- Joined
- Jul 10, 2018
- Messages
- 40
- Feather
- ƒ1,098
Alrighty, here we go in full.
I approach laws, and particularly criminal codes, from the perspective of "If Mall joined this region, how could he twist things to work out in his advantage? How would he get away scot-free and make us look silly with what we've written? How could our courts or other systems fall short in applying the law as we intend it to be applied?" You get as imaginative as you can with that, then write your laws to compensate. So that's my perspective here; closing loopholes and making sure definitions are as tight as we need them to be.
As a starter, I'm not sure I understand why things are broken up into tiered offenses when they're not tied into any actual punishments linked to tier (i.e., punishments are listed individually, not by group). And it's certainly possible for someone's act of defamation, fraud, or blackmail to be worse than some forms of petty (in the non-technical sense) treason.[note]For those curious, the technical definition of "petty treason" comes from English common law and involves the murder of a superior officer via betrayal.[/note]
I suggest making a simple list of crimes and allowing context and delegate or judicial discretion to determine how severe they are. As such, I've also removed all references to specific punishments. Unless things drastically change, punishments are looking likely to be imposed by the delegate, and I vastly prefer to leave them the power to do what they feel is appropriate given the larger context. I've also moved the definitions into their relevant crimes; that makes it easier to follow IMO. And some of them we really don't need.
Now, on to specific bits:
This is wordier than it needs to be. I've suggested some changes that tighten it up a bit. I also added the final sentence because holy god is it horrible when someone decides to throw in a new crime in a separate law - it's the stuff of nightmares to a court. Require off the bat that they all belong in here and you avoid that migraine.
I really don't like the tiering here. Much cleaner to have it all read as a sentence. Like this:
I rephrased the first line here; "rendering unserviceable a noun" was giving me crossed eyes. Render unusable is clearer, I think, and sticking the noun after the verb is just easier reading. I also added a 3rd clause which grants admins exceptions, which I think is important - if an admin has to shut a forum down for a software upgrade, that needs to be fine.
I broke this one out into a couple sentences for clarity and changed your definition of 'restricted area' (I think mine is a bit more straightforward). I also specified that it's sharing information from Lazarus only.
I've rephrased this one a bit better, but honestly, I don't like it as a crime. It's extremely vague, and 'influence' is pretty broad. Is it foreign interference if a dual citizen of Lazarus and Balder encourages Imki to make a treaty with Balder? Is it foreign influence for that person to vote against someone who wants Lazarus to invade Balder? Is it foreign influence if that person is a raider and suggests Imki create a raider military?
Allegiances in NS are tricky and I think trying to quantify foreign interference this way is bad news. It's the sort of crime that will likely be used against people who aren't popular, but held back against popular people who do the same sorts of things.
I very strongly urge striking it from your bill. Behavior which rises to the level of a crime can be individually criminalized (e.g., vote stacking).
I think your original 2nd part was not clear so I rephrased it to make it make more sense. I think it's now easier to tell that both making and accepting a bribe will be considered bribery. I also added governmental duties; I don't really think we need to criminalize trying to bribe someone with cupcakes if they make you a national map for example.
I'm not really sold on including it at all, though. I think most of the time it doesn't really warrant standing as its own offense. Someone who says "I'll rule your way on that court review you brought if you vote for me" is separately committing misconduct in their office, not because of the bribery but because they are not ruling according to the law, for example.
But I feel less strongly about this one than I do about the previous one so I won't fight too hard if y'all really want it.
I changed your definition here a fair bit; "causing gain or loss" isn't really the right way to go, and blackmail is more than just general intimidation. Almost anything causes some sort of gain or loss, and "If you don't support my bill I'll open a recall vote against you and you know it'll pass" can be pretty intimidating. The key part is holding someone hostage by promising not to reveal to everyone that you know they're a spy or that they are actually someone's sentient pet rock.
I also added in the 2nd clause because there's a major difference between threatening someone IC and threatening them OOC. The latter is best handled by an investigation and ban by forum administration, not by an in-game legal system (regardless of which process we ultimately decide on).
