The Rejected Times

[RiderSyl]

No RMB suppression? Interesting, sounds like a recipe for trouble though

Sounds like a problematic policy where hard spammers are concerned, and illicit content. Suppressing rulebreakers is a bit necessary for a functional and clean RMB. If they want to avoid suppressing opinions and the like, that's one thing, but all suppression would absolutely be asking for trouble.

maybe this is a plan to drive people onto the TRR Discord by making the RMB as insufferable as possible

[Kraljevstvo Rata]

Sounds like a problematic policy where hard spammers are concerned, and illicit content. Suppressing rulebreakers is a bit necessary for a functional and clean RMB. If they want to avoid suppressing opinions and the like, that's one thing, but all suppression would absolutely be asking for trouble.

maybe this is a plan to drive people onto the TRR Discord by making the RMB as insufferable as possible

The RMB already is insufferable as possible.

[Sanjurika]

I'm gonna have to try that arepas recipe

[Unibot III]

So, should TRR Have a Rules or Suppression Policy?

Most people who argue against suppressions state that suppressions decrease the quality and flow of conversation on the board, and that truly rule-breaking posts can be handled by the on-site moderators (one of which resides in the Rejected Realms). Similar reasoning is used against Board rules.

Suppressions, however, serve a few purposes:

1) They make the RMB more aesthetically pleasing. The Regional Message Board is often covered in serious spam that may take a while for NationStates moderators to suppress, as they aren’t always online. Suppression makes unpleasant spam disappear, which ensures that the board is easier to read, especially on mobile screens, which are a pain to read the board with anyway;

2) They serve as a warning system to ensure that behaviour that may have a negative impact on the quality of the RMB in the future.

But like this argument avoids the real discussion taking place in TRR - why is "double-posting" considered a cultural offense? It was never considered rule-breaking before Toerana wrote a guide that discouraged it. Without any legislation enabling this change, Toerana's unofficial guide (which vaguely has been adopted as official?) has essentially changed the legal norm in TRR.

Double-posting hurts no-one, it's not necessarily asthetically unpleasing than the suppressions themselves. There is no reasonable grounds to consider it a limitation of residents' freedom of expression. If double-posting is banned, another overactive RO can also make a similar argument that there are "asthetic" grounds for banning residents from using bad grammar (this was a major point of criticism from TRR of Francos Spain's Civil Code) or that players should avoid posting too much (because it's ugly having one person write 5 of the 10 newest RMB posts) or that players shouldn't debate other players on the RMB (because long back-and-forth discussions disrupt the RMB). Applying asthetics to RMB suppression rules is a slippery slope. It's easy to imagine what else could be argued as grounds for suppression because it's "ugly" or "disruptive."

Authoritarian regimes in NS have in the past used asthetics to justify tight service rules for their community RMBs. I think today's players aren't aware that this was a serious discussion in the past, TRR was critical of Francos Spain and his CIvil Code. Consequently, the democratic ideal in TRR was always that RMB should be free for its residents to use, with minimal oversight.

ROs seem to think that because they have powers they never had before, they should make use of it. I think there's a generation of NSers who aren't as conscious of the fragility of TRR's democratic society and culture as though who witnessed the August Revolution or the ratification debates of TRR Constitution. I also think that the heavy use of Discord among TRR officers today has blurred the moderation of private and public spheres: the RMB is a public sphere where a more formal recognition of civil rights and the limits of moderation is necessary than a private sphere like a Discord channel. The consequence of a more informal, social game on Discord is the deterioration of formal processes of in-game community institutions that liberal democracy relies on to function properly. Many of today's players are attracted to oligarchies and meritocracies, and illiberal regimes, because they cannot make liberal democracy (which is formal and institutional) "jive" with the game they've constructed for themselves on Discord (which is deeply informal and interpersonal).

[Nova Vandalia]

Fantastic Job as always to the TRT staff. A little surprised as this "no suppression on the RMB" especially considering the IRL political climate in some places around the dangers of unrestrained speech. I mean I'll be watching, but I don't understand how this is going to possiblely have a positive outcome for TRR. Best of luck though.

[Kraljevstvo Rata]

So, should TRR Have a Rules or Suppression Policy?

Most people who argue against suppressions state that suppressions decrease the quality and flow of conversation on the board, and that truly rule-breaking posts can be handled by the on-site moderators (one of which resides in the Rejected Realms). Similar reasoning is used against Board rules.

