Kade
Citizen 
who am I
Posts: 5,287
Nation Name: The Glorious Hypetrain
Discord Username: Redorhcs#6647
|
Post by Kade on Dec 17, 2018 18:56:05 GMT -5
Brit / Asdersland, I've noticed several times on discord that you repeatedly bring up that you believe that the admin team should not have the function to take OOC action without the approval of the IC court/appropriate role in the cases of: predators, CFAA/cybercrimes, etc. (or maybe it's something else? That's why I'm asking this) As you are both going up for elections, I'd like some genuine responses to my questions (As a matter of seeing where you stand and also how we can self improve). I apologize that I am well out of regional affairs these days, and have been absent recently due to real world duties. - Why do you have this belief?
- Can you point to any cases in the NS world or our region where the speed of an IC case (which IMO: are more of a court of public opinion shouting match) and response would have been better to protect a region?
- What would still stop an IC role from acting in a similar way that a rogue admin team would?
- Based on the debate in the channel last night, i.imgur.com/4HqBokG.png and i.imgur.com/tl9PUof.png is the section I had questions on specifically for Asder: Where do we as a region draw the line from IC processing to OOC processing? NS mods often will not get involved in "off site regional affairs" which 99% of our stuff is, due to discord and this here forum. Personally, I see this as a blurred line, because it can be hard under existing UL codes to try to see what really needs to be in UL 7 versus what is an OOC affair.
- Brit: i.imgur.com/WIAs6t2.png based on this section, could you define what you would call actual threats? What would you see as the ideal admin OOC/IC gov balance? Why would you define the admin team in this case as "higher than the courts"? Who (founder?) should (or multiple whos) make the call on when to take OOC action?
I sincerely apologize if any of these questions were posted in the discord last night.
V/r
.k
|
|
Brittalia
Citizen
Posts: 103 
Nation Name: Brittalia
Discord Username: Drew Pellino#2397
|
Post by Brittalia on Dec 17, 2018 19:20:34 GMT -5
I would like to just clarify that I had certain things mixed up during that conversation, and I apologize for the mixup.
I do believe that the Administration team is well within their jurisdiction to take action upon those that are violating the CFAA, proven predators, etc, because like I've said before, the Supreme Court can't simply prosecute a spammer. In this instance, I mixed up the terms IC and OOC.
What I was alluding to was that the Administration's handling of Sabotur was poor. What Sabotur did was not right, and the comments were extremely inappropriate, but I don't agree that an administrative ban was appropriate for the simple facts that he did not violate regional law, nor did he pose a threat to the region, and given the circumstances of the conversation it was on topic albeit the lack of maturity and the insensitivity of the comment he made. If anything, Sabotur could have been reprimanded by the Assembly for his comments, though I do recognize that the Administration Team was well within their rights to ban him given that they have authority over the server. I just did not agree with the decision to ban him.
The context of the conversation contained within the screenshot you posted was that Thatcher suggested that Sabotur's comment threatened regional security, to which I disagreed with and pointed out a segment of a message he sent to support the point that Thatcher should be able to differentiate an inappropriate comment and an actual threat to regional security. The Assemblyman's comment cannot be grouped alongside previous threats such as the UUS and Ethanoria.
Though I personally side against the Administration team in this particular case, I believe this incident falls in a grey area that needs to be fixed. There are ways for both the Administration Team and the Courts to work together on some issues, but things like this exasterbate the lines and problems between the two.
I hope this clears up any confusion that I may have caused, and answers your questions. If not, please let me know.
|
|
Kade
Citizen
who am I
Posts: 5,287
Nation Name: The Glorious Hypetrain
Discord Username: Redorhcs#6647
|
Post by Kade on Dec 17, 2018 19:36:18 GMT -5
I would like to just clarify that I had certain things mixed up during that conversation, and I apologize for the mixup. I do believe that the Administration team is well within their jurisdiction to take action upon those that are violating the CFAA, proven predators, etc, because like I've said before, the Supreme Court can't simply prosecute a spammer. In this instance, I mixed up the terms IC and OOC. What I was alluding to was that the Administration's handling of Sabotur was poor. What Sabotur did was not right, and the comments were extremely inappropriate, but I don't agree that an administrative ban was appropriate for the simple facts that he did not violate regional law, nor did he pose a threat to the region, and given the circumstances of the conversation it was on topic albeit the lack of maturity and the insensitivity of the comment he made. If anything, Sabotur could have been reprimanded by the Assembly for his comments [Please remind me, what would the assembly have done in this instance?], though I do recognize that the Administration Team was well within their rights to ban him given that they have authority over the server. I just did not agree with the decision to ban him. That's the context I was missing! Thanks for your comments.The context of the conversation contained within the screenshot you posted was that Thatcher suggested that Sabotur's comment threatened regional security, to which I disagreed with and pointed out a segment of a message he sent to support the point that Thatcher should be able to differentiate an inappropriate comment and an actual threat to regional security. The Assemblyman's comment cannot be grouped alongside previous threats such as the UUS and Ethanoria. Though I personally side against the Administration team in this particular case, I believe this incident falls in a grey area that needs to be fixed. There are ways for both the Administration Team and the Courts to work together on some issues, but things like this exasterbate the lines and problems between the two. Could you provide an example of an ideal "collaboration"?I hope this clears up any confusion that I may have caused, and answers your questions. If not, please let me know. Thanks for the clarification. I personally was confused as well, so I'm happy you were able to share your side of the story, as well as point out the discrepancy in mine. Few inline RED comments with addl. questions |
|
|
|
Post by Asdersland on Dec 17, 2018 21:33:15 GMT -5
I would also like to clarify that I was extremely confused during the Discord conversation. I'll repost my clarification from Discord here for reference. I was very amazingly on the wrong page entirely. I'm not talking about a single page. Everyone else here was in the epilogue while I was still in the table of contents. I was under the impression that when "harassment" was mentioned, it was under the notion of it being outside the scope of RL justice: that is, that no one involved would have been able to be prosecuted for anything related to an internal NS/UDS offense. It now has come to my attention that this was not the case thanks to the brilliance of Phoenix (tysm). So let me make clear my position: I am in favor of using the UDS admin team and their wisdom for these offenses and I also think the admin team should be defined, regulated, and kept to sworn secrecy to avoid legal consequences for those who are innocent. May we never have to use the admin team for such an incident. But if we do, I trust in their full ability to do justice by those who have been wronged. I would also like to apologize to anyone who is offended or confused by my previous arguments. I also acknowledge that under the circumstances it may have appeared otherwise, but victims' rights and the righting of wrong should be the priority of any investigation, and I will stand by this. In the light of what we know [about] history we cannot afford to make mistakes with peoples' lives. It is the admins' job to ensure that this basic but precarious task is carried out punctually, effectively, justly, and righteously. So to answer your questions: 1. I don't believe this. I mistakenly made this out to be my belief due to confusion resulting from thinking we were talking about less grave issues. 2. Saboteur comes to mind. What he did wasn't a threat outside the region and should have been prosecuted internally. His crimes were public material that wasn't off-site and therefore there was no privacy issue. I disagree with the idea that the SC is a court of public opinion, at least not by design, and I think with a better handling of cases it wouldn't be like that. The SC doesn't get much work, which also means the SC doesn't get much practice in handling cases. 3. The SC is answerable to the people, whereas admins are not. This is why admins need to be the most trustworthy and capable people in the region. Also, SC proceedings are a lot more transparent during the process: although both are pretty transparent afterward, SC overreach can be dealt with while it's ongoing while admin action that is disagreed with is always after the fact. 4. A note on OOC/IC classification: I disagree with calling it OOC/IC crime; it's one person we're talking about. The distinction is between regional and supraregional crime. To actually answer: That is, incidents that can affect people greatly outside of the region proper (supraregional crime: hacking, doxxing, RL crimes) should be investigated by admin, while regional crime, like spamming, electoral fraud, etc. should be taken care of in the SC since those crimes don't have major consequences outside of the region. |
|
Kade
Citizen
who am I
Posts: 5,287
Nation Name: The Glorious Hypetrain
Discord Username: Redorhcs#6647
|
Post by Kade on Dec 17, 2018 21:56:56 GMT -5
I would also like to clarify that I was extremely confused during the Discord conversation. I'll repost my clarification from Discord here for reference. I was very amazingly on the wrong page entirely. I'm not talking about a single page. Everyone else here was in the epilogue while I was still in the table of contents. I was under the impression that when "harassment" was mentioned, it was under the notion of it being outside the scope of RL justice: that is, that no one involved would have been able to be prosecuted for anything related to an internal NS/UDS offense. It now has come to my attention that this was not the case thanks to the brilliance of Phoenix (tysm). So let me make clear my position: I am in favor of using the UDS admin team and their wisdom for these offenses and I also think the admin team should be defined, regulated, and kept to sworn secrecy to avoid legal consequences for those who are innocent. May we never have to use the admin team for such an incident. But if we do, I trust in their full ability to do justice by those who have been wronged. I would also like to apologize to anyone who is offended or confused by my previous arguments. I also acknowledge that under the circumstances it may have appeared otherwise, but victims' rights and the righting of wrong should be the priority of any investigation, and I will stand by this. In the light of what we know [about] history we cannot afford to make mistakes with peoples' lives. It is the admins' job to ensure that this basic but precarious task is carried out punctually, effectively, justly, and righteously. So to answer your questions: 1. I don't believe this. I mistakenly made this out to be my belief due to confusion resulting from thinking we were talking about less grave issues. Thanks for your clarification. I will also state I was probably more confused looking it over than all parties involved.2. Saboteur comes to mind. What he did wasn't a threat outside the region and should have been prosecuted internally. His crimes were public material that wasn't off-site and therefore there was no privacy issue. For my sake, off-site as in acting on an RMB/NS Forum?
I disagree with the idea that the SC is a court of public opinion, at least not by design, and I think with a better handling of cases it wouldn't be like that. The SC doesn't get much work, which also means the SC doesn't get much practice in handling cases. You make a point here. The last two SC cases that I can recall of were both against me (wow what a surprise) and devolved to ad hominum attacks by the accuser.3. The SC is answerable to the people, whereas admins are not. This is why admins need to be the most trustworthy and capable people in the region. Also, SC proceedings are a lot more transparent during the process: although both are pretty transparent afterward, SC overreach can be dealt with while it's ongoing while admin action that is disagreed with is always after the fact. 4. A note on OOC/IC classification: I disagree with calling it OOC/IC crime; it's one person we're talking about. The distinction is between regional and supraregional crime. To actually answer: That is, incidents that can affect people greatly outside of the region proper (supraregional crime: hacking, doxxing, RL crimes) should be investigated by admin, while regional crime, like spamming, electoral fraud, etc. should be taken care of in the SC since those crimes don't have major consequences outside of the region. I appreciate both candidates timely response to my posts. Further questions / comments in line in RED. |
|
|
|
Post by Asdersland on Dec 17, 2018 22:05:04 GMT -5
2. Saboteur comes to mind. What he did wasn't a threat outside the region and should have been prosecuted internally. His crimes were public material that wasn't off-site and therefore there was no privacy issue. For my sake, off-site as in acting on an RMB/NS Forum?
Correction: As in, much of what he did was publically visible, seeing as he had many people angry at him before the ban. I apologize, off-site isn't really the best word here to use. I should have said "wasn't hidden or needing hiding" (or something to that effect). |
|
Kade
Citizen
who am I
Posts: 5,287
Nation Name: The Glorious Hypetrain
Discord Username: Redorhcs#6647
|
Post by Kade on Dec 17, 2018 22:08:31 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. No further questions at this time. V/r .k |
|
