Chief Justice and the Judicial System: Reform Discussion

[Escade]

In how many other NS regions does one person own the forum exclusively and term it a good enough reason to make decisions unilaterally?

 

Actually, the troubling thing I find about Belschaft and Hileville was that any time I wanted to make a decisions that they didn't agree with I was threatened or bullied in a number of ways including investigations into my background\character\identity which went pretty deep and would make anyone uncomfortable especially if they believe in the right to privacy and the second which was also ridiculous which was that I am leading the South Pacific to civil war.

 

Thanks for comparing me to Milograd, that is the douche move that I can expect from anyone who doesn't like my opinions. 


Oh and admin team, that previous sentence deserves me some sort of warning. 

[Cormac]

I completely agree with more oversight, for the record, depending on the details of that. I just don't agree with the extreme, virtually unprecedented approach of cutting admins off from government service.

[Cormac]

In how many other NS regions does one person own the forum exclusively and term it a good enough reason to make decisions unilaterally?

 

Actually, the troubling thing I find about Belschaft and Hileville was that any time I wanted to make a decisions that they didn't agree with I was threatened or bullied in a number of ways including investigations into my background\character\identity which went pretty deep and would make anyone uncomfortable especially if they believe in the right to privacy and the second which was also ridiculous which was that I am leading the South Pacific to civil war.

 

Thanks for comparing me to Milograd, that is the douche move that I can expect from anyone who doesn't like my opinions. 


Oh and admin team, that previous sentence deserves me some sort of warning. 

 

In how many regions? How about all of them? Every region has a root administrator, and most make the ultimate decisions on OOC, forum matters.

 

Could they perhaps have been investigating you because you were once using proxies and you are, y'know, suspicious? Generally when a virtual unknown is elected, uncontested, to the Delegacy and starts systematically trying to isolate and freeze out veteran members of the community, playing various factions of the community against each other in an almost machiavellian way, and is also using a proxy, there tend to be investigations. I'm legitimately shocked this community even elected you Delegate, though naturally your isolation campaign against Hileville and Belschaft didn't start until you were already in the Delegacy.

 

Call me names all you want, Madame Delegate, but I call a spade, a spade, and I've bitten my tongue on your crusade against veteran members of this community long enough. You're not the only relatively new person to TSP, and we aren't all on board with your campaign to isolate and freeze out the people who have served this community for years to increase the power of your clique.

[Belschaft]

I don't like the things Escade is accusing me of - I also find the accusation rather absurd and insulting - but I also don't like the things Cormac is accusing Escade of. You both need to take a chill pill and a step back.

[Southern Bellz]

This is getting absolutely crazy to the point where I don't want to engage in anything in the assembly.


I've read a couple of threads that have now declared the admins, assembly, and CSS as untrustworthy. At this point we might as well pass a law saying no one can do anything in TSP because we can't apparently trust anyone to do anything.


This region will stagnate into oblivion if this attitude continues. We should be breeding a culture that encourages creative risk, not one built upon absolute paranoia that tries to account for every what if situation.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Unibot]

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).

 

Agreed, the question is how to properly address this - my proposal was only one attempt. I will like to point to some of the commentators here that I was not suggesting blocking admins from serving in the government, simply the judiciary -- where their roles can overlap in toxic ways.

 

I do think however Cormac's suggestions do not go far enough - a broad set of standards from the Assembly to the Admins, actually is very troublesome because broadness is the main ingredient for political flexibility. What I'm getting at is: we all get mad. We're human. When discussions get tough, our communication gets rough. A problem arises when, however, moderation is applied selectively and non-proportionately to target some people that the admins simply just want to get rid of for political reasons. 

 

There are some ways to reduce this:

 

- Give admins veto powers over banning players - as opposed to taking votes. Meaning, there needs to be a consensus on those serious decisions.

- Pursue a diversified range of admins. They all have to be people who the community trusts, but it also seems like the main admins are also political associates with the same goals in mind. For example, Glen-Rhodes is a technical-minded person and could fulfill the role of Admin.