Suppressions, however, serve a few purposes:

1) They make the RMB more aesthetically pleasing. The Regional Message Board is often covered in serious spam that may take a while for NationStates moderators to suppress, as they aren’t always online. Suppression makes unpleasant spam disappear, which ensures that the board is easier to read, especially on mobile screens, which are a pain to read the board with anyway;

2) They serve as a warning system to ensure that behaviour that may have a negative impact on the quality of the RMB in the future.

But like this argument avoids the real discussion taking place in TRR - why is "double-posting" considered a cultural offense? It was never considered rule-breaking before Toerana wrote a guide that discouraged it. Without any legislation enabling this change, Toerana's unofficial guide (which vaguely has been adopted as official?) has essentially changed the legal norm in TRR.

Double-posting hurts no-one, it's not necessarily asthetically unpleasing than the suppressions themselves. There is no reasonable grounds to consider it a limitation of residents' freedom of expression. If double-posting is banned, another overactive RO can also make a similar argument that there are "asthetic" grounds for banning residents from using bad grammar (this was a major point of criticism from TRR of Francos Spain's Civil Code) or that players should avoid posting too much (because it's ugly having one person write 5 of the 10 newest RMB posts) or that players shouldn't debate other players on the RMB (because long back-and-forth discussions disrupt the RMB). Applying asthetics to RMB suppression rules is a slippery slope. It's easy to imagine what else could be argued as grounds for suppression because it's "ugly" or "disruptive."

Authoritarian regimes in NS have in the past used asthetics to justify tight service rules for their community RMBs. I think today's players aren't aware that this was a serious discussion in the past, TRR was critical of Francos Spain and his CIvil Code. Consequently, the democratic ideal in TRR was always that RMB should be free for its residents to use, with minimal oversight.

ROs seem to think that because they have powers they never had before, they should make use of it. I think there's a generation of NSers who aren't as conscious of the fragility of TRR's democratic society and culture as though who witnessed the August Revolution or the ratification debates of TRR Constitution. I also think that the heavy use of Discord among TRR officers today has blurred the moderation of private and public spheres: the RMB is a public sphere where a more formal recognition of civil rights and the limits of moderation is necessary than a private sphere like a Discord channel. The consequence of a more informal, social game on Discord is the deterioration of formal processes of in-game community institutions that liberal democracy relies on to function properly. Many of today's players are attracted to oligarchies and meritocracies, and illiberal regimes, because they cannot make liberal democracy (which is formal and institutional) "jive" with the game they've constructed for themselves on Discord (which is deeply informal and interpersonal).

I'd like to just focus on a few points, and explain them as clearly and thoughtfully as possible. While I do understand the historical context of your argument, I don't find it to be especially relevant in 2021, or for any years since 2017, for that matter.

1. " I think there's a generation of NSers who aren't as conscious of the fragility of TRR's democratic society and culture as though who witnessed the August Revolution or the ratification debates of TRR Constitution." This is correct. The generation of NSers who aren't as conscious about this issue aren't conscious about it because the "issue" isn't an issue. The past year or two in TRR's political stage haven't been as tumultuous as the years in which these debates happened. We've progressed beyond that, and are happily settling into quite a calm state. TRR has developed a reputation amongst NSers as a region that isn't as much of, let's say, a hassle as other regions.

2." If double-posting is banned, another overactive RO can also make a similar argument that there are 'a[e]sthetic' grounds for banning residents from using bad grammar... Applying a[e]sthetics to RMB suppression rules is a slippery slope. It's easy to imagine what else could be argued as grounds for suppression because it's 'ugly" or "disruptive.'" You've admitted that this is a slippery slope. While it's easy to imagine this scenario happening, it's best not to assume that an event like this will happen, because as the past few years have told us, it hasn't. Whether or not an event like this happens, TRR has a more than capable team that is responsible for disciplining users who abuse their powers.

3. "Or that players shouldn't debate other players on the RMB (because long back-and-forth discussions disrupt the RMB)." I find this scenario to be quite interesting. I do not believe that our government has any issue with debate on our RMB, but rather when the debate falls into a blistering rage of ad hominems and unintelligible fallacies. Again, this is a slippery slope. it isn't likely that because of double-posting suppression, further, and more harmful actions will be taken.

4. "The consequence of a more informal, social game on Discord is the deterioration of formal processes of in-game community institutions that liberal democracy relies on to function properly." I completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with this. Discord is responsible for zero percent of any "deterioration" of any formal processes done by any region. We still use the forums as a way to apply for regional jobs, to run for office, etc. Nothing has really gone away with Discord. Also, informal discussion allows for the freer expression of thought, which you are so inclined to defend. However, formal discussion revolves around a specific ruleset (relating to speech mannerisms), which isn't something that I think you would like.

