Debate: Penal Codes

[ThePlagueRat]

I agree with Togas. On this site, we must let the MODs decide.
I've been visiting a forum here in Norway (an unnamed online tabloid) where the MODs are quite stupid and acts inconsistently.

As far as I can see, the MODs behave well in here.
So a High Court reporting site-specific crimes to them, sounds fair enough. As to the constitutional issues this court
should not involve any MOD, but make rulings and let the administration execute it in some way.
Good, but the internet in many ways an anarchy...

[Captain]

Hmmm, perhaps I wasn't clear, but Togas knew what I was getting at... or he was thinking along the same lines anyways.

What I mean by not having the power to enforce is that we physically can't do anything. We can't throw anyone in jail, fine them, or do any of that sort of thing.

The best "we" can do, is ban them. And by "we", I don't mean us regular folks, I mean the mods. No matter what we do here in this game, those decisions lie with the mods. Apolyton is a private site and the owners have final say (aside from whatever laws govern the internet in the countries where the Apolyton infrastructure "resides"). The owners have decided to give certain powers to the mods to use at their discretion, and that is the way things are done. Don't like it? Take it up with Mark or Dan.


The best we (regular folks) can do, is keep some kind of "official" record or a file of infractions which we would use as evidence to persuade one of the mods to punish someone. Namely by a temporary or permanent ban, since that is the "highest" form of punishment even the mods can give.

---

I suggest that if our Court decides the person is guilty of something serious enough that we want them temporarily/permanently banned from the C3DG game, the Court then sends a PM to the C3DG mods and ask for a ban. But there is no guarantee that the mods will comply. That is why we keep the record/file of infractions and the Judges report. Not only to convince ourselves, but as evidence to persuade the mods this would be in the forum's best interest.

The sad truth is, our Court has no teeth because there is no way to make mods enforce the rulings. We can only hope they do. So let's not set ourselves up for disappointment.

[Spiffor]

Captain :
Actually, we have some ways to pressure people, even if they're not significant. I listed above the punishments we can exert, but I'll repeat them here :

- forbid someone to name a city
- forbid someone to run for official posts
- impeach someone ho is currently in an official post
- massively ignore someone
- permanetly flame someone whenever we see him on the forum

With this, the court will have teeth, even if they aren't very sharp . I didn't think of any other ways to enforce the court's decisions without asking to the mods, but maybe people can come out with other ideas.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Captain :
Actually, we have some ways to pressure people, even if they're not significant. I listed above the punishments we can exert, but I'll repeat them here :

- forbid someone to name a city
- forbid someone to run for official posts
- impeach someone ho is currently in an official post
- massively ignore someone
- permanetly flame someone whenever we see him on the forum

With this, the court will have teeth, even if they aren't very sharp . I didn't think of any other ways to enforce the court's decisions without asking to the mods, but maybe people can come out with other ideas.

you're right, of course. there are some ways, sorry for not acknowledging it. But we really haven't given the Court the power to sentence yet. I suppose that's why we have this thread...

Forbid naming a city is pretty minor, but could be annoying enough to discourage "crimes".

Forbid running for official post is pretty good for someone who abused their position or interfered with the proper functioning of government. But as a deterrant, only useful against those who have such ambitions.

Both the above aren't deterrants or really punishments for a malicious "sh*t disturber".

Impeach is only useful against existing officials, and is expected to be a separate amendment anyways.

Massively ignore someone could work and does work. But I think this is already unconscious and works best that way. This one is difficult because it can't be enforced except voluntarily and on an individual basis. Therefore, a Court sentencing "Official Ignoring" would be toothless if people refused to ignore that person. And if they are willing to ignore them, they likely would have anyways. So this is at best redundant, and at worst ridiculous.

Permanently flame someone? That'll get us banned!

But it was a good attempt. We should continue to look at other deterrants because we don't want our last resort (banning) to be the only one - especially since that's mod dependent.

[kring]

I am personally against flaming people. It doesn't do the game, Apolyton, or anyone else any good; just results in flame wars.

There is a way, don't how to do it here, where the mods can make a person's posts invisible to everyone but the poster. The person thinks there are still posting visibly, but aren't. It is a way to handle trouble makers. I have seen it used against several people at other boards. If you just ban them, they can find ways to get back in, even with IP logging on.

Since my blood sugar level is low right now, my eyesight is temporarily not so good. That said, if I didn't see it, my apologies:

How about banning them from citizenship, exile. I am sure there is one or more ways to achieve this. This would be for the most grievous (whatever crime[s] they would entain).

[GodKing]

Be carefull folks.

I read Togas above, so I shall not repeat. But please, before we codify anything, just think long and hard about it. Once it is in stone, it is a ***** to change....

The fact that we have (or at least soon will) a court implies explicity that there will be.... rulings (that word works for now). Enforcement will be decided later IF it becomes necessary.

[civman2000]

I also think flaming is bad...cruel and unusual punishment

[Spiffor]

Note : I don't really support flaming (you'll notice I've almost never flames in 6 months of 'poly). I'm just looking for ways to pressure people in our virtual Democracy, even the worse ones.
When we'll find all kinds of possible punishments, we'll be able to tell what punishment should always be forbidden. We'll also be able to know what punishment will enforce our laws.

Thanks Kring for thinking of banning someone from citizenry, I didn't think about it.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Banning someone from citizenry is impossible right now. Have we heard from MarkG yet on ways to ensure only members vote? If he finds a way, then this is certainly a great option for a punishment, but should be a last resort.

For any offence I can think of, that's the domain of the mods. Whatever you do on this site, if a few people complain to a Mod, the Mod will let the poster know about it. If it continues, I imagine the Mod would PCR them or send them to Mingapulco for a week. In the extreme case (which I hope we never see here), they would be permabanned. From what I've seen, this applies not just for breaking rules like evading the autocensor ( ), spamming excessively, flaming, posting hate threads or setting up DLs et al, but also for things not covered in the above that aggravate other posters.

There may be no Mod rule about playing ahead in a Civ3 Demo game or other things that would be harmful to us, but if the Court made a ruling and PMed the Mods, we would get action, representing as they would the feelings of a group of as many as 150 posters.

We don't need any punishment beyond somehow banning someone from being a Demo game citizen (if that becomes possible) except for PMing a Mod if the Court so decides. All we must do is decide on all the offences and their relative severities.

[kring]

You are welcome Spiffor. I agree it would be a last resort. Also, banning should be possible, how easy to implement I don't know. You could ban them from voting if MarkG implements the option, which would be the same as banning them. If the problem got too severe, MarkG or someone could ban them from the site altogether.

I am a mod at another site, and fortunately, I have never had to ban someone; the owner of the site has had to modify a couple of users similar to a ban, but that also has been rare, and a last resort for major violators.

I would think lesser punishments would take care of the few times it would probably happen.

Let the punishment fit the crime is a good motto.

I hope our use of any punishment to be rare, if ever. But it doesn't hurt to have something ready, just in case. Sometimes, knowing there is a punishment is enough to deter most of the ones thinking about breaking the rules.