+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) (/showthread.php?tid=215)
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - Sheepshape - 09-05-2018
Roavin;3156 Wrote:With regard to Contempt of Court: If the Court compels testimony or evidence, not following that must have a penalty otherwise there's no point to the Court being able to compel testimony or evidence.
I guess, but NS courts really don't have the capacity to compel testimony even with that. Like "Oh no, I'm in NS jail, guess I'll chill in literally any other region for a while." And that's assuming they're even convicted of contempt, for which charges would have to be filed and then heard by an unbiased court (since the court thinking they did contempt renders them unable to adjudicate the accusation fairly).
Plus, we havn't even settled yet if the court will *have* a role in criminal matters, so the idea of compelling someone to write a brief on a constitutional question is kinda silly.
It's best to have contempt dealt with by the court as a routine matter, not as a criminal one.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - TempestShadow - 09-05-2018
I think a little more clarification would be useful on the sabotage section, as the current reading could easily extend to somewhat obnoxious spammers, which isn't probably something that needs to be this high level, when it can be better dealt with by the relevant authority.
Also, it'd be good to define who counts as an admin, given that section. Something along the lines of 'Delegate & CRS, Discord root and appointed moderators, and Forum root and appointed admins' would be good I think. Also maybe a bit extra punishment/considered harshness in the case of one of the aforementioned doing the sabotage, if that's possible.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-05-2018
Regarding compulsion to give evidence: the court could simply conclude that, where it is the most likely explanation, evidence that you refuse to give is damning and consider that refusal as evidence in itself.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-05-2018
Could you include a criminal offence that covers those who commit acts prohibited by interregional treaties/conventions that Lazarus has signed?
If Lazarus were to sign, say, COPS, it would be necessary for there to be some infrastructure to enforce that.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - TempestShadow - 09-05-2018
McChimp;3178 Wrote:Could you include a criminal offence that covers those who commit acts prohibited by interregional treaties/conventions that Lazarus has signed?
If Lazarus were to sign, say, COPS, it would be necessary for there to be some infrastructure to enforce that.
Does anyone know of any such interregional treaties/etc other than COPS (which would assumedly be covered by OOC admin stuff regardless of signing) that would prohibit individual citizens of regions from doing stuff?
Alternatively, could we not just tack on some relevant stuff (like a comparable crime) to any relevant treaty that Lazarus were to join/sign?
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-05-2018
TempestShadow;3179 Wrote:Does anyone know of any such interregional treaties/etc other than COPS (which would assumedly be covered by OOC admin stuff regardless of signing) that would prohibit individual citizens of regions from doing stuff?
Alternatively, could we not just tack on some relevant stuff (like a comparable crime) to any relevant treaty that Lazarus were to join/sign?
I personally believe that including the proposed criminal offence allows us to sign things like COPS with a single assembly vote and without dispersing things like criminal offences like you suggest.
Another example would be any treaty forming an alliance with other regions (which we will undoubtedly want to do in the future). In signing the treaty and making the alliance we would be criminalising acts of treason against them without having to legislate all of that stuff separately.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - TempestShadow - 09-05-2018
McChimp;3180 Wrote:Hmm, fair pointTempestShadow;3179 Wrote:Does anyone know of any such interregional treaties/etc other than COPS (which would assumedly be covered by OOC admin stuff regardless of signing) that would prohibit individual citizens of regions from doing stuff?
Alternatively, could we not just tack on some relevant stuff (like a comparable crime) to any relevant treaty that Lazarus were to join/sign?
I personally believe that including the proposed criminal offence allows us to sign things like COPS with a single assembly vote and without dispersing things like criminal offences like you suggest.
Another example would be any treaty forming an alliance with other regions (which we will undoubtedly want to do in the future). In signing the treaty and making the alliance we would be criminalising acts of treason against them without having to legislate all of that stuff separately.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - Amerion - 09-05-2018
McChimp;3178 Wrote:Could you include a criminal offence that covers those who commit acts prohibited by interregional treaties/conventions that Lazarus has signed?
If Lazarus were to sign, say, COPS, it would be necessary for there to be some infrastructure to enforce that.
What is COPS?
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - TempestShadow - 09-05-2018
Amerion;3185 Wrote:McChimp;3178 Wrote:Could you include a criminal offence that covers those who commit acts prohibited by interregional treaties/conventions that Lazarus has signed?
If Lazarus were to sign, say, COPS, it would be necessary for there to be some infrastructure to enforce that.
What is COPS?
Can't remember the acronym or have a link to it, but the long story short is a big inter-regional treaty/agreement saying that forum destruction is bad, and I assume says that those who destroy forums should be shunned.
RE: [Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-06-2018
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6951164/1/%20.c_post
COPS^