Overall, I don't agree with this analysis. There's a bit of fallacious reasoning that I am not inclined to agree with.

[The Church of Satan]

It's gone on for a number of years, Unibot. It's customary for TRR delegates to adopt an RMB policy of their own and part of several such policies have been a crackdown on spam which for TRR is a bigger problem than that of any other region, since we can't just throw our spammers away like everyone else. Perhaps though, after so many years of stomping spam into paste, we can finally use that paste to build a foundation for our RMB which could be a bit more lax on double-posting. Because the regulars of our RMB can now better appreciate it after seeing what taking it for granted has cost us all.

[Tinhampton]

Issue LXIII | December 2020

[...]

Regionalism: A Goal and Progress Oriented Player Experience

DIALOGUE | WRITTEN BY HumanSanity
_{This article is part of the new "TRT Dialogues" series. A companion article presenting different ideas will be posted in the next edition.}

Issue LXIV | January 2021

Editor-in-Chief: Agalaesia
Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Vincey

Index

• No Place Like NationStates For the Holidays - Crowheim
• Epilepsy Awareness Month 2020 - The Church of Satan
• Union workers shut down Grim Interregional Airport by force - Glacikaldr
• Regional Message Board Suppression - Agalaesia
• Kral's Cooking Column: Arepas - Kraljevstvo Rata

Which one of the five articles published in this month's issue of The Rejected Times is supposed to be the counterpoint to HumanSanity's defence of regionalism from last month's issue?

[The Church of Satan]

That article is not yet finished.

[The Moonstar]

So, should TRR Have a Rules or Suppression Policy?

Most people who argue against suppressions state that suppressions decrease the quality and flow of conversation on the board, and that truly rule-breaking posts can be handled by the on-site moderators (one of which resides in the Rejected Realms). Similar reasoning is used against Board rules.

Suppressions, however, serve a few purposes:

1) They make the RMB more aesthetically pleasing. The Regional Message Board is often covered in serious spam that may take a while for NationStates moderators to suppress, as they aren’t always online. Suppression makes unpleasant spam disappear, which ensures that the board is easier to read, especially on mobile screens, which are a pain to read the board with anyway;

2) They serve as a warning system to ensure that behaviour that may have a negative impact on the quality of the RMB in the future.

But like this argument avoids the real discussion taking place in TRR - why is "double-posting" considered a cultural offense? It was never considered rule-breaking before .

All posting is considered rule-breaking. Suppress them all.

[Unibot III]

-snip-

It’s not fallacious reasoning. We’ve already seen evidence of a decline in process and an abuse of moderation authority.

The RMB Act provides an exception to the free use of the RMB: harmful, vexatious, or seditious communication. It requests that new delegates publish their ruleset for the RMB.

What’s happened is the entire system has lazily fallen off course. Nowadays, new delegates forget completely to affirm this otherwise unofficial guide.

ROs don’t seem to take the suppression tool seriously — they’ve lowered the valid justification for suppression down to “I dunno, I just don’t like the ‘look’ of double posting.” When the state is circumscribing the right to free expression, the state should be tasked to meet a higher standard than “me no likely look of your posts.” What kind of justification for suppression is that?

The RMB Act was a liberal document, that anticipated a limited use of moderation, but TRR is now using it as the basis for a pseudo NPO Civil Code.

This blasé (as you call it “calm”) acceptance of extralegality is par for the course for gameplayers who are increasingly more comfortable in a Discord server than the legislature. The political rights discourse as it pertains to decision-making has shrunk into a footnote. The regulatory process is breaking down bit by bit — even on critical functions like the mandatory delegate updates. Nobody seems to be asking whether actions are lawful anymore or need to be...

Deadeye Jack, for instance, ignored the central part of the compromise that the RA passed on TRT reform and unilaterally held a unsanctioned, unlawful “consultative election” against the pith and substance of the compromise — and the speaker gave him official resources to run that election in the Assembly without questioning whether they should have. There’s nothing stopping future delegates from holding other quasi-official consultative elections for positions that, under law, weren’t supposed to be elected positions (e.g., Vice Officers) — this would allow delegates to change constitutional and statutory practices by stealth.

What I want to see is a community that meaningfully engages again in the discussion of rights, freedoms, and the limits of the state and executive power.

[Deadeye Jack]

Deadeye Jack, for instance, ignored the central part of the compromise that the RA passed on TRT reform and unilaterally held a unsanctioned, unlawful “consultative election” against the pith and substance of the compromise — and the speaker gave him official resources to run that election in the Assembly without questioning whether they should have.

