PUBLIC INVESTIGATION - Discussion (donsig)

[Duke of Marlbrough]

~All of this is only my opinion~

I purposely tried to stay out of 'enforcing' the demo games rules because that is up to the players. I only stepped into discussions where it seemed necessary to keep the game moving (and to keep people from killing each other).

If donsig did not listen to a Mods warning about the forum rules, then it is up to the Mod to handle it.

If donsig did not listen to a Mods warning about the games rules, then it is up to the Game to handle it.

Whether or not the Mods should enforce to Game rules, is something that should be open for discussion. I had not done it because I wanted to let the people play the game. That way they can see and deal with the ramifications of their choices in the game.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough

If donsig did not listen to a Mods warning about the forum rules, then it is up to the Mod to handle it.

If donsig did not listen to a Mods warning about the games rules, then it is up to the Game to handle it.

Whether or not the Mods should enforce to Game rules, is something that should be open for discussion. I had not done it because I wanted to let the people play the game. That way they can see and deal with the ramifications of their choices in the game.

And that is the key point here....this is a cross over situation, as donsig may have violated game rules but was subject to Mod enforcement, that later was submitted for game enforcement.

I am very much a reluctant (but persistent) prosecutor in this case for reasons noted in a different thread, but this is the main point, as I feel uneasy prosecuting someone for what stemmed from Moderator action.

I know both parties don't mind the discussion itself going on, and therefore I will keep the PI open. However, CT, it would be greatly appreciated if your nominee for Chief Justice is in place soon.

Bill
Judge Advocate

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate - Process Notification

This discussion thread can be ended at anytime after 48 hours have passed.

I ask all citizens, with interest in the matter, to post their views on if this matter should be brought to a TRIAL POLL. This will satisfy the conditions of Point 6.

The Judge Advocates office continues to reserve the right to call for a judiciary dismissal vote in this matter.

Bill
Judge Advocate

 

[disorganizer]

i second donsigs request-posting in the forum. none of our subforums should be totally closed to citizen input. he had a clear point when asking for opinion.
i also second shaitans removal of the post. he had to enforce the existing rules.
what i can not second is donsigs persiting posting though he was warned many times...
hard to rule this one. but as we are at the time after the game a pi would be senseless anyways.

 

[Almightyjosh]

Originally posted by Cyc
Donsig may be guilty of being a big pain in the arse, but this is not a violation of the Constitution, other-wise AJ would probably be banned by now.

Hey, what did I do? Maybe I don't want an answer to that...

Regardless, as I have stated in some other threads, Donsig has breached BOTH the forum rules and the demogame rules, not to mention using a total lack of common sence, being a pain in the arse and giving the game a tone that it did not need. We are doing him a MASSIVE favour by keeping this as an in-house issue. Were it taken to TF, as has been sugested, I doubt that Donsig would be treated in the leneant way that we are now (ie getting a trial and a defence and being judged by his friends) and would definately end up with a harsher penalty.

Shaitan acted as a mod to enforce demogame rules. If he had not, and Donsig had continued to post, we would have had to request Shaitan or eyeri do it anyway. Donsig knew, or ought to have known, that his initial postings were not appropriate. Even if this was not the case, after being told by multiple people to desist on occations amounting to 3 warnings, he had sufficiant time to stop and continue the discussion elsewhere.

All sympathy for Donsig must evaporate if, like me, you are aware of the original content of the posts, which was basically just a thinly veiled accusation that the senators did not understand the law or no what they were doing, and a DEMAND that they explain themselves when there was clearly no need to do so.

Though it may be the game is finished, we are still making important decitions to shape our law for the next game. It is important that the integrity of our law is upheld.
Donsig must be found guilty.

 

[Cyc]

Oh, darn. I guess we're going to have to PI Chieftess and EA from the Foreign Affairs Office now, too. I had to edit this post as originally I thought Octavian X had part of that conversation.

 

[Octavian X]

As always, I remain completely confused

My position still has not changed. Donsig clearly violated the Code of Laws. His post were in a place that was inapproitiate.

As for the accused breech in forum rules, that matter probably shouldn't be discussed. All complaints, I believe, should be taken up with a mod, or Thunderfall. I can't legally enforce that, not at least yet

 

[Cyc]

Just to clarify Octavian X, I was referring to CT's Council Vote to get you approved. Now I'm going to have to PI myself too.

 

[Eklektikos]

I believe Eyrei posted in the Council Vote thread too... should he have "moderator action"-ed himself as soon as he posted?

On a more serious note, no one is constitutionally required to be nice to the senate, or to the council, or to anyone whatsoever. The content of his posts is not relevant to this investigation, only whether it was constitutionally inappropriate for him to post in the Senate Vote thread.

 

[Almightyjosh]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
On a more serious note, no one is constitutionally required to be nice to the senate, or to the council, or to anyone whatsoever. The content of his posts is not relevant to this investigation, only whether it was constitutionally inappropriate for him to post in the Senate Vote thread.

What I was illustrating goes directly to that issue. Not only was the very fact that he posted in the thread (and continued to do so until the thread had to be closed) but that the very content of the posts was innapropriate to the thread in which it was being posted. It was not a thread for discussions and allegations, but one for voting only. We would not need quite as many rules as we do now if we could believe people like Donsig could show some respect for other citizens and post 'appropriately'.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

[remove JA hat]

Eklektikos has made a key point that should be discussed as it has reaching implications beyond even this PI.

That being, what prevents a citizen from posting in a voting thread? Does the right of free speech override an implied restriction on posts in a voting thread?

What then of the precedent already set in other voting threads where no one was PI'd for violating the implied rule?

[/remove JA hat]

Bill

 

[Almightyjosh]

When I suggested we were doing him a favour by not turning this into a mod issue, Donsig invited me to take the matter to TF...
I asked TF what would happen if someone had done what Donsig had done and someone reported them. TF said that the likely ban would be one week and that it was 'a big nono' in ANY forum to ignore a moderator.

It didn't 'dob in' Donsig, I asked the question in hypotheticals, because I still think this can be resolved by us. But it does illustrate that the very act of a trial and a defender, etc. and the move to prosecute under phoenatican law and not forum rules should be viewed as positive by Donsig.

Now I am going to bed to let the debate rage on while I sleep in blissful ignorance.

 

[disorganizer]

bill has a big point here. the rules state clearly that the constitution overrides the other books. the rule of free speach is in the constitution, so the other rule is invalid!
great work discovering that flaw, bill!
it fits in the line with the "should" cases.... and also poll-restrictions (yes, this constitutional paragraph also implies i can post a informational poll just as i like as expresion of my free will!).

 

[Octavian X]

Looking at what Bill said earlier, I believe that this should be brought to a trial poll.

Now, to respond to disorganizer...

Originally posted by disorganizer
bill has a big point here. the rules state clearly that the constitution overrides the other books. the rule of free speach is in the constitution, so the other rule is invalid!

The way I see it, the Code of Laws is not conflicting with Article A of the constitution. The CoL simply better defines what 'free speech' is, and it's restrictions.

 

[disorganizer]

But i think this definitely shows what pits we fall into. Our ruleset needs to be defined better and clearer.

 

[Octavian X]

That's what the judiciary is here for. To define the laws of our nation.

[chief justice hat]
Now, we're off topic. I request that futher discussion in this thread be on the PI of donsig. Other subjects should be discussed in other areas.
[/chief justice hat]

 

[disorganizer]

last comment:
no. judicacy is for enforcing law, legislative for defining it
end of last comment.
who puts this pi up for a poll?
should i do it then it will propably be invalid be defintion...

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I believe Eyrei posted in the Council Vote thread too... should he have "moderator action"-ed himself as soon as he posted?

Well, I wanted to make it clear to the deputies that they could vote there if their leader did not show within a certain time, so that we could get the matter resolved. It had not political purpose whatsoever, and was rather simply an attempt to facilitate the process, which seemed to have halted.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate

It is my responsibility and call as to when to post a trial poll. I will post that poll in accordance with Point 7 of CoS Section H.

The standard is straight forward. If there is overwhelming sentiment for dismissal, I will submit a vote of NO MERIT among the Judiciary members.

I will be posting that poll shortly, as it is clear that there is not overwhelming support for dismissal.

Judge Advocate.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate - Final Notes

I put my hat back on and say:

The discussion has been overall very respectable, and I appreciate the outstanding efforts of our Public Defender to provide a vigorous defense.

I also have great respect for the manner in which donsig has behaved during this time, and it brings great credit upon himself and our nation.

However, while there are many constitutional issues to ponder down the road, we do need to focus this PI on the actions of donsig himself.

One point you all should keep in mind is that free speech is not absolute, and one of the biggest impacts on it is the equal rights of others.

The Senators have a right to post their votes in their thread without harrassment. donsig's rights do not necessarily override theirs...or yours for that matter. Think of the precedent that would set.

I am a great fan of donsig myself, but I caution you all not to turn this into a question of "did donsig have his rights violated?" but rather stay focused on the real issue at hand:

Did donsig's actions violate the rights of the Senators?

I believe the answer is YES, and therefore you should vote to convict.

NON-BINDING REQUEST TO ALL - We are moving to the voting phase, I ask that you leave the next two responses for donsig and the Public Defender, thank you for your cooperation.

Judge Advocate