[Proposal] Criminal Code Discussion

[ARR]

I've been in a region that handed out a blank slate to forum administration to do whatever they pleased, and the results were not pretty, to say the least. They generally included one moderator being a dick and abusing his or her powers to the detrement of one faction in the region. Let's not go down that route.

In terms of forum destruction, I can't help but feel that we should be protecting our region first, and considering others later. Although many regions do hold forum destruction to be the ultimate crime, I don't think we should become one of them, particularly with how one regions over-draconian interpretation of such a thing can destroy a players reputation: see Europeia +95 block.

[Koth]

I have no intention of having my admin team run rampant like that.

[Severisen Montresor]

I think it's important to take things on a case-by-case basis, and the members of the administration team do not act in solo, but in concert with each other. Ultimately, decisions are made by the root admin. To counter your anecdote, I've been in regions where there is so much beaurocratic red-tape to remove someone for something which should be automatic, that it's frustrating to the users and administrators, having their hands tied in the matter. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... there are some things that are above our make-believe laws in our internet game. We owe it to our residents and citizens to provide a safe space to play. Admin isn't going to go rampant against people for their IC views or positions. Admin is going to make sure it stays within the constraints of civil discourse (even if it does get heated). Admin has a duty to make sure that this forum is safe for its users. That, for me, rules over everything. We debate these issues sometimes for days on end. In my opinion, in regards to OOC matters, Administration should never be tied down by IC, RP laws.


With regards to forum destruction, I'm one who is known to be a bit of a hardliner on the subject. Regions I've been part of have had it happen to them. Again, I think there is room to evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis, as not everything is clear cut black-and-white. Such factors as time since the incident, severity and permanence of the damage caused, and perhaps probation/prohibitive terms conditional to acceptance in the region--like this person may never gain moderation or administrative powers in the region--can all be taken into account when deciding what to do with people who have destroyed fora in the past.

[ARR]

I would argue that a probationary status is absolutely what we should do: it allows people to get back into the game without putting us at risk.

[Severisen Montresor]

As I said, that's part of what we should take into consideration.

[Cormac]

We need to eliminate references to outdated institutions throughout the document, specifically in Section 4.1(d), Section 6, and Section 8.

Suggested revisions:

(d) "Judicial Contempt" is defined as any attempt to disrupt the order of criminal or civil hearings or demonstration of repeated disregard for proper hearing procedure.

Section 6: Sentencing

1. The official(s) responsible for criminal prosecution will detail recommended sentences when prosecuting criminal offenses, according to proper procedure.

2. Sentences may include formal censures or warnings, forum bans, in-game ejections, in-game bans, revocation of citizenship, and prohibition of future citizenship.

Section 8: Statute of Limitations

1. In order to be valid, a charge of a high crime must be filed by the official(s) responsible for criminal prosecution within twelve months of the date the alleged offense occurred.

2. In order to be valid, a charge of a felony crime must be filed by the official(s) responsible for criminal prosecution within six months of the date the alleged offense occurred.

3. In order to be valid, a charge of a misdemeanor crime must be filed by the official(s) responsible for criminal prosecution within three months of the date the alleged offense occurred.

[Dalimbar]

I'll wait for comments either for or against the proposed changes. It makes my job easier if people indicate whether they like an idea or not.

[Treize Dreizehn]

The current proposed changes make sense, especially the removal of direct references to the Pshent, given that it no longer is a thing. I think this is pretty close to ready for votin'.

[Cormac]

We've also repeatedly had issues with Section 3.1(a), "Unlawful Disclosure." When this happens, it's usually accidental rather than intentional. I don't know that we should get rid of this altogether, but I think it might be appropriate to make it a misdemeanor, while leaving "Espionage" -- which, by definition, can only be intentional -- as a high crime.

This seems to have slipped by discussion. Does anyone have thoughts on making Unlawful Disclosure a misdemeanor?

[Treize Dreizehn]

We've also repeatedly had issues with Section 3.1(a), "Unlawful Disclosure." When this happens, it's usually accidental rather than intentional. I don't know that we should get rid of this altogether, but I think it might be appropriate to make it a misdemeanor, while leaving "Espionage" -- which, by definition, can only be intentional -- as a high crime.

This seems to have slipped by discussion. Does anyone have thoughts on making Unlawful Disclosure a misdemeanor?

I believe that creating a distinction between accidental disclosure and intentional disclosure (which is just espionage) as outlined earlier in the thread is a strong concept. Accidental disclosures are going to happen and we shouldn't hang someone for it, though it should still be criminal (so as to discourage it as much as we can).