I also changed this one a lot. Like with blackmail, "advantage" and "disadvantage" are huge things. The relevant portion is knowingly spreading misinformation, so that's what I changed it to be. I also gave that a bit more definition. It's not an issue if I make implausible false statements, like that the moon will fall out of the sky and crush some kittens if the delegate doesn't vote for a resolution in the WA, or if I assert that we shouldn't vote for so-and-so as a minister because they're clearly part of the IRCabal dedicated to the overthrow of all regions in service to their noodly god. Those are patently ridiculous enough that nobody is going to make a decision based on them. But saying that you shouldn't vote for so-and-so because they've been convicted of espionage in another region is plausible, and a reasonable person would take a conviction into account when deciding who should serve where. So lying about that is a big deal.
Or, moving away from targeting an individual (since that might count as defamation instead or in addition), telling people they can vote for ministers by telegramming [violet] is a lie, but silly enough that it shouldn't be considered fraud. But telling them they can vote next week, when the vote is actually going to be over in 2 days, would absolutely be reasonably expected to affect whether they voted in time and thus should count as a crime.
I rewrote this for you, but I realllllly don't like it. Being disruptive is a moderation issue, not an IC governmental one, and I'd really very much prefer to leave handling obnoxious behavior to the court itself. Punishing people for crimes is challenging in the best of circumstances, and having to put them on trial for being a bit of an ass is excessive. Not to mention, the court would probably either have to bring the charges, or entirely recuse themselves from hearing the charges, to allow for fair treatment.
I very much prefer for this not to be a crime, and for the court's procedures to permit it to basically ignore people who cause a scene. So the justices can just vote and say "This person is prevented from filing reviews with the court for 2 month for their behavior in X". It's a punishment (ignoring) befitting the crime (being attention-grabbing).
Plus, disobeying a ruling of the court is a bigger deal than just being disruptive, and should be treated like a violation of any other part of the law.
So I would strongly urge removing this entirely.
Rewritten for better, but I still don't like it. I don't see a strong argument for why this needs to be a different crime from fraud. And actually, in your draft you've given plain fraud a *longer* possible punishment than perjury, where perjury requires the violation of an oath in addition to the lie.
I say strike it. Lying is lying, treat it all the same.
I could maybe get behind something along the lines of... criminal interference? Like, lying to the court (or withholding information) such that someone else is punished or some particular outcome is reached that would not have happened if the truth had been told. But still lukewarm even on that.
I combined your first 2 here and condensed, but I can't say I'm a fan. There's a few reasons why. First of all, I think requiring public disclosure of affiliations and/or aliases is kinda silly. It's one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but really, practically, has basically no impact. All it means is that some people who want to start fresh get in trouble, and you've got one extra crime to throw at someone who conceals their identity in order to coup. It's really just... not a huge problem.
Secondly, there are and can be perfectly valid reasons to hold multiple accounts. Here are a few:
Not to mention, having 2 accounts and calling that "unlawful disclosure" makes my eye twitch. That's not what those words mean.
I strongly encourage you to strike this entirely. Forum administration can be trusted to handle people who try to hide making multiple accounts or use proxies; the delegate and forum administration can handle people who want a separate ambassador account to their lazarus citizen account; and lying about who you are and where you've been can be handled by fraud as needed.
I changed the name to make it flow better, but this is another one I encourage you to drop. As of now, the court doesn't handle criminal cases, so someone being vexatious really only bugs the court. They're not causing a problem for another citizen. The court is capable of handling annoying behavior; if someone is bringing review after review, the court can simply say "no". And if we also allow the court to define and punish contempt without requiring a trial, the court can deem filing reviews in bad faith to constitute contempt.
Besides, as has been pointed out, having this on the books opens a court up to back and forth accusations of retaliation. It's just not a good idea. Please remove.
This is another one that I really don't think needs to be separate from fraud. Lying about a person is still lying and can still be treated the same way.
At most, I could probably be convinced to get behind one crime labeled fraud, with subsections for different kinds. "Regular fraud is lying, defamation is lying about a person, election fraud is lying about elections, perjury is lying to the court" etc.
But there's just no need to have all of these be slightly different crimes with different punishments - particularly because if you've committed defamation you've *also* committed fraud. The one contains the other already.
I think this is a better definition and I'm fine with keeping it.
Finally, I think we should add a general misconduct crime. As it is, a government official who just doesn't do their job, or who abuses their power but not in one of the ways listed here, hasn't committed a crime. It's good to have a catch-all crime that can handle such issues. I suggest something like the following:
(Specifically I would insert it before Conspiracy because I like having conspiracy last for some reason, but I'm not strongly committed to where.)