You're wrong about what the central compromise of the Constituting Act of the The Rejected Realms Media Corporation was. The central compromise was that the Assembly should have oversight of the Editor in Chief but TRRMC staff members would be given preference to being able to get the job. In fact, the Constituting Act set up a process by which TRRMC staff members could challenge a sitting Editor in Chief for the position like a citizen would challenge an Officer for the position and that the Assembly would vote on that challenge. The act also gave the Delegate the power/responsibility of appointing an EiC when the position was vacant. This was included as a check on the Assembly so it couldn't shut down operations of TRRMC forever through vacating an Editor in Chief. As this was the first, If I wanted to I could have appointed someone who was not a member of TRRMC staff to be the Editor in Chief as my delegate appointment, but I wanted to make my appointment in the spirit of what I hope to see endure for the editor in chief position and that was for TRRMC members being elected to the position via the challenge system laid out in the Constituting Act. I don't believe the process of electing Agalaesia as Editor in Chief really went against the spirit of the act, and I'm very proud of the work Agalaesia has done in the role!

[Kyorgia]

-snip-

What I want to see is a community that meaningfully engages again in the discussion of rights, freedoms, and the limits of the state and executive power.

All i want for Christmas is for you to shut up and stop trying to involve yourself in a community that clearly does not want you and you are banned from for good reason

[The Church of Satan]

Deadeye Jack, for instance, ignored the central part of the compromise that the RA passed on TRT reform and unilaterally held a unsanctioned, unlawful “consultative election” against the pith and substance of the compromise — and the speaker gave him official resources to run that election in the Assembly without questioning whether they should have.

You're wrong about what the central compromise of the Constituting Act of the The Rejected Realms Media Corporation was. The central compromise was that the Assembly should have oversight of the Editor in Chief but TRRMC staff members would be given preference to being able to get the job. In fact, the Constituting Act set up a process by which TRRMC staff members could challenge a sitting Editor in Chief for the position like a citizen would challenge an Officer for the position and that the Assembly would vote on that challenge. The act also gave the Delegate the power/responsibility of appointing an EiC when the position was vacant. This was included as a check on the Assembly so it couldn't shut down operations of TRRMC forever through vacating an Editor in Chief. As this was the first, If I wanted to I could have appointed someone who was not a member of TRRMC staff to be the Editor in Chief as my delegate appointment, but I wanted to make my appointment in the spirit of what I hope to see endure for the editor in chief position and that was for TRRMC members being elected to the position via the challenge system laid out in the Constituting Act. I don't believe the process of electing Agalaesia as Editor in Chief really went against the spirit of the act, and I'm very proud of the work Agalaesia has done in the role!

I think we came to a fair compromise on that law too. We definitely argued enough about it to reach that compromise, lol.

[Kraljevstvo Rata]

-snip-

It’s not fallacious reasoning. We’ve already seen evidence of a decline in process and an abuse of moderation authority.

Give me an example of this 'abuse' of moderation authority. Toerana explains it well in the post below mine.

Do not get me wrong. I am all for the free expression of beliefs, and ideas. I am not, however, in favor of unproductive debate that as shown before, has delved into chaos.

And yes, it is fallacious reasoning. It isn't reasonable to assume that an irrelevant rule such as ours on multiposting (our rule on double posting has gotten significantly more lenient in the past few months) will snowball into an autocratic regional state where the suppression of free speech will be rampant. It just isn't.

[Toerana]

It requests that new delegates publish their ruleset for the RMB.
What’s happened is the entire system has lazily fallen off course. Nowadays, new delegates forget completely to affirm this otherwise unofficial guide.

I've requested during our previous discussions what you mean by that.
The wording of the act itself only uses the word "encouraged" to publish a policy. Furthermore, the "Unofficial guide" is the sole item referenced when myself and others moderate the RMB, and has been referenced time and time again by the delegate herself. It was written on her behalf for the love of god. The only more legitimate it can be is if she posted it herself, but I also suspect that that'll still be deemed illegitimate because you disagree with its contents - which you have a right to.

ROs don’t seem to take the suppression tool seriously — they’ve lowered the valid justification for suppression down to “I dunno, I just don’t like the ‘look’ of double posting.” When the state is circumscribing the right to free expression, the state should be tasked to meet a higher standard than “me no likely look of your posts.” What kind of justification for suppression is that?

An RMB that looks messy and spammy discourages participation.
Simple as that.

The RMB Act was a liberal document, that anticipated a limited use of moderation, but TRR is now using it as the basis for a pseudo NPO Civil Code.

This blasé (as you call it “calm”) acceptance of extralegality is par for the course for gameplayers who are increasingly more comfortable in a Discord server than the legislature. The political rights discourse as it pertains to decision-making has shrunk into a footnote. The regulatory process is breaking down bit by bit — even on critical functions like the mandatory delegate updates. Nobody seems to be asking whether actions are lawful anymore or need to be...

Comparing us to the NPO, ouch, that hurts Unibot, that hurts.
TRR is not like, and very likely, will never be like the NPO. Any form of moderation whatsoever could be viewed as a "pseudo NPO Civil Code," but yet I don't see you arguing that any previously moderation was.
Whether you'll believe it or not, moderating the RMB to prevent spam and harmful content isn't an attempt to turn the region into an NPO like entity.

What I want to see is a community that meaningfully engages again in the discussion of rights, freedoms, and the limits of the state and executive power.

Finally, Unibot, the community is allowed to change. NationStates and the region itself have evolved past where it was when you were banned, it's grown beyond a political roleplay and into a proper, fully fledged community, where people are allowed to simply hang out and spend time with people they enjoy spending time with. Not every NationStates player or citizen plays this game exclusively for its politics. There has been no amending of legislation in a way that knocks back or removes civil liberties, and every action that may have looked law breaking has been challenged. The RMB guide and the ruleset was subject to a lengthy discussion on our forums not too long ago, and the aforementioned delegate challenge has helped to hold the government to account, at least by raising the issues for the region at large to see.

The shift to discord isn't an evil, it just represents and facilitates a more casual outlook on the game, not mandating exclusively formal interaction onsite and on off site forums as the only form of communication.

I think you just need to come to terms with the fact that the community has changed, and will continue to change and members of it join and leave.

[Unibot III]

My apologies for the delay in my response - it's been a busy week. (I think there is something karmic about me grumbling over new developments, when I spent years challenging what I perceived to be a stagnant old guard in the WA and GP. Alas...)

Finally, Unibot, the community is allowed to change. NationStates and the region itself have evolved past where it was when you were banned, it's grown beyond a political roleplay and into a proper, fully fledged community, where people are allowed to simply hang out and spend time with people they enjoy spending time with. Not every NationStates player or citizen plays this game exclusively for its politics.

I think this is the most concerning thing about this discussion. On the one hand, players are saying the "law is being followed" and on the other hand, players like yourself are saying "Listen gramps, the law doesn't matter anymore - we've "evolved past" that into a community "where people are allowed to simply hang out and spend time with people" ..." Which is it?

Are you trying to say that the law is being followed, but it wouldn't matter even if it weren't? I think it would be very concerning that the community has "evolved" beyond a discussions of rights, freedoms, and the rule of law? You said "ouch" when I referenced the NPO, but what distinguishes TRR from NPO *is* the open discussion of rights, freedoms, and democratic governance. What differentiates the RMB Act from the Civil Code is that the RMB Act is a document that authorizes only a limited use of suppression powers.

You know if you were to go to NPO and ask them why NPO is better than Democratic GCRs - they'll give you the exact same story that you're telling me about TRR - NPO would say "we're community-focused" - that removing some of the political functions from the regional governance has allowed a stronger social community and kinship to flourish. That's always been the NPO's go-to line to defend its state actions. That it's a chill place. That they're all friends. They can relax and hang out together and roleplay recreationally, without being bothered about all that democracy stuff.

So I'll round out my post here with a few points in relation to your post I want to make:

1. Is the RMB Act being adherred to?

No, I think the ban on double-posting is not consistent with the RMB Act. The RMB Act sets out the grounds for which posts can be suppressed, and the RMB guides/rules are to act as a key interpretative document that fleshes out how the RMB Act will be implemented. Regular, official promulgation of the current guide/ruleset is important for its fair and unarbitrary application.

The RMB Act anticipates a free, open, and safe RMB - free of public harm, harassment, and sedition. Asthetics is not something any of its authors considered as legitimate grounds for suppression in a democratic society - it's totally arbitrary to say "I don't like the look of your posts, I'll suppress them." The NPO Civil Code is an example of how asthetics bleeding into community moderation practices can be authoritarian.

2. Is a "living" rights discourse important for a vibrant and active TRR?

You've intimated that a rights discourse should and has been discarded with in TRR - a thing of the past, for old forgies and dinosaurs like me who want to play a "political roleplay."

For approximately 7-9 years, TRR was not a democracy, it had no functioning government, no laws, nothing really - it was a benevolent dictatorship. TRR's modern constitution has quietly surpassed a milestone: it is now just barely older than the ancien régime it replaced. Kandarin's TRR was a nice place and Kandarin was a wonderful person, but it was not a democracy and TRR was not particularly active.

I had the honour of signing the original constitution, but I don't know if I appreciated at the time that it would impact TRR as much as it had. It transformed the region from a primordial state to one of the leading superpowers in the world. It brought activity and interest. But that democratic transformation requires ongoing effort, intiative, and investment from present and future generations to keep the flame alive.

You say that these political/legal discussions are old hat, but the reality is that the notion of a legal-less "social-focused / community-focused" state is older than the democratic states that replaced them. What's being advocated for as an "evolution" here is in reality, a devolution towards an anarchy that was cultually stagnant and very inactive. I know what TRR is like without a structured democratic system, I experienced it first hand. The modern constitutional effort, circa 2011, sought to move TRR beyond that status quo.

3. Is a "living" rights discourse important for a flourishing democracy in general?

Yes it is. Democracy requires the rule of law to survive. You have to have fair laws, unarbitrary enforcement of those laws, and open representation in the process of the creation of those laws which manifests itself as a popular sovereignty.

This is why "political roleplay" is more important and essential in a democratic region than it is in an anarchy or dictatorship because democracy is inherantly legal and procedural in nature to recognize the contractural nature of democracies. Authority flows to the branches of the democratic government only on the premise of a social contract existing between the governing and the governed. Anarchies and dictatorships are arbitrary - they don't require much in the way of laws or process or representation - where there is no monopoly of legitimate force present, or the consent of the governed is not sought or held immaterial.

Strip the law and legal philosophy from the democracy and what is left is not a democracy. That is an unfortunate dilemma facing not just TRR but many other historically democratic regions in NS as political gameplay moves away from politics.

Deadeye Jack, for instance, ignored the central part of the compromise that the RA passed on TRT reform and unilaterally held a unsanctioned, unlawful “consultative election” against the pith and substance of the compromise — and the speaker gave him official resources to run that election in the Assembly without questioning whether they should have.

You're wrong about what the central compromise of the Constituting Act of the The Rejected Realms Media Corporation was. The central compromise was that the Assembly should have oversight of the Editor in Chief but TRRMC staff members would be given preference to being able to get the job. In fact, the Constituting Act set up a process by which TRRMC staff members could challenge a sitting Editor in Chief for the position like a citizen would challenge an Officer for the position and that the Assembly would vote on that challenge. The act also gave the Delegate the power/responsibility of appointing an EiC when the position was vacant. This was included as a check on the Assembly so it couldn't shut down operations of TRRMC forever through vacating an Editor in Chief. As this was the first, If I wanted to I could have appointed someone who was not a member of TRRMC staff to be the Editor in Chief as my delegate appointment, but I wanted to make my appointment in the spirit of what I hope to see endure for the editor in chief position and that was for TRRMC members being elected to the position via the challenge system laid out in the Constituting Act. I don't believe the process of electing Agalaesia as Editor in Chief really went against the spirit of the act, and I'm very proud of the work Agalaesia has done in the role!

Agalaesia has done a fine job in the role, but that has nothing to do with whether the appointment process as authorized was followed.

Find me the clause in the constituting act that says the Editor would be elected via an Assembly election, rather than their appointment ratified by the Assembly. How new Editors were to be selected was the central point of discussion in that debacle. Some wanted TRT to elect its editors, some wanted a delegate appointment, some wanted Assembly elections. You insisted that the Editor should be chosen via an election in the Assembly. When you didn't get your way and the compromise bill settled on an appointment basis, you held a "consultative election" which went against the substance of the compromise bill and was an unlawful use of public resources. All this is on the public record.

You failed to consult with TRT before you brought forth your plans to reconstitute the Rejected Times Media Corporation.

You underestimated the opposition to your plans.

You didn't get what you wanted, and you then just went ahead and did it anyway.

The result was a weird legal anomaly where the Assembly held elections for an official, and then held a seperate vote to ratify the official that it had previously elected. This strange duplication in the process is a consequence of a delegate trying to contort the system to work the way he wanted it to work when he originally intiated TRT reform debate.

This has major legal implications for all other roles in TRR that are made on an appointment basis - for instance, Vice Officers and some Citizen Councillors - because a delegate could in theory, do the exact same thing as Deadeye Jack did, and extralegally introduce a new practice of 'consultative elections' for these positions that wasn't anticipated in the law or the constitution. You could also hold consultative elections to divvy portfolios for officers. Any of these kinds of 'customs' would be effectively extralegal and informally amend the law or constitution. The practice of appointing VOs, for instance, has historically given officers an opportunity to entrust official responsibilities to newcomers eager to prove themselves -- if VOs were shifted to being elected positions, the positions could face more competition from veteran players.

All i want for Christmas is for you to shut up and stop trying to involve yourself in a community that clearly does not want you and you are banned from for good reason

I am not interested in involving myself in your community, Kyorgia. I have better things to do with my time. But I will always be invested in the free and democratic rule in the Rejected Realms in some capacity. If a coup were to happen, I would want to restore the current state to power. This is a distinction that I make, that I think others often do not, I often have not wanted to be an intergal part of regional communities (I wasn't a part of #TRR for instance, even when I was delegate), but I've always felt strongly about regional governance. I've always believed that it is a risk for democracies when residents confuse "the community" with "the state." The more that confusion takes place, the greater the risk of an illiberal intergration of citizens. The success of the modern Rejected Realms was its individualistic character - a society of rejects, gadflies, and non-conformists. Not every resident needs to be your friend. But every residents need to be equal to you under the law.

It was often my experience that the loudest cheerleaders for "the community" were (a) a toxic and narcissistic presence in the regional community they lionized, (b) not committed democrats - I often isolated myself from those regional chats, I didn't like those people then and I still don't like them now. I was often a loner and would freely admit that about myself.

[RiderSyl]

Kyo: "Unibot, stop involving yourself in TRR, you're banned for a reason"
Unibot:

[Unibot III]

Kyo: "Unibot, stop involving yourself in TRR, you're banned for a reason"
Unibot:
(Image)

Look, when they find TRR's eject button, they can eject me. The whole point of The Rejected Realms is it is a place where nobody gets to decide whether you remain there except you. And I'm as stubborn and miserable as I am long-winded.

(I also like Kermy & Typewriters).

[Drop Your Pants]

Look, when they find TRR's eject button, they can eject me. The whole point of The Rejected Realms is it is a place where nobody gets to decide whether you remain there except you. And I'm as stubborn and miserable as I am long-winded.

And no interest in joining the existing community, just spouting nonsense of what you wish which no one else wants.

As usual, you're wrong. The point of TRR is a place for people to be kicked to in game (bet you'd never use the same shite before Laz had an eject button). You of all people have no right to say what a region is.

Now leave Unibot, people like you aren't welcome here and never will be.

[Guy]

Agalaesia has done a fine job in the role, but that has nothing to do with whether the appointment process as authorized was followed.

Find me the clause in the constituting act that says the Editor would be elected via an Assembly election, rather than their appointment ratified by the Assembly. How new Editors were to be selected was the central point of discussion in that debacle. Some wanted TRT to elect its editors, some wanted a delegate appointment, some wanted Assembly elections. You insisted that the Editor should be chosen via an election in the Assembly. When you didn't get your way and the compromise bill settled on an appointment basis, you held a "consultative election" which went against the substance of the compromise bill and was an unlawful use of public resources. All this is on the public record.

You failed to consult with TRT before you brought forth your plans to reconstitute the Rejected Times Media Corporation.

You underestimated the opposition to your plans.

You didn't get what you wanted, and you then just went ahead and did it anyway.

The result was a weird legal anomaly where the Assembly held elections for an official, and then held a seperate vote to ratify the official that it had previously elected. This strange duplication in the process is a consequence of a delegate trying to contort the system to work the way he wanted it to work when he originally intiated TRT reform debate.

This has major legal implications for all other roles in TRR that are made on an appointment basis - for instance, Vice Officers and some Citizen Councillors - because a delegate could in theory, do the exact same thing as Deadeye Jack did, and extralegally introduce a new practice of 'consultative elections' for these positions that wasn't anticipated in the law or the constitution. You could also hold consultative elections to divvy portfolios for officers. Any of these kinds of 'customs' would be effectively extralegal and informally amend the law or constitution. The practice of appointing VOs, for instance, has historically given officers an opportunity to entrust official responsibilities to newcomers eager to prove themselves -- if VOs were shifted to being elected positions, the positions could face more competition from veteran players.

You are wrong about this.

The relevant clauses of the Constituting Act are as follows:

5. The Delegate of The Rejected Realms must appoint an Editor-in-Chief when the position is vacant.

6. Members of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation may challenge the Editor-in-Chief in the manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.

7. The Assembly of The Rejected Realms may vacate the Editor-in-Chief by a majority vote.

The process here is quite simple.

