Chief Justice and the Judicial System: Reform Discussion

[Punk D]

Perhaps Bel should explain, for those of us that weren't here at that time, why is he saying was 3WL so awful? 

 

Since I was around at the time and also agree that the 3WL law was an awful law, it functioned much like warnings do on the NS Forum (which I hate even more than 3WL). In other words, someone would report you and you'd get a warning. Get three and your banned from the forum. I made use of that law back in the day. 

 

I found that many times a warning was used as a political tool to stifle disagreement. Unibot, you think people try to muzzle you now, you would have last a month or two in the old 3WL era. Tsu - you may disagree with my take then, but I saw some pretty light warnings given out back then. 

 

The law was crap and it was a crap way to administrate a region. Bel may have a different view as to why it was crap, but it was not good. 

 

I like the idea of people being moderators for the sake of being moderators not necessarily attached to the delegate and VD roles, but it is good to know that they are to function as such. Taking a look at the mod policies, to me moderators should be able to issue warnings for the "minor" offenses. Major offense warnings can be initiated by mods, but I feel the admins should step in at that point. 

 

It really would be good to see warning points as well. I know I've said this in another thread, but that would be good to see, imo.

[Hileville]

I pretty much agree with Punk here on the 3WL.  It really was terrible and overtime became more of a political tool.  It also led to people getting banned permanently and not ever getting a chance to speak their case.  Punk for one would still be banned from here if we were still using the 3WL.  I am also very uncomfortable with having a strict 3WL again and since I do foot the bill for the forums there are some things that I will be a stickler on.

 

I did have a decent talk with HEM and would like to work towards reform that will allow for some crossover.  I think this is going to take time and we should first handle the Judicial reform as that will directly affect what the admins can come up with for crossover.  One thing that we did agree on is the current Judicial system cannot support the type of crossover we are looking for.  Until a time where this is taken care of the admis will figure out a way to make the moderation policies more fair and simpler.

 

EDIT:  I will also note the Charter specifically tasks the admin team with setting forum moderation policies.

 

EDIT 2:  We did have other GM's before the change to just the Delegate and Vice Delegate.  Michu, Penguin, and DM were all GM's.  Penguin and Michu had both left and weren't around.  DM was promoted to admin.  All Ministers are expected to enforce the forum moderation policies as they all have moderation powers.  This is something we should probably communicate to them better.  I am open to changing the admin/mod structure again but this isn't the thread for that.

[Rebel-topia]

I also agree that the 3WL was bad. I think the idea behind it is good, but way too strict. I think its best to have some sort of crossover, but to what extent is, like HEM stated, the Devil in the details.

 

As stupid as this may sound, maybe we add that the "ministers are the mods of their respective forums, and are expected to adhere to the moderation policies" as the last point on each of the Ministry's obligations in the Charter.

[Belschaft]

I think that the 3WL was crap because it tried to place basic forum moderation - things like dealing with spamming or trolling - in the GP realm of the justice system. Judicial process in NS is notoriously painful and dysfunctional - TNP is simply the best example of that - and should be reserved for genuinely GP related offences like treason or espionage, or matters like judicial review. General conduct on the forums can be handled much more easily and fairly by the forum moderators.

 

NS Judicial systems need to be streamlined and efficient, with simple rules and procedures and a clear remit, with no extraneous bullshit. Judges should be judges and moderators should be moderators. At the special election for the Chief Justiceship I made my views clear on this, and the region voted for another option.

[Unibot]

I did not suggest that we go to a TNP-like system with courts for flamebaiting and trolling - I suggested the Chief Justice serve as the sole moderator. It was streamlined and flexible system. Please debate the proposal, not your strawman. 

 

The only difference between my proposal and what we have currently is: 

 

1. We would have an elected official, who changes every few months, as the moderator.

2. We would be protected by The Charter.

3. We could appeal to the courts, instead of the Admins. 

 

Bearing in mind, forum moderation is a new development in The South Pacific -- and I do not think the framers of the constitution intended for The Charter to be completely overridden by the administrators. 

[Hileville]

Moderation is not new in TSP. We moved away from the 3WL more than two years ago now. We added the forum administration part to the Charter last year.

[Sandaoguo]

I think the core point Unibot is trying to make is that TSP's moderation and administration should be accountable somehow. What he's saying is that there exists the potential (perhaps he thinks reality) for the administration to act above the law. There's no rule of law in our administration system as it is. There's nothing legally stopping admins from issues dictats the government doesn't agree with, or acting on political matters (through banning, masking, etc.) that should be reserved to the government. It hasn't happened, thankfully, but that may be because the government and the administration overlapped a lot. In the beginning of the Escade government, we did see conflict with admins, though, and some of those unaccountability, above-the-law issues came to the forefront.

[Unibot]

Moderation is not new in TSP. We moved away from the 3WL more than two years ago now. We added the forum administration part to the Charter last year.

