Constitutional Law Review: Court Jurisdiction over enforcing site rules

[H Tower]

It's time for my favorite past time, stretching the Constitution and finding loopholes. At this time I'd like to argue that the Court has power to enforce forum rules within the CtP2 DG forum.


Serious Students of the Constitution need only post
I want to actually have a serious debate instead of, "you're crazy" or answers like "no."

Here we go:

Alright, we'll start with the Bill of Rights.

From the CON Article I 3. Freedom of speech and the right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules.

Ok, I'm not interested in the part about "the right to associate into any form of organization." I want to talk about Freedom of Speech.

It says no one is to be denied freedom of speech unless they break site rules, but what happens if someone does break site rules? From the way it is worded, I think that this line gives the Court the power to remove freedom of speech. I say it is the Court who has the power, (in addition to the site moderators of course) because of Article III 1(a)

From the CON The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls and elections, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute involving the game.

Which says the Court has the duty and priveldge of enforcing the CON.

The next thing to debate is what Constitutes freedom of speech and how can it be limited?

I'm going to skip the harder to answer freedom of speech question and begin with "how can it be limited?" Well, the court is given the power to punish people. I refer to Article III 4.(c) and (d)

From the CON
(c) If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution or other rules of Lemuria, it may hand out punishments to these Citizens if it deems this appropriate. The Court will determine for itself what kind of punishment is applied, the punishment must fit the crime. However, no punishments may permanently affect a Citizens participation in the Democracy Game, the Court may not dismiss active members of government (although it may start up impeachment procedures as described in Article V) and the Court may not alter the Constitution (although it may start an Amendment poll, as described in Article IV Subsection 3-IV).

(d)Punishments the Court may hand out include but are not limited to: warnings, impeachment procedures, barring Citizens from specific or any government offices in future elections, banning Citizens from the Democracy Game, declaring resolutions void, closing threads or polls, deleting or editing posts or threads, declaring polls invalid. Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.

Part (c) says the court can hand out punishments that are appropriate. And part (d) lists several punishments the court is entitled to inflict upon a guilty party, although it does allow for other punishments ("Punishments the Court may hand out include but are not limited to")

So for a case of spamming, a possible punishment would be the citizen being unable to make more than 5 posts per day for a month unless special permission is given by the court for say, a contested election in which the citizen needs to campaign. Probation if you will. Of course more severe punishment would be in order if the guilty citizen breaks the 5 posts per day limit within the DG forum.


For posting insults, flaming, insults, or hatred I would lean towards a forum ban, being unable to post for a while within the forum. Other punishments could be being unable to run for office or having locutus delete the posts.

Now of course the forum moderators can over rule the court on punishents that require action by the mods, so the rulings will have to be fair or they will be ignored by the mods. and will become moot.

Back to the question of Freedom of Speech now. Quite simply, freedom of speech for the game is the ability to post whatever you want, (as long as it isn't flaming, insults, hatred) and as often as you like (as long as it isn't spamming)

/me eagerly awaits comments upon his interpretation of the Constitution

[Frozzy]

The way it is worded is showing what you CAN do, not what you can't. The court should have the power to hand out punishments which involve breaking site rules REMOVED, and be handed over to the site moderators/owners (i.e. Ming, Markos, Dan and Loccy).

As per this:

So for a case of spamming, a possible punishment would be the citizen being unable to make more than 5 posts per day for a month unless special permission is given by the court for say, a contested election in which the citizen needs to campaign. Probation if you will. Of course more severe punishment would be in order if the guilty citizen breaks the 5 posts per day limit within the DG forum.

For posting insults, flaming, insults, or hatred I would lean towards a forum ban, being unable to post for a while within the forum. Other punishments could be being unable to run for office or having locutus delete the posts.

Now of course the forum moderators can over rule the court on punishents that require action by the mods, so the rulings will have to be fair or they will be ignored by the mods. and will become moot.

What the CON is asking is absolutely stupid. The moderators have the power over ACS, not some mock court made for a game. Really, the court has no power and the "punishments" section should be dramatically altered or removed. It's taking up space, if you will

[MrBaggins]

Well... theoretically, the court has the ability to prevent a citizen from running in an election, simply by not recognizing them, or removing them, and so on and so forth.

Yes... though... at some point, the 'teeth' of the rules need to come from site administration and not the court.

We do, I guess, need to think about what constitutes a problem that we'd want to have a punishment for.

Spam is, maybe, the most forseeable problem in a DG. However, in many ways... a definition for spam becomes tougher in a DG: voicing an opinion about a candidate... or an intention to vote or... any number of minute and numerous reasons, are on-topic, just as much as the serious task of policy descision making.

I feel, though, that posts about posts... or similar off-topic material could be curtailed by rules.

If we, as I hope we will, increase the amount of decision making polling, it would be nice to reduce the meaningless noise. (With the exception of the Cafe, of course )

Having said all of this, the roleplay is fun.

MrBaggins

[H Tower]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Frozzy
The way it is worded is showing what you CAN do, not what you can't. The court should have the power to hand out punishments which involve breaking site rules REMOVED, and be handed over to the site moderators/owners (i.e. Ming, Markos, Dan and Loccy).
[quote]
Perhaps a rewording then? Because the power to punish clearly still resides with the the mods.

What the CON is asking is absolutely stupid. The moderators have the power over ACS, not some mock court made for a game. Really, the court has no power and the "punishments" section should be dramatically altered or removed. It's taking up space, if you will

I don't know, I don't think it is that bad if you remove the site rules from the court's jurisdiction. Banning people from posting in the forum would be virtually impossible since no crime under the court's jurisdiction would have a banning as an appropriate punishment. I can only think of one: playing ahead, which should really be met with a punishment of a life time ban from the forum.