I. When the position is vacant, as it was when it was formed, the Delegate must appoint a person to fill the vacancy.
II. When the position is occupied, any member of TRRMC may challenge for the position, with the same procedure as for an Officer election
III. When the position is occupied, the Assembly may remove the sitting EiC via a majority vote, leading to an appointment by the Delegate (see I).

There is no mechanism for a ratification vote by the Assembly of an appointment.

The only novel thing here is that at the first Delegate appointment under (I), the Delegate requested the Speaker run a non-binding election for the position, with eligible candidates being TRRMC staff. This was done, Aggie won the election, and Jack appointed them to the position (see I). There was never any formal confirmation vote by the Assembly, and there never will be one under the Act as it stands, as it does not provide for it.

As for your concern regarding Deputy Officers, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison and thus quite misplaced. There is no maximum number of Deputy Officers, and the position is not even statutorily defined. The point of the position is to work closely with the Officer. The likelihood of an Officer running informal elections for the position is extremely low.

[Unibot III]

Now leave Unibot, people like you aren't welcome here and never will be.

People like what, DYP?

Do you not think I have a sense of empathy? A sense of regret? I understand the desire of the region to take security matters into their own hands, but I can’t help but think that you, and Guy, and Tim, and Grey, and a few others have sought to extend my ban and indeed riff for years about me being some kind of monster because you don’t want me in the region mostly for reasons that don’t involve anything to do with the reasons provided for the ban. It’s one thing to just install a political ban, it’s another thing entirely to continue to extend and extend and extend a ban (and extend its scope) against me with the main charge being that I continue to be a safety threat to others.

I don’t want my citizenship back, I really am happy not being involved in the region to that level again, and I don’t want to join your Discord channels. If I had wanted to get involved again in TRR or in NS to that extent, and I was weirdo/liar, I would have created a new identity — I never have. Not since 2015. I’ve never felt comfortable with creating a false persona or lying to anyone about my identity. What you see is what is get, DYP. I just want to be an old codger that hangs around and yells at clouds, and talks about the good old days. My retirement plan on NS was always to be a resource for others how ever I could. I have regrets and strong feelings. But I also can’t change the past either. That’s the crappy thing about mistakes, you can’t undo them! I can only reach out to those impacted and try to be a better person. That process began back in 2015. I didn’t know why I was banned, so I spent a long time trying to think of what I had done wrong in my life and reassess everything. It kind of changed the trajectory of my life to be honest. It made me consciously want to be a more respectful and responsible person.

I’m not entirely sure why I’m telling you all this, except to say that people can grow and learn. And I dunno, I think it’s sad to watch you guys investing so much of your energy into trying to figure out new ways to extend the ban against me and tear down laws and institutions in TRR because I was involved in their creation. I think this has evolved well beyond righting wrongs, it’s a bitter vendetta and it’s one that isn’t helping TRR, it’s not really helping anyone, not even yourselves. I’m not coming back: you could drop the ban today, and I wouldn’t come back. And you’re not hurting me by dismantling parts of the region, I think I’ve matured beyond that, but you *are* hurting the region — you’re keeping it stuck in some sad perpetual deunibotization out of your contempt for me. Never letting it move on. Never letting the region breathe and just be free of it. We all played our part in building a strong foundation there in TRR and I have hope that future generations will take it to new heights.

RE: Guy, I don’t agree with your analysis. The consultation was unsanctioned in law.

[Goobergunchia]

Are you trying to say that the law is being followed, but it wouldn't matter even if it weren't? I think it would be very concerning that the community has "evolved" beyond a discussions of rights, freedoms, and the rule of law? You said "ouch" when I referenced the NPO, but what distinguishes TRR from NPO *is* the open discussion of rights, freedoms, and democratic governance. What differentiates the RMB Act from the Civil Code is that the RMB Act is a document that authorizes only a limited use of suppression powers.

There's also the bit where nations can't be permanently banned from TRR for violating it. (They could be soft-"banned" where all of their messages are suppressed on sight, regardless of content, but I don't think this thread has been discussing the Amendment to the Regional Message Board Act?) One of the major issues with the Civil Code was that it was vague, broad, and punishments were solely at Francos's (and friends) discretion. Without the same kind of star chamber bans that Francos regularly dished out it's hard to really make the analogy.

[EDIT: because I checked TRR's Assembly and wanted to clarify]

[Falconias]

I have better things to do with my time.

Unibot, I don’t agree with your analysis.

[New Rogernomics]

TRR has the right to suppress nonsense on the RMB, just like any other region in the game. It is also a game mechanic that I'd never abuse myself, and I don't really see any evidence of TRR abusing it. If it isn't broke don't fix it is my opinion.