- Require specific and disseminated justifications over the banning of players -- we need to know what specific cases led to the banning of a player and these facts need to temporally make sense. If a player's last warning was four weeks ago (and prior to that, six months ago), then why is he or she only being banned now? What's prompted their banning now? The Admin can say "it's due to their poor conduct", but that doesn't mean there isn't personal and political gain involved -- and the timing there is important to establishing the internal consistency of the Admin's narrative.

- Subject Moderation to the Charter -- you cannot give out warnings for saying something politically sensitive if it is not flamebaiting or trolling.  

[Unibot]

I will also point out to those calling us out for "TNP-izing" TSP -- there is a history there in regards to TNP's moderation. TNP originally left "Old Blue" (it's old forum) essentially to avoid what some called "forum tyranny" by The Twoslit Experiment (who I have been told was a pretty cool guy, although the complaints were valid). Today, TNP tends to be undermoderated by Grosse and Flem in response to what they perceive to have been overmoderation by Twoslit.

 

Overmoderation becomes a problem here, because it's difficult to distinguish between what are legitimate moderator actions and actions with political motives behind them. 

[Cormac]

As I've already said, I can see a compelling case for blocking admins from serving on the judiciary, just not the rest of the government, so I could potentially be in favor of that.

 

I think administrative consensus for bans would be fine, I agree that justification for bans need to be specific, and I agree with subjecting moderation to the legal system to some degree -- hence my earlier suggestion that warned, or obviously banned, players should be able to appeal to the Court that their warning or ban was not legitimately for an OOC offense. I'm less sure about a diversified range of admins. I think that's good policy, yes, and would urge its adoption, but I don't like telling the root administrator who to appoint as admins in a binding way. I'm also not sure how we would write a law for diversified admins.

[Hileville]

I will say that GR was on my short list for admins when we brought back HEM.  Had he not released info from the Government thread he would probably be an admin right now.  He is still also on a so called short list for when we need another admin.  I also plan on asking him a few questions about our new host before the forum move.

 

Now that I have addressed that, the only reason I looked into Escade's background was my position on the CSS and the only reachable admin who has extensive knowledge of IP addresses.  I was and still am a supporter of hers and a majority of her ideas.  However, I am not pleased with some of the "propaganda" that has been spread by certain members of this community about the admin team.  It really does not give me any incentive on wanting to continue to host the forums.

 

I really don't know what else you want me to say.  I am fine with limited oversight of admin actions but not under the current judicial system here.  HEM who convinced me of this was in agreement about that core fact.  Making the Judicial reform about limiting the admin power is not the way to go about this.  It is a poor attempt by Unibot to continue his grudge against members of the admin team.

[Sandaoguo]

[quote name="Cormac" post="118512" timestamp="1393605826"]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.[/quote]

I generally agree with this.

I don't agree with Escade that admins should be barred from government positions. I see her point and it's not without merit. It can be dangerous for the two to overlap and we've seen it explode many times in NS. However, I think we can fix it through accountability, which would hopefully cause a cultural change over time they would make all the dangers go away.

There have been some inappropriate things done during Escades turn. What everybody needs to realize is that for a long time the Cabinet was composed of many admins. Most, if not all, previous delegates were admins. The current Cabinet has two admins only. So there have been incidents where us non-admins believed former Cabinet members, who still had access to the classified Cabinet forums as admins, we're acting inappropriately by engaging in policy debates with the Cabinet. This is the first Cabinet where we've had to adjust the Cabinet-administration relationship. It's expected that there will be problems, since we're asking admins to not do something they've become used to doing.

That's where the desire for total separation comes from, I think. We haven't had a mature talk about what's appropriate for admins when they're not also in government. When I brought it up during the aforementioned incident, the admin in question took it as an attack and caused drama over it. What we need is to sit down and demarcate the authority, abilities, and duties of government officials and admins. The status quo is simply a powder keg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Punk D]

Man, this thread has become a sh--storm.

 

First, I was there during the Twoslit era. I am also a present admin on TNP's boards. Twoslit went nuts and the community stayed on the boards as long as they could. There was a significant attachment to "old blue" but Twoslit made life unbearable. We were forced to move.

 

I say that to say that admins are only as strong as the communities that support them. If the TSP community lost faith in this admin team, they would do what TNP did 9 years ago aka create new forums. Being an administrator doesn't give you a divine right to rule however you like. On the contrary, being an administrator is a job where you put in a lot of work and don't always get the kudos you deserve. You're viewed as a respected member of the community entrusted with protecting the integrity of the place where we all converse - these message boards. If that trust is lost, be it justified or not, the community will leave.

 

Obviously, from what Escade and Cormac have stated there are some hurt feelings and mistrust. That shouldn't taint this discussion and it really doesn't help. 

 

The question, really the only question, we need to answer is - do we want to allow admins to hold any governmental role? My answer is yes save delegate. In general, I don't believe delegate's should be admins as I've found that to be problematic in different situations. But, honestly, if the delegate were an admin I wouldn't cry about it.

 

I think I may have said earlier in this thread that the critical point is that admins are trusted. If that trust is lost it doesn't matter if they are in government or not. Now let's step back and stop having 3 different arguments in this thread. 

 

Do we want admins to have roles in government? Yes or no or one of those with caveats? Past situations probably influence our answer, but as a community, let's make this decision without all the name-calling and innuendo. 

[Kris Kringle]

I'm genuinely disappointed at how several posts in this thread have been about accusing others and bickering about whether someone has or not a secret agenda. I would have thought that we were already past that, but if this is the way things are going to be then I'd rather not participate in this region. I became involved in our government because I wanted to improve this region, but this thread makes me think some don't have that same objective, or at least have forgotten about it.


I can agree with Unibot's latest suggestion, and want to make clear that as far as I'm concerned it will only damage the region to start forbidding people to serve in our government because of their adminship. We must value people because of their individual merits, not because of the job they do in maintaining our forum. Should they be somehow accountable when moderating? Absolutely. But please let's be civil about it.

[Escade]

That was my point from when this issue first came up and which I already stated in at least three different threads. Administration needs to be held accountable and there needs to be a clear procedure for any decisions. The moderation rules and moderation warnings methods need to be discussed and then made public and they need to be agreed upon by the community, let's say the assembly.

 

If administration can be involved in decisions that impact government such as banning a player from the forums and thus from voting\exercising citizenship, then government needs to have some say in at least the basis from which administration is making those decisions. Such as helping develop the moderation rules, helping monitor the warnings\point systems so that if a player does appeal they can have some sort of hard evidence\data to examine rather then nebulous decisions. 


For all the players who found banning admin from government positions to be so startling, perhaps the opposite - preventing government from having any say in administration of the forums where governance primarily and almost entirely takes place needs to be addressed as well. 

[Cormac]

The Assembly should have some say in administration of the forums, through the rule of law and in such a way that admins aren't impeded from dealing with the legitimately OOC aspects of the forum. The Cabinet shouldn't have any say in the administration of the forums.

[Sandaoguo]

What do you mean by "administration," Cormac? Cabinet members are expected to moderate their respective forum areas. That means the Chair of the Assembly is perhaps the most important moderator on these forums. Does that count as administration? Or are we talking about user bans? Bans are mostly done because of criminal activity, which is an executive matter. I think saying the Cabinet has no role in forum administration is a bit extreme. There needs to be a broad-based contribution, with input from all sectors of government, on how the forums are run, because we are all users of these forums.

[Belschaft]

I challenge anyone to provide a single example of administration overreach, political interference, etc. I challenge anyone to provide a single example where I have 'threatened or bullied' someone. I challenge anyone to provide a single example where I have misused or otherwise exploited my status as an admin for political gain.

 

I will not be smeared or defamed.

[Kris Kringle]

I think we've had enough of this. Please remember that this thread is about judicial reform, not about the integrity of our administration team. If any of you wants to discuss that, take it to another thread now.

[Belschaft]

To hell with that Kris. I have been accused of some incredibly unpleasant things in this thread, and they are either going to be substantiated or withdrawn and apologized for.

[Cormac]

Yeah, Kris, you don't get to shut down debate as soon as Escade is challenged on what she said. You're Vice Delegate, not Chair of the Assembly.

[Kris Kringle]

There is no excuse to threadjack a discussion on judicial reform. You have every right to defend yourself, but not here. Make another thread for that, or talk directly with your accusers. That goes to everyone, not just you. I'm not shutting down debate, Cormac. I'm telling you guys to take it elsewhere, and let the judicial reform thread be about judicial reform. Is that so difficult to ask? I don't think so.

[Cormac]

It only goes to everyone after Escade has smeared someone and is being challenged, which is a consistent pattern of behavior for both of you. Escade says what she has to say and you swoop in to shut down debate with accusations of threadjacking or flaming as soon as she's challenged on it. And to think, we're concerned that the admins are the ones abusing their power.

 

Escade is the one who linked the administrative discussion to judicial reform, and it is in fact relevant to judicial reform because admins are responsible for enforcement of OOC offenses and we need to discuss what role, if any, the judiciary should have in that. That's how this discussion started. Escade has made some claims in relation to that discussion that she now needs to actually back them up.

[Hileville]

Everyone needs to cool down a bit here.

 

<b>This is an informal warning to all members in this thread.  The Mod team will begin issuing warnings to individual members admin/GM or not.</b>

[Lord Ravenclaw]

Hello ladies, so glad to see that you're all having fun. Apologies for the next bit.

 

*throws a bucket of ice cold water over everyone*

 

Why has this gone from a very important discussion regarding judicial reform to what appears to be a catfight on the admin team?

 

Do I need to bring Rosie into the South Pacific and declare this region part of her Empire? I promise you this, -stares at Escade- I will do it. You would have to forget "Glitter Colony Number 1".

 

Holy shitcakes.

 

Now, moving back to the original topic. -glares at the above people-

 

I would like to see the following:

 

1. Moderators on the forum actually taking charge and working on the forum

 - to achieve this, I'd suggest a clear and concise statement of responsibility and required knowledge for any and all moderators on what their duties would be and that they would be accountable to the courts for abuse of power.

2. A reasonable criminal code which would give the court some use besides once a decade trials

3. A reasonable set up - three magistrates, appointed by the Assembly for six month terms perhaps, open to reconfirmation at the end of the terms at the discretion of the Assembly.

4. A procedure to appeal Moderator or Admin decisions regarding moderation.

 

Probably more, but I've just decided to pop in from my Leave of Absence (aka vacation) and I don't plan on returning for a few days yet.

[HEM]

Huzzah! My official proposal! Start the hate parade!

 

 

Article 4: The High Court of the South Pacific

Section 1 - Composition and Powers

1. The High Court shall be chaired by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice shall be elected by the region at the midpoint between General Elections.
   
   
2. The High Court shall be responsible for determining innocence or guilt in criminal cases.
   
3. The High Court may declare any whole General Law --or portions within such law  -- that conflict with the Charter defunct.
   
4. The High Court holds the sole power to remove citizenship outside of regular legislation that outlines reasonable upkeep requirements or security imperatives.
   
   

Section 2 - Criminal Cases

1. If charges are filled against a citizen the case will be held in the High Court.
   
2. The Chief Justice will be responsible for keeping order in the court. He has the power to penalize citizens for being in contempt of the court.
   
3. The Chief Justice, in conjunction with the Assembly, is responsible for establishing a consistent and just manner for hearing criminal cases.
   
4. Excessive absenteeism from the prosecution may result in a dismissal of a case. Excessive absenteeism from the defense may result in a defaulted guilty verdict upon the defendant. 
   

 

Section 3 - Legal Questions

1. Legal questions will always initially be handled by the HighCourt.
   
2. Legal questions must be answered within a reasonable amount of time.
   

 

Section 4 - Other

1. The Chief Justice is not prohibited from joining the Assembly or any associated organization in the South Pacific barring a political party or interest group.
   
2. The Chief Justice shall have the authority to examine laws and make recommendations to the Assembly, however he may not arbitrarily issue a judgement or opinion on laws without a specific legal question being filed.
   
3. If a matter even sits before the High Court for 72 hours without comment, the Chief Justice shall be temporarily suspended, and the Assembly shall select a temporary stand-in to handle the matter before the court.
   

 

 

Article 5: The South Pacific Court of Appeal

<b>Section 1 - Composition and Powers</b>

1. The South Pacific Court of Appeal shall be chaired by the Appellate Judge. The Appellate Judge shall be appointed by the Delegate with a majority confirmation vote in the Assembly.
   
2. The South Pacific Court of Appeal (or Court of Second Instance) will be tasked with handling appeals from criminal questions, legal questions, and appeals on administrative team decisions. 
   
3. The Court of Appeal has the power to overturn any verdict made by the High Court, and overturn select decisions made by the administrative team.
   

Section 2 - Criminal Case Appeals

1. To appeal a criminal case decision the defendant or his representative must file a notice with the Court of Appeals within fourteen (14) days of the High Court ruling.
   
2. The notice must include the objections the defense has with the ruling, and a justification for why the case should be heard a second time.
   
3. The Court of Appeals has five (5) days to decide whether to hear the Appeal Case.
   
4. If the Court choses to hear the case, it is required to do so in a timely manner. Like the High Court, the Court of Appeals may acquit or find guilt due to excessive absenteeism.
   
5. The Court of Appeals is the final court of appeal in criminal decisions. No decision made in the court can be appealed further.
   

Section 3 - Legal Question Appeals

1. To appeal a legal decision the original stakeholder asking the question must file a notice with the Court of Appeals within fourteen (14) days of the High Court ruling.
   
2. The notice must include a legal argument for why the High Court was mistaken in their ruling.
   
3. The Court of Appeals has five (5) days to decide whether to answer the question.
   
4. If the Court does chose to hear the question again, it is required to do so in a timely manner. 
   
5. The Court of Appeals is the final court of appeal on legal questions.
   

Section 4 - Administrative Team Appeals

1. To appeal an administrative team action, a citizen must file a notice with the Court of Appeals within fourteen (14) days of the action in question.
   
2. The notice must include a legal argument for why the administrative team action violated the Charter, violated the tenants of democracy, or unnecessarily infringed upon the rights of South Pacifician citizens.
   
3. Actions taken by the administrative team that involve any of the following may not be appealed to the court:
   <ol><li>Real life threats or harassment
   
4. Pornography
   
5. Illegal Content
   
6. Spambots
   
7. Exposure of real life information
   
8. Espionage of the region
   
9. Hacking of the Board
   

</li>
[*]Actions taken by the administrative team that involve any of the following may not be appealed to the court unless the action is argued to be excessive or unjust:

<li>Temporary (being defined as under 96 hours) suspension of a member

1. Placing a member on post moderation
   
2. Altering signature / avatar content
   

</li>
[*]The Court of Appeals has five (5) days to decide whether to consider the appeal.
[*]In an appeal is considered the administrative team shall select up to two members to defend themselves before the court. Refusal to participate in the appeal process may result in the court finding in favor of the complainant. 
[*]The appeal must be considered in a timely manner.
[*]If the Court of Appeals orders the overturning of an administrative team decision, it must officially notify the administrative team of this decision via a public post.
[*]If the administrative team responds with a unanimous vote rejecting the appeal court verdict, the Appeal Court decision may be stayed for up to 30 days. If the Administrative Team remains unanimously opposed to the decision after 30 days, the region shall hold a formal referendum to settle the affair.
</ol>Section 5 - Other

1. The Appellate Justice may partially recuse himself from a criminal case by convening a jury to decide the verdict. The Appellate Justice will still be responsible for moderating the case. Any jury convened shall be made up of three citizens with no obvious bias toward one party or the other.
   
2. The Appellate Justice is not prohibited from joining the Assembly or any associated organization in the South Pacific barring a political party or interest group.
   
3. The Appellate Justice shall have the authority to examine laws and make recommendations to the Assembly, however he may not arbitrarily issue a judgement or opinion on laws without a specific legal question being filed.
   

 

[HEM]

Oh yeah, the rest of the articles would have to be renumbered since I added one. I am looking for feedback