 

Two years ago, I was Minister of Justice - and we most certainly were using 3WL. 3WL was not abolished even during the Great Council of 2012 (Ant discussed some wording in it). In fact I don't see where it's clear we even got rid of the 3WL. It just disappears from references by 2013. 

 

NOTE: I haven't been able to find the archives for the Great Council of 2013.

[Punk D]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="118401" data-time="1393527791">
<div>
Moderation is not new in TSP. We moved away from the 3WL more than two years ago now. We added the forum administration part to the Charter last year.

 

Two years ago, I was Minister of Justice - and we most certainly were using 3WL. 3WL was not abolished even during the Great Council of 2012 (Ant discussed some wording in it). In fact I don't see where it's clear we even got rid of the 3WL. It just disappears from references by 2013. 

 

NOTE: I haven't been able to find the archives for the Great Council of 2013.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
I find it strange how you argue against Article 9 being a political tool and the 3WL which was numerous times used as a political and didn't require 60% approval you like quite a bit.

 

I don't see how the two can be consistent thoughts.

[Farengeto]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unibot" data-cid="118426" data-time="1393536509">

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="118401" data-time="1393527791">

Moderation is not new in TSP. We moved away from the 3WL more than two years ago now. We added the forum administration part to the Charter last year.

Two years ago, I was Minister of Justice - and we most certainly were using 3WL. 3WL was not abolished even during the Great Council of 2012 (Ant discussed some wording in it). In fact I don't see where it's clear we even got rid of the 3WL. It just disappears from references by 2013.


NOTE: I haven't been able to find the archives for the Great Council of 2013.
</blockquote>
I find it strange how you argue against Article 9 being a political tool and the 3WL which was numerous times used as a political and didn't require 60% approval you like quite a bit.


I don't see how the two can be consistent thoughts.</blockquote>
It's not abput consistency, it's about political tools.

[Commonwealth of Callistaire]

Forgive my ignorance but isn't forum moderation a separate issue to the game itself? Wouldn't putting the in-game courts and the out of game forum moderation in the hands of one individual official carry almost as much risk of abuse of power as leaving everything to Hile?

[Unibot]

Forgive my ignorance but isn't forum moderation a separate issue to the game itself? Wouldn't putting the in-game courts and the out of game forum moderation in the hands of one individual official carry almost as much risk of abuse of power as leaving everything to Hile?

 

It's easier to replace an elected official than it is Hile. 

[Sandaoguo]

There is a role for separate administrators. I don't think placing administration and moderation of the forums in an elected official is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. However, there should be accountability. While Hileville owns these forums, they represent the government of TSP. Forum administrators must give deference to the desires of regional governments, not the other way around. Our current administration system lacks in that area. We have seen minor tiffs, but we've seen how that can escalate in other regions, like in Osiris.

[Cormac]

My fundamental principles on this are:

 

1. Forum moderation is forum moderation. Period. Reverting to 3WL and placing moderation in the hands of the same elected official who oversees the Court is putting way too much power in the hands of one person who is not the person ultimately responsible for OOC, forum offenses. TNP has been brought up here, but I would point out they don't even do this -- their admins and moderators warn for OOC, forum offenses.

 

2. There does need to be some accountability for moderation action, though, but this should not mean the government is dictating the minutiae of administration and moderation to administrators and moderators. Accountability should come in a broad form, not get overly detailed, and it should probably come in the form of making moderation decisions subject to a decision of the entire moderator team and not just one admin, decisions made through a formal process which must be followed each and every time except in extraordinary circumstances (i.e., porn spam, obviously).

 

3. We need to come up with some very limited appeal to the Court that would allow warned individuals to argue that the action receiving moderation action is not an OOC, forum offense and is not subject to the tech team's intervention. We don't need administrators acting as our means of justice for in-character offenses.

[Escade]

I do agree with Cormac, my only question is this: Should administration and government be clearly separate? We have some people who are members of both on the admin team and potentially others who will run for office.  This in itself is a murky area.  

 

If the admin team is holding such power that they are moderating the forums with very limited government intervention then they should not be in the government in any capacity so they cannot be accused or seen of using moderation as a political tool. 

[Cormac]

That's problematic, as it becomes a disincentive to serve on the administrative and moderation team. People don't want to be excluded from government because they've volunteered their time and energy to serve as administrators and moderators, which is generally at best a mundane job and at worst a thankless job in which several people are constantly criticizing decisions they don't like.

 

I think it might make some sense to separate administrators and moderators from the judiciary, but I don't think it makes any sense to entirely cut them out of the government. Administrators and moderators should be trusted, active veteran members of the region and these are not the kind of people we want to cut off from serving in government either.

[Escade]

That doesn't make sense to me as it consolidates power. People who don't want to be admins because it prevents them from also being on government should probably not be admins.  Or you know take a break from being admin that particular election term.

 

Admins have a lot of authority, such as being able to see and in the case of TSP, comment on the government's private threads and areas. Therefore, there needs to be some demarcation otherwise again too much power in a small concentrated area.

 

I'm strongly in favor of people who are on the admin team being restricted from running for government while being admins.


It seems like TSP never had an excellent judicial system and it won't unless someone gives up some authority.  If the admin team, emphasis on team here, wants to have control over a huge aspect of TSP then it also needs to have some checks and balances. 

[Cormac]

I'm not in favor of having poor admins and moderators because our best and brightest, and most dedicated and trustworthy, want to be able to continue to serve in our government. We should want those people on both our administrative and moderation teams and in our government. I'm also not in favor of permanently freezing Hileville out of government, given that he is root administrator.

 

I'm against cutting administrators and moderators out of government and would vote against any legislation to that effect, regardless of the merits of the rest of the legislation.

[HEM]

I think that the 3WL was crap because it tried to place basic forum moderation - things like dealing with spamming or trolling - in the GP realm of the justice system. Judicial process in NS is notoriously painful and dysfunctional - TNP is simply the best example of that - and should be reserved for genuinely GP related offences like treason or espionage, or matters like judicial review. General conduct on the forums can be handled much more easily and fairly by the forum moderators.

 

NS Judicial systems need to be streamlined and efficient, with simple rules and procedures and a clear remit, with no extraneous bullshit. Judges should be judges and moderators should be moderators. At the special election for the Chief Justiceship I made my views clear on this, and the region voted for another option.

 

While I certainly see where Bels is coming from here, I think that he has simply only been involved in regions where the judiciary is a hot mess.

 

Building a competent judicial system takes work. It takes a good system, and then it takes legal minds to work in the system, and then it takes actual trials to perfect the system. If we don't send any cases to trial, we will never have a good judicial system

[Escade]

Our best, brightest, most dedicated, trustworthy etc. is an empty statement and demeaning to those who aren't considered to be part of this cozy list.  Someone who joins up tomorrow could be one of these people.

 

The admin team has made it clear that it will control forum moderation, where TSP government resides, and TSP government will have very little say.

 

It needs to either share its authority or otherwise be limited from entering the same government that isn't getting a say to avoid conflict of interest. 

 

 

How is it not a conflict of interest or a severe concentration of power? A member of the admin team can see the CSS section, the private cabinet area, and commentate on it which means that they are basically above the government.  For this person to also want to be in the government at the policy making level is definitely a conflict of interest. 

 

No one stops an admin from taking a break for four months or however long they are elected.

 

The problem with any sort of reform right now is that we have a third leg in TSP government, the administration one, and no checks and balances between the three (executive, legislative and administrative).

[HEM]

Our best, brightest, most dedicated, trustworthy etc. is an empty statement and demeaning to those who aren't considered to be part of this cozy list.  Someone who joins up tomorrow could be one of these people.

 

The admin team has made it clear that it will control forum moderation, where TSP government resides, and TSP government will have very little say.

 

It needs to either share its authority or otherwise be limited from entering the same government that isn't getting a say to avoid conflict of interest. 

 

 

How is it not a conflict of interest or a severe concentration of power? A member of the admin team can see the CSS section, the private cabinet area, and commentate on it which means that they are basically above the government.  For this person to also want to be in the government at the policy making level is definitely a conflict of interest. 

 

No one stops an admin from taking a break for four months or however long they are elected.

 

The problem with any sort of reform right now is that we have a third leg in TSP government, the administration one, and no checks and balances between the three (executive, legislative and administrative).

 

I think this is a very acute summary of our current position.

[Cormac]

Escade, if you think this Assembly is going to help you further your quest to freeze Hileville or other veteran members of this community out of government, you're mistaken. And don't think for a moment that we haven't noticed it.

 

I don't know of any other region that prevents admins from serving in government and this one shouldn't either. Those who are suggesting we should adopt this approach have a very obvious vendetta against some or all of those who are on the administrative team, and should be ashamed of themselves for a) thinking the Assembly is stupid enough to further that vendetta based on flimsy "separation of powers" grounds, b) abusing their position to further an agenda that has everything to do with political motives, while arguing that they're trying to protect against politically motivated abuse of power.

[Escade]

I actually don't have any political agenda against any particular person. I do have a political agenda from the very beginning against extremely undemocratic concentration of power.  

 

Rather then demean me by trying to make this into a silly  personal issue, why not address the actual problem being discussed which is governance in the South Pacific and checks and balances which are usually thought to be a good thing. 

[Cormac]

Yes, I have noticed your positively Milogradian, passionate quest against "undemocratic concentration of power." I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it has targeted veteran members of this community, and that reducing their power would simultaneously increase and consolidate power in the hands of your own clique.

 

To address an actual problem, I would need to see an actual problem. I have suggested appropriate checks on administrative and moderation power. I know of no other region in NationStates that prohibits admins from serving in government and I see no reason to adopt that extreme approach here in the name of "democracy." When did freezing people out of government become democracy, by the way?

[HEM]

To clarify my stance: I do not think admins should be banned from serving in government. That is not a solution to the problem which is that administrators have total power with absolutely zero accountability.

 

What we need is oversight over administrative actions.