:52 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

So, here's my prompt for a discussion - by which standard of evidence do we feel that security threat declarations and convictions in the court should be made in our region?

I've made mentions of this on Discord, but I don't really like the "declaration of security threat" part. It seems far too formal and permanent for my liking. 

To use the issue at hand, I'll *always* argue for more security than less, meaning I'd easily be "for probable cause." It's a security measure, not a death sentence.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm not sure that the issue is so much probable cause vs. beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidentiary basis for additional conclusions. Saying A+B=C is one thing, and perfectly fine. But if that is then followed with A+B+C=D we then start running into problems. Essentially it's a question of how many "steps" beyond the actual evidence can be reasonably made, before we enter a situation where conclusions are being made on the basis of suppositions rather than facts.

Another way to look at it is this; should the necessary standard be "This is true" or "This could be true".

_{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'm not sure that the issue is so much probable cause vs. beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidentiary basis for additional conclusions. Saying A+B=C is one thing, and perfectly fine. But if that is then followed with A+B+C=D we then start running into problems. Essentially it's a question of how many "steps" beyond the actual evidence can be reasonably made, before we enter a situation where conclusions are being made on the basis of suppositions rather than facts.

Another way to look at it is this; should the necessary standard be "This is true" or "This could be true".

The obvious problem here, is that in NS we can rarely say "This is true." As such, it becomes a matter of degrees. How certain is certain? 

Although, count me in for the plain language. As such, it makes sense that the CRS is dealing with "this could be true" while the court is concerned with "this is true."

The goal of the CRS is to protect the region. The goal of the court is to find whether or not something criminal happened.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm not sure that the issue is so much probable cause vs. beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidentiary basis for additional conclusions. Saying A+B=C is one thing, and perfectly fine. But if that is then followed with A+B+C=D we then start running into problems. Essentially it's a question of how many "steps" beyond the actual evidence can be reasonably made, before we enter a situation where conclusions are being made on the basis of suppositions rather than facts.

Another way to look at it is this; should the necessary standard be "This is true" or "This could be true".

The obvious problem here, is that in NS we can rarely say "This is true." As such, it becomes a matter of degrees. How certain is certain? 

Although, count me in for the plain language. As such, it makes sense that the CRS is dealing with "this could be true" while the court is concerned with "this is true."

The goal of the CRS is to protect the region. The goal of the court is to find whether or not something criminal happened.

Obviously, but problems arise precisely because the CRS has - via the SPA - moved into a quasi-judicial area, in that is clearly functioning as an alternative to the Courts. Now, I think a lower standard of certainty makes sense in questions of immediate security, such as "is this person about to coup?", where the consequences of making the wrong decision are severe. Where the security question doesn't have an that same urgency, then the higher standard needs to apply - especially if we're talking about punitive rather than preventative actions.

When the CRS becomes involved after the fact - that is, when whatever it's dealing with has occurred - then we're clearly moving into judicial and punitive areas. The higher standard has to apply then.

Essentially, "This could be true" is fine for temporary investigative measures, where there is an immediate need. "This is true" has to be the standard for permanent or punitive measures. You can't penalise someone for something they might have done.

_{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'm not sure that the issue is so much probable cause vs. beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidentiary basis for additional conclusions. Saying A+B=C is one thing, and perfectly fine. But if that is then followed with A+B+C=D we then start running into problems. Essentially it's a question of how many "steps" beyond the actual evidence can be reasonably made, before we enter a situation where conclusions are being made on the basis of suppositions rather than facts.

Another way to look at it is this; should the necessary standard be "This is true" or "This could be true".

The obvious problem here, is that in NS we can rarely say "This is true." As such, it becomes a matter of degrees. How certain is certain? 

Although, count me in for the plain language. As such, it makes sense that the CRS is dealing with "this could be true" while the court is concerned with "this is true."

The goal of the CRS is to protect the region. The goal of the court is to find whether or not something criminal happened.

Obviously, but problems arise precisely because the CRS has - via the SPA - moved into a quasi-judicial area, in that is clearly functioning as an alternative to the Courts. Now, I think a lower standard of certainty makes sense in questions of immediate security, such as "is this person about to coup?", where the consequences of making the wrong decision are severe. Where the security question doesn't have an that same urgency, then the higher standard needs to apply - especially if we're talking about punitive rather than preventative actions.

When the CRS becomes involved after the fact - that is, when whatever it's dealing with has occurred - then we're clearly moving into judicial and punitive areas. The higher standard has to apply then.

Essentially, "This could be true" is fine for temporary investigative measures, where there is an immediate need. "This is true" has to be the standard for permanent or punitive measures. You can't penalise someone for something they might have done.

I'm going to disagree with the overall premise here. The idea isn't (nor should it have been) that the CRS — through the SPA or otherwise — is a punitive body. It's not; it's a security body.

We've already made this distinction in regard to the endo cap — it's essentially a matter of what the CRS feels is safe, not that its punishing people for going over. Some people haven't managed to wrap their head around it (and keep referring to it incorrectly), but that's the goal.

Not to address the elephant in the room, but this is why I largely haven't been as concerned about how we got you to comply with the SPA regulations — and much prefer working together in this goal. Hence, the idea of trying to cut a deal rather than trying to enforce stipulations. 

If we're going to try and have the CRS come to absolute, certain conclusions, I'd sooner we get rid of the investigatory powers. The idea that we're suppose to conduct some massively thorough investigation in two weeks is ... silly tbh. Especially knowing how poorly judicial type things have always worked in the region (and NS more broadly).

I'd sooner that we had it so that CRS was able to issue some sort of advisory or watch that can ultimately be rescinded at a later time. Not a full prohibition on something, but something that notifies of the concern. Ie. in the current situation — there would be a discussion with you and a statement drafted that explaining why there's a concern and what we're asking you to do. In this case, you dropped endorsements and such, but, if you didn't comply, we'd be able to watch and if there was a sudden increase in endorsements or something, the CRS could take further action. (Obviously, this assumes that if we asked you to dropped endorsements and you suddenly had a rush of them, the suspicion is understandable.)

Does that make sense? The more that I'm typing this, the more I like this idea. I might draft something about it ...

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm not sure that the issue is so much probable cause vs. beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidentiary basis for additional conclusions. Saying A+B=C is one thing, and perfectly fine. But if that is then followed with A+B+C=D we then start running into problems. Essentially it's a question of how many "steps" beyond the actual evidence can be reasonably made, before we enter a situation where conclusions are being made on the basis of suppositions rather than facts.

Another way to look at it is this; should the necessary standard be "This is true" or "This could be true".

The obvious problem here, is that in NS we can rarely say "This is true." As such, it becomes a matter of degrees. How certain is certain? 

Although, count me in for the plain language. As such, it makes sense that the CRS is dealing with "this could be true" while the court is concerned with "this is true."

The goal of the CRS is to protect the region. The goal of the court is to find whether or not something criminal happened.

Obviously, but problems arise precisely because the CRS has - via the SPA - moved into a quasi-judicial area, in that is clearly functioning as an alternative to the Courts. Now, I think a lower standard of certainty makes sense in questions of immediate security, such as "is this person about to coup?", where the consequences of making the wrong decision are severe. Where the security question doesn't have an that same urgency, then the higher standard needs to apply - especially if we're talking about punitive rather than preventative actions.

When the CRS becomes involved after the fact - that is, when whatever it's dealing with has occurred - then we're clearly moving into judicial and punitive areas. The higher standard has to apply then.

Essentially, "This could be true" is fine for temporary investigative measures, where there is an immediate need. "This is true" has to be the standard for permanent or punitive measures. You can't penalise someone for something they might have done.

I'm going to disagree with the overall premise here. The idea isn't (nor should it have been) that the CRS — through the SPA or otherwise — is a punitive body. It's not; it's a security body.

We've already made this distinction in regard to the endo cap — it's essentially a matter of what the CRS feels is safe, not that its punishing people for going over. Some people haven't managed to wrap their head around it (and keep referring to it incorrectly), but that's the goal.

Not to address the elephant in the room, but this is why I largely haven't been as concerned about how we got you to comply with the SPA regulations — and much prefer working together in this goal. Hence, the idea of trying to cut a deal rather than trying to enforce stipulations. 

If we're going to try and have the CRS come to absolute, certain conclusions, I'd sooner we get rid of the investigatory powers. The idea that we're suppose to conduct some massively thorough investigation in two weeks is ... silly tbh. Especially knowing how poorly judicial type things have always worked in the region (and NS more broadly).

I'd sooner that we had it so that CRS was able to issue some sort of advisory or watch that can ultimately be rescinded at a later time. Not a full prohibition on something, but something that notifies of the concern. Ie. in the current situation — there would be a discussion with you and a statement drafted that explaining why there's a concern and what we're asking you to do. In this case, you dropped endorsements and such, but, if you didn't comply, we'd be able to watch and if there was a sudden increase in endorsements or something, the CRS could take further action. (Obviously, this assumes that if we asked you to dropped endorsements and you suddenly had a rush of them, the suspicion is understandable.)

Does that make sense? The more that I'm typing this, the more I like this idea. I might draft something about it ...

It makes sense to me, but it doesn't reflect the current reality of the SPA or the CRS report into myself/NK's relationship. The problem is very much that it has crossed into judicial territory, in that it is proclaiming "this is true" certain things that are crimes. Had the report said "We are unable to make a determination of the relationship between Belschaft and NK" we would be in a different situation, but that isn't what it said. You can't issue a report concluding that someone has done something criminal, and they say that it's not a criminal accusation or that any penalties attached aren't punitive.

_{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

Another way to look at it is this; should the necessary standard be "This is true" or "This could be true".

A lot of thing "could" be true. Whether you think so or not, the CRS has never just asked "is it possible this is true?" It asks, "What's more likely, given what we know? That's it's true or false?" And if we're being honest with ourselves, that's the best you're going to get in this game 99% of the time.

Had the report said "We are unable to make a determination of the relationship between Belschaft and NK" we would be in a different situation, but that isn't what it said.

Actually, it is:

The relationship has all the marking of a pre-existing understanding that Belschaft would work on behalf of Neo Kervoskia. Whether this is because of a long-time friendship or a direct involvement with Empire, the CRS cannot say. But we can say that Belschaft did indeed keep his promises.

What your asking is unreasonable. You're saying the CRS, because we can't peer into either your or NK's brain, just say, "Well, we're never know exactly what their relationship is." What anybody can do, and what the CRS did, is say, "We've gone over everything we have, and it seems like there's an understanding between them. We don't know if they're friends or if Belschaft is an actual member of Empire. We just know that it looks very much like a relationship where Belschaft is informing NK, and the way it's happening looks a lot like it's for the benefit of NK's agenda."

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2017, 05:04 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply