Debate: Penal Codes

[Sirotnikov]

We haven't yet met those cases, but I'm pretty sure they wil come forth one day.


I think we should discuss and put in writing possible law abuses and expected limits of punishment.

Punishment may range from temporal removal of citizenship to permanent removal of it.

You don't have to be punished for every thing.

A criminal record can be kept, and if a person has, say, 3 sins, only then he is punished.

Ideas are welcome.



Expected crimes: (discuss as well)


Affecting polls, official or not, in an illegal way to misrepresent reality of public opinion.

Creating and employing Double Logins

Abusing power of position to promote a personal goal, against the wishes of the majority / government - treason.

Abusing power in a personal quest against a person or to better a person. Abuse of power. Especially when defaming people.

Misreporting or creating false reports, knowingly about the situation of the game.

Playing the game ahead.

Reloading a game in a case of failure.

Keeping information secret, unlawfully withholding it from the people (we should have a freedom of information law)

[Spiffor]

Good idea Siro

I'd like to list what punitions we can do in our virtual democracy first. The ones I see are :
- 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

That's ll I can think of now. We have very few ways to pressure people here, and we won't ask Ming to be our policeman.

As these "punishments" are pretty heavy, I agree with you, we should make a judicial file, and punish people only after they do several sins.

[Kuciwalker]

We should let the mods decide this.

[civman2000]

DLs are punished by the mods, not us, imho

[Jon Shafer]

Clearly, there needs to be some sort of punishment for things. Saying "you're not allowed to do this" but not providing any punishment for when people do do it isn't very intimidating. Whoever comes up with the stuff should talk to the mods/admins about enforcement of some of the things.

[Kuciwalker]

We could have the court decide this stuff.

[Spiffor]

The court has no powers to decide laws, it has power to enforce laws. Thoses who decide laws are us all, when we vote on amendments.
I think we shouldn't bother Ming or MarkG whenever we have something for them to do (they have enough work with the OT already ). But we could ask them to give moderator power to a justice we agree upon.

[Kuciwalker]

To the Supreme Justice.

[Spiffor]

I'd rather say the court agrees on someone who can do this job, and people must agree with an outstanding majority (75 or 80%), so that we can back our beg to Markos for moderator rights.
If only the court decides such an important thing, it's likely Markos refuses. If (almost) the whole forum agrees, he'll probably accept.

[Captain]

No, the court has no power to enforce laws either.

They don't create laws. They only make rulings based on the law. (Except that rulings can be used as precedent, aka common law). Whether those rulings are accepted is different. It is the police and correctional services who enforce the rulings. (Or the military if armed rebels are involved. War crimes tribunals can make rulings but they can't enforce them.)

Since our justices don't have the power to punish so this is a moot point unless they are somehow empowered, and I don't see that happening to the required level for that.

I suppose they could put "reprimands" on file. There's no arbitrary number of strikes for an out, but reprimands can be used as evidence in a "banning" trial.

Personally, I think the Court has enough to do with polls and other disputes that persecuting citizens for minor infractions (of currently non-existant laws) is harmful.

Also, this is the domain of the mods. Most of these are covered by Apoly rules already.

The ONLY ones from that list that I think are worthwhile for us to pursue are the following.

1) Playing ahead and sharing knowledge otherwise unavailable.

2) Maliciously or selfishly acting in a manner so as to disrupt the proper functioning of the nation in accordance with the laws and traditions of this forum.

that would include such things as what you wrote...
Misreporting or creating false reports, knowingly about the situation of the game.
Affecting polls, official or not, in an illegal way to misrepresent reality of public opinion.
...but it might also be too vague.

Note: Minor infractions, where the motivation was not malicious or was clearly out of ignorance, will be considered misdemeanors and no actions will be taken aside from a "reprimand". Serious infractions will warrant action on top of a reprimand. (That action will be at the recommendation of the Court and the discretion of the mods. It will likely be a temporary ban from the forum).

All else shoudn't be bothered with since it is not within our power to enforce and isn't serious enough to warrant pestering the mods about it. IMHO.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Keeping information secret, unlawfully withholding it from the people (we should have a freedom of information law)

A freedom of information law would be great. There is no reason to hold info from the people.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Captain
No, the court has no power to enforce laws either.

Not necessarily. This is our game, our country, and if we want the court to be able to enforce laws, only the mods are stopping us. Heck, if we wanted the science advisor to enforce laws, we could let him!

I mean, this IS still a game. We don't want to make this too confusing. Keep it simple. Give the court the power to enforce, I say.

[Jon Shafer]

I agree with Switch. If the Court is only able to make rulings, and not enforce them, then what's the point? Who cares? It would be like some unofficial group making a decision... no one has to listen, and no one has to care. That's not what we want, and not why the Court was created.

[BigRed515]

Currently, there is nothing in the ammendment that created the court about enforcing the laws. There also nothing about NOT enforcing laws, either. It seems to me that one fo the first cases brought before the court should be whether or not the court can enforce laws.

If the court decides it can enforce (which I hope it does), then we should press the Mods as citizens bound by the decisions of the court to give the court, or whomever it deems should be the enforce, mod powers.

[Togas]

Regarding enforcement: There is no debate that The Court's rulings carry with it the power of an official mandate from the people -- the people created The Court and it acts on behalf of the people and the Constitution. The Court is empowered make rulings. We did not, however, give The Court police powers/enforcement powers.

In the U.S. (as in many other nations) The Court makes a ruling or order, but it is for the police or prison system to enforce -- carry out the order.

In our system, if a Penal Code were created, The Court would determine if a law was broken, order the applicable punishment, and leave it up to a Mod or other person to actually carry it through. Thereby The Court does not physically enforce the order, but the order is definately enforceable.

Back on topic -- We should be warry in the creation of a Penal Code. We do not need to see this game degenerate into witch-hunts or the like, and we are well equipped to deal with most problems that arise without using a complicated legal process.

If we do make a code of laws, they should be only for the most dangerous sorts of problems ... things that harm the game or other players. Each law created must have the punishment range stated in it, and we would then want to have a trusted person to prosecute (or choose not to prosecute) crimes against the nation.

If we do end up going this route (and I'm still not sure that we should), I'll assist with the language. I work in Criminal Law and it's god-awefully complex stuff. Whatever we make needs to be straightforward yet flexible enough to be justice in each individual case.

--Togas

[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.