I approach laws, and particularly criminal codes, from the perspective of "If Mall joined this region, how could he twist things to work out in his advantage? How would he get away scot-free and make us look silly with what we've written? How could our courts or other systems fall short in applying the law as we intend it to be applied?" You get as imaginative as you can with that, then write your laws to compensate. So that's my perspective here; closing loopholes and making sure definitions are as tight as we need them to be.
As a starter, I'm not sure I understand why things are broken up into tiered offenses when they're not tied into any actual punishments linked to tier (i.e., punishments are listed individually, not by group). And it's certainly possible for someone's act of defamation, fraud, or blackmail to be worse than some forms of petty (in the non-technical sense) treason.[note]For those curious, the technical definition of "petty treason" comes from English common law and involves the murder of a superior officer via betrayal.[/note]
I suggest making a simple list of crimes and allowing context and delegate or judicial discretion to determine how severe they are. As such, I've also removed all references to specific punishments. Unless things drastically change, punishments are looking likely to be imposed by the delegate, and I vastly prefer to leave them the power to do what they feel is appropriate given the larger context. I've also moved the definitions into their relevant crimes; that makes it easier to follow IMO. And some of them we really don't need.
Now, on to specific bits:
This is wordier than it needs to be. I've suggested some changes that tighten it up a bit. I also added the final sentence because holy god is it horrible when someone decides to throw in a new crime in a separate law - it's the stuff of nightmares to a court. Require off the bat that they all belong in here and you avoid that migraine.
I really don't like the tiering here. Much cleaner to have it all read as a sentence. Like this:
I rephrased the first line here; "rendering unserviceable a noun" was giving me crossed eyes. Render unusable is clearer, I think, and sticking the noun after the verb is just easier reading. I also added a 3rd clause which grants admins exceptions, which I think is important - if an admin has to shut a forum down for a software upgrade, that needs to be fine.
I broke this one out into a couple sentences for clarity and changed your definition of 'restricted area' (I think mine is a bit more straightforward). I also specified that it's sharing information from Lazarus only.
I've rephrased this one a bit better, but honestly, I don't like it as a crime. It's extremely vague, and 'influence' is pretty broad. Is it foreign interference if a dual citizen of Lazarus and Balder encourages Imki to make a treaty with Balder? Is it foreign influence for that person to vote against someone who wants Lazarus to invade Balder? Is it foreign influence if that person is a raider and suggests Imki create a raider military?
Allegiances in NS are tricky and I think trying to quantify foreign interference this way is bad news. It's the sort of crime that will likely be used against people who aren't popular, but held back against popular people who do the same sorts of things.
I very strongly urge striking it from your bill. Behavior which rises to the level of a crime can be individually criminalized (e.g., vote stacking).
I think your original 2nd part was not clear so I rephrased it to make it make more sense. I think it's now easier to tell that both making and accepting a bribe will be considered bribery. I also added governmental duties; I don't really think we need to criminalize trying to bribe someone with cupcakes if they make you a national map for example.
I'm not really sold on including it at all, though. I think most of the time it doesn't really warrant standing as its own offense. Someone who says "I'll rule your way on that court review you brought if you vote for me" is separately committing misconduct in their office, not because of the bribery but because they are not ruling according to the law, for example.
But I feel less strongly about this one than I do about the previous one so I won't fight too hard if y'all really want it.
I changed your definition here a fair bit; "causing gain or loss" isn't really the right way to go, and blackmail is more than just general intimidation. Almost anything causes some sort of gain or loss, and "If you don't support my bill I'll open a recall vote against you and you know it'll pass" can be pretty intimidating. The key part is holding someone hostage by promising not to reveal to everyone that you know they're a spy or that they are actually someone's sentient pet rock.
I also added in the 2nd clause because there's a major difference between threatening someone IC and threatening them OOC. The latter is best handled by an investigation and ban by forum administration, not by an in-game legal system (regardless of which process we ultimately decide on).
I also changed this one a lot. Like with blackmail, "advantage" and "disadvantage" are huge things. The relevant portion is knowingly spreading misinformation, so that's what I changed it to be. I also gave that a bit more definition. It's not an issue if I make implausible false statements, like that the moon will fall out of the sky and crush some kittens if the delegate doesn't vote for a resolution in the WA, or if I assert that we shouldn't vote for so-and-so as a minister because they're clearly part of the IRCabal dedicated to the overthrow of all regions in service to their noodly god. Those are patently ridiculous enough that nobody is going to make a decision based on them. But saying that you shouldn't vote for so-and-so because they've been convicted of espionage in another region is plausible, and a reasonable person would take a conviction into account when deciding who should serve where. So lying about that is a big deal.