Mr. Baggins:

Yes... though... at some point, the 'teeth' of the rules need to come from site administration and not the court.

Well the moderator does have a way of disobeying the court.
I quote part of Article II 4.(d)

Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.

His explanation could be as simple as I don't like the punishment and have decided to not obey. And since I'm a mod and you're not, sod off

Can I draw the conclusion then that both of you agree with my interpretation since you are arguing its fallout instead of my reasoning?

[Frozzy]

H Tower is right. If I was a mod, I could say "Nope... I like this guy, so I'm gonna let him off the hook. If you don't like it then **** off."

Either way, you guys can't do anything about it.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Frozzy
H Tower is right. If I was a mod, I could say "Nope... I like this guy, so I'm gonna let him off the hook. If you don't like it then **** off."

Either way, you guys can't do anything about it.

I can dream can't I?

[Gilgamensch]

Interresting that mainly us judges (or ex/soon-judges) are reading/posting here

I wouldn't like to get rid off it, there might be cases, where somebody is not violating the Apolyton's rules, but he might cause 'disturbance' for the DG. Let's say, for example, a civ3'er would come over just to spam or disagree or whatever. No I do not want to blame them for everything.

The court could ban him (OK, so long the mod agrees) from further messages/threads.

Frozzy:

No, we should leave it in, just as a 'reminder' for everyone.



But more important: The court in the moment can not react on it's own, only after being 'contacted'. This I would consider more of a point to change.

[Pedrunn]

Can anyone show where the apolyton rules are? I cant find it!

[Gilgamensch]

try this link to the FAQ

[Pedrunn]

So in summary we are forbidden by apolyton to:

Post off-topic comments
Post insults, flames and hatred comments
Post spamming and advertisements
Create a second login
Behaviour which is considered distruptive to this site.
Explicit sexual discussion allowed
Doing anything after an Admin or Mod tells you not to do it.

And the CTP2DG constitution adds:

Forcing other people to vote (A-I.2)
Prevent people from expressing (A-I.3)
Citizen punishments if not by apolyton or the Court (A-I.4)
Permanent ban of citizens if not by apolyton (A-I.4)
Play Ahead (A-I.5)
Prevent people from candidating (A-II.1.b)
Governor hiding information (A-I.5 and A.II.1.h)
Governor absence from the forums for too long (A-II.1.f and A-II.1.g)
Govenor Disobey resolutions (A-II.1.i)
Governor doing a fuction it was not suppose to (A.II.2)
Invalid polls (A.IV)

Other than giving the people their rights. the rest of the constitution are the teaching of procedures for the court (elections, resignations, polling, court powers, etc...).
So i asumed the court doesnt make mistakes.

So the Court isnt that powerless after all!

[Gilgamensch]

So i asumed the court doesnt make mistakes.

How do you mean? Nobody is perfect, but decision have to be based on the connie.

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
How do you mean? Nobody is perfect, but decision have to be based on the connie.

I know!
After all Case001 does prove the the oppose and tamerlin due to this MoDA election says the same .

I am just saying that the Court is difficult to make rules like those listed. Since its mistake are created by minor errors in its procedures (elections, resignations, case filing, punishing, etc...).
I was trying to show the power of the court over the citizens in the list (thats what we are discussing here)

[Gilgamensch]

that is always the problem........

Little 'errors' in the draft can leave big loopwholes in the end.

The court can only rule open cases opened, but not activly on it's own. I would like too see some complaints/cases. I could see problems with withholding information and couple of other things, but nobody seems to bother. I can't do anything (as long as I am judge), THAT would be a point I would like to change.

But taking this power (mentioned above) away from the court, could 'hurt' us a lot more. When we were constructing the connie, I wanted to have it in, just in case. You never know, what can happen........I am actually thinking of using part of it. Like in the election-poll. That was way above the limit. If users have a problem, they should file a case and that's it. They shouldn't in something like this..........

[Locutus]

unless it violates Apolyton rules.

I think this is the key. Whether or not someone violates Apolyton rules can only be determined by the Apolyton staff. Spam and flames are in the eye of the beholder, so you need an authority (i.e. a mod) to determine what is and what isn't. The Court and other people here can think whatever they want, but as long as a mod doesn't agree that the rules of Apolyton are being violated (to a sufficient extend to warrent punishment), they aren't. So without a mod's consent, the Court can't convict anyone for spamming or flaming, let alone punish him for it.

The Court has the right to rule over the material covered in the Constitution. While this doesn't include the rules of Apolyton (see above), it does include things like people playing ahead, people posting in threads where Government Officials (with 'the right to make rules as they see fit') specifically asked them not to, presidents deliberately ignoring orders, ministers ignoring resolutions, etc... The Court does have the right to rule over these things and to hand out whatever punishment it sees fit.

Of course, if this punishment requires action by a mod but doesn't have his consent, it's simply not gonna happen. So one could argue that this makes the ruling of the Court meaningless because basically the mod is in charge and not the Court. However, MarkG made clear in the C3DG as well as (to a lesser extend) in the CtP1DG that he takes any decision from the Court and the People very seriously. As CtP2DG mod, I will do the same here (and in the CtP1DG too, if I continue to be a mod there). If a ruling by the Court is reasonable and well thought-out, I will carry it out (or ask MarkG or Ming to carry it out, since I'm far from omnipotent myself ).

[MrBaggins]

So perhaps we should have one extra position in our DG: a composite policeman/detective AND queens council/district attorney, who's job it was to see that the DG game laws be obeyed, and to raise issues to the court. The individual should be elected by consent of the judges and not the general citizenry.

Thus, the legal system would be proactive.

On another matter. We should get a personal resolution from a moderator that he would enforce the will of the court, should it be so necessary to do so, regardless of personal feeling, with the exception of severity, to which, they have some discretion in.