Or, moving away from targeting an individual (since that might count as defamation instead or in addition), telling people they can vote for ministers by telegramming [violet] is a lie, but silly enough that it shouldn't be considered fraud. But telling them they can vote next week, when the vote is actually going to be over in 2 days, would absolutely be reasonably expected to affect whether they voted in time and thus should count as a crime.
I rewrote this for you, but I realllllly don't like it. Being disruptive is a moderation issue, not an IC governmental one, and I'd really very much prefer to leave handling obnoxious behavior to the court itself. Punishing people for crimes is challenging in the best of circumstances, and having to put them on trial for being a bit of an ass is excessive. Not to mention, the court would probably either have to bring the charges, or entirely recuse themselves from hearing the charges, to allow for fair treatment.
I very much prefer for this not to be a crime, and for the court's procedures to permit it to basically ignore people who cause a scene. So the justices can just vote and say "This person is prevented from filing reviews with the court for 2 month for their behavior in X". It's a punishment (ignoring) befitting the crime (being attention-grabbing).
Plus, disobeying a ruling of the court is a bigger deal than just being disruptive, and should be treated like a violation of any other part of the law.
So I would strongly urge removing this entirely.
Rewritten for better, but I still don't like it. I don't see a strong argument for why this needs to be a different crime from fraud. And actually, in your draft you've given plain fraud a *longer* possible punishment than perjury, where perjury requires the violation of an oath in addition to the lie.
I say strike it. Lying is lying, treat it all the same.
I could maybe get behind something along the lines of... criminal interference? Like, lying to the court (or withholding information) such that someone else is punished or some particular outcome is reached that would not have happened if the truth had been told. But still lukewarm even on that.
I combined your first 2 here and condensed, but I can't say I'm a fan. There's a few reasons why. First of all, I think requiring public disclosure of affiliations and/or aliases is kinda silly. It's one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but really, practically, has basically no impact. All it means is that some people who want to start fresh get in trouble, and you've got one extra crime to throw at someone who conceals their identity in order to coup. It's really just... not a huge problem.
Secondly, there are and can be perfectly valid reasons to hold multiple accounts. Here are a few:
- Holding one account as a foreign ambassador and one as a citizen in order to maintain a separation of obligations, access, and identities.
- The root administrator keeping the root admin account separate from the regular forum account so that they can share the login with multiple admins for maintenance.
- Innocently forgetting that one created an account a while back and making a second one.
- Engaging in investigative or undercover work for the delegate or admin team to follow up on reports of misconduct.
Not to mention, having 2 accounts and calling that "unlawful disclosure" makes my eye twitch. That's not what those words mean.
I strongly encourage you to strike this entirely. Forum administration can be trusted to handle people who try to hide making multiple accounts or use proxies; the delegate and forum administration can handle people who want a separate ambassador account to their lazarus citizen account; and lying about who you are and where you've been can be handled by fraud as needed.
I changed the name to make it flow better, but this is another one I encourage you to drop. As of now, the court doesn't handle criminal cases, so someone being vexatious really only bugs the court. They're not causing a problem for another citizen. The court is capable of handling annoying behavior; if someone is bringing review after review, the court can simply say "no". And if we also allow the court to define and punish contempt without requiring a trial, the court can deem filing reviews in bad faith to constitute contempt.
Besides, as has been pointed out, having this on the books opens a court up to back and forth accusations of retaliation. It's just not a good idea. Please remove.
This is another one that I really don't think needs to be separate from fraud. Lying about a person is still lying and can still be treated the same way.
At most, I could probably be convinced to get behind one crime labeled fraud, with subsections for different kinds. "Regular fraud is lying, defamation is lying about a person, election fraud is lying about elections, perjury is lying to the court" etc.
But there's just no need to have all of these be slightly different crimes with different punishments - particularly because if you've committed defamation you've *also* committed fraud. The one contains the other already.
I think this is a better definition and I'm fine with keeping it.
Finally, I think we should add a general misconduct crime. As it is, a government official who just doesn't do their job, or who abuses their power but not in one of the ways listed here, hasn't committed a crime. It's good to have a catch-all crime that can handle such issues. I suggest something like the following:
(Specifically I would insert it before Conspiracy because I like having conspiracy last for some reason, but I'm not strongly committed to where.)
Last edited by a moderator:
