Gagium v. Administration
| Gagium v. Administration | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of the Republic |
| Full case name | The United Commonwealths of Gagium v. the Administration of The League of Conservative Nations |
| Decided | 9 August 2020 |
| Transcript(s) | See Transcript |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Quebecshire |
| Concurrence | Eminople, Terranihil |
The United Commonwealths of Gagium v. the Administration of The League of Conservative Nations, shorthand known as Gagium v. Administration, was a court case held through the Court of Appeals on 9 August 2020.
Contents
Background
On 9 August 2020, Gagium purchased 3,002,000 Council Delegate Estates after Quebecshire told the council delegates to only buy one.
After being warned, Gagium sued the Consulate of the Republic.
Quebecshire attempted to persuade Gagium to not sue and to settle the matter out of court, but Gagium refused and took the issue to court.
Transcript
The following is the transcript of the court hearing.
Gagium: Thank you. I am bringing this forward to the court because I hope to prevent a dangerous precedent from forming in which the rules can be enforced based on arbitrary standards made up on the spot and not publicly listed anywhere. I also believe that my warning was unconstitutional and hope to overturn the basis on which I was warned.
Quebecshire: Washingtonian Republic may make his opening statement.
Washingtonian Republic: Thank you justice, my objective in this trail is sustain order within the confines of The League' Constitution and ensure all instruments of communication are used as specified. I will representing the Consulate in this legal engagement.
Quebecshire: Gagium can you please present any rules or legal documents you feel relevant to your case.
Gagium: Gladly. I would first like to present the context of Rule 5.1, which states “No spamming”. Furthermore, I would like to direct you all to the clarification of 5.1 regarding spam chains. Next, I would like to point to established precedent that using bot commands twice in a row is perfectly acceptable in bot channels such as #bot-commands and the newly established Consulate Central Bank. This can be validated through a quick scroll through either channel or through previous testimony from the Chief Consul. Now, I would like to direct you all to Section 2.1 of the constitution, which states “Residents of the League maintain the right to freedom of speech, so long as it acts within the rules of the relevant official platform and does not harm the further rights defined”. As the constitution states, all residents of the League maintain the right to free speech as long as their message is within the “rules of the relevant official platform” - i.e. the server rules. Now, I would like to argue that I was warned unconstitutionally in a manner that violates my freedom of speech. This is based off the fact that I was warned for “disobeying” the Consulate after they told me to stop using the command. After I continued, I was warned for using said command (the !buy command). However, I argue that my continued usage of the command did not violate the server rules due to the fact that using a command numerous times has been acceptable according to precedent if it was in a bot channel. Furthermore, the only warning I received was vocally in voice chat, in which, if I recall correctly, several other people were saying things. Asides from an angry-sounding order from Quebecshire for me to stop, no such clarification was issued in a public space that my usage of the bot command was against the channel’s purpose. To reiterate, I was warned based off a vague order to stop in a crowded voice chat that I had no reason to believe was an official Moderation position. This was based off of an unclarified interpretation of the channel purpose that wasn’t publicly available. Again, while the rules do state “use channels appropriately”, what was publicly known was that the purpose of Consulate Central Bank was to use commands with the newly added bot. That is all that I did. Based off of the precedent that multiple bot commands in a row are fine if they serve a purpose, and that I was using the command for a purpose, I should not be warned for violating the rules, as my warning was substantiated off of a non-public arbitrary channel rule that arguably was made up on the spot just for that incident. Done
Quebecshire: Washingtonian Republic may go now.
Washingtonian Republic: As for Rule 5.1 regarding "no spamming" is broad enough be interpreted as apply to "spam chains", which involve the usage of the same statement repeatedly or the usage of bot command constantly without break. Recall Rule 5.2, which states at the very conclusion that determining what is deemed unacceptable in channels is left to moderators. As avowed in the LCN server rules: "This is up to Consular/LPF discretion". Gagium was advised prior to cease his actions within said channel, and this warning was given out on numerous account prior to execution of bot sanctioned penalty (i.e. warn). In this circumstance, moderators where acting in line with Rule 5.2. in enforcing disciplinary measures which are left to Mod/LPF discretion, meaning if the an League Police Force officer on duty or an individual with a higher clearances (Consuls) have probable cause to enact server rule enforcement. In this situation, Gagium was (again) asked by Consules and and LPF to stop his behavior using the bot command over three times simultaneously, but he did not comply with the request of the officers overseeing the channel. Again, this falls in line with the Constitution in Section II Defined Rights: Residents of the League maintain the right to freedom of speech, so long as it acts within the rules of the relevant official platform and does not harm the further rights defined. Done my Honor.
Quebecshire: Does any Consul of the Republic wish to ask questions to either side regarding their case following reading both?
Gagium: May I request the opportunity to counter some of his points?
Quebecshire: You may do so in your closing statements. As the plaintiff you get the final word there. Consuls of the Republic, do you have anything? I have at least one question for Washingtonian Republic.
Eminople: I would like to see screenshots of the incident.
Terranihil: I have a question for Gagium.
Quebecshire: Use the search function to center on that channel and then search "Council" Eminople. Terranihil you may state it.
Terranihil: Gagium How can you claim ignorance of the rules within Consulate Central Bank if you were clearly told by Quebecshire that you are breaking the rules?
Gagium: Thanks for the question. I have several points regarding that: 1. This was not clear. I was told to stop and to not use the command again, if I recall correctly. I do not recall the rules being mentioned anywhere in anything that was communicated in voice chat except for an order to warn me if I used the command again. I don’t think a specific rule instance was mentioned. 2. Again, nothing in voice chat was communicated in that I breached the purpose of the channel by using the command. The alleged fact that it was a rule violation is based off of the idea that I was going outside of the purpose of the channel by using that command. Nothing regarding me breaking the purpose of the channel was mentioned vocally or publicly or elsewhere before I was warned.
Quebecshire: Consuls of the Republic are there any other questions from the two of you?
Terranihil: Not from me.
Eminople: Not from me either
Gagium: In conclusion, while it was communicated that I would be breaking the rules, the reason why my message would be breaking the rules wasn’t communicated clearly. I was warned because my messages were spam because they were apparently outside of the channel purpose. However, nothing about the channel purpose was mentioned in relation to why I would be punished for what I sent. What was publicly available, however, was that the channel was for using bot commands for the new bot, which is what I did, and according to precedent again, using multiple commands in a bot channel in a row is acceptable if it served a purpose. Again thank you for asking the question Terranihil
Quebecshire: Gagium, please be more concise so we do not move on without you. You do not have the floor anymore.
Gagium: I apologize. I will put “Done” at the end of my future statements to keep things clear.
Quebecshire: Or condense them to a single message.
Washingtonian Republic: Great question my honor, Rule 5.2. states at the very end that both server moderators and league's police force officer have the ability to use discretion or probable cause when it comes to enforcing server regulations, thus the LCN moderators where exercising their given powers to maintain consistency on established channels.
Quebecshire: Are there any objections before we move to closing statements?
Eminople: Nope.
Quebecshire: Washingtonian Republic may make his closing statement.
Washingtonian Republic: Alright, thank you justices of the Court of the Republic for permitting myself to represent the Consulate in this trial. The objective was to demonstrate how power was properly funneled to issue penalties for violation in established server law code. Again, thank you for your time.
Quebecshire: Gagium may now provide his closing statement.
Gagium: Thank you for hearing this case. Now, I would like to mention that Washingtonian Republic’s entire case is substantiated off of a tidbit of Rule 5.2 that applies to Rule 5.2, which relates to using bot commands outside of a bot channel. I didn’t use any bot commands outside of a bot channel, so I would like to mention that Washingtonian Republic’s entire case is null in that no relevant rules, legal precedents, or documents have been presented that aren’t attached to his point regarding rule 5.2. I would like to argue that he would bring up a valid point regarding 5.1 if it wasn’t precedent that using multiple of the same command in a row was perfectly acceptable in bot channels. As such, I again argue that I did not spam. Done.
Quebecshire: Does any other Consul of the Republic wish to present a position paper on this prior to me presenting mine? I think Gagium makes a fair point, but ultimately, I do not believe his claims are legally substantiated - not entirely or in the way he asserts, anyway. The clause in question is the following: I. Residents of the League maintain the right to freedom of speech, so long as it acts within the rules of the relevant official platform and does not harm the further rights defined. The relevant rules being: 1. Server Police have the authority to enforce these rules at their discretion when they feel it is best for the discord server, the users, and the region at large. They are accountable to the Consulate and by extension the people when they exercise this mandated authority. --- 1.1 Rules function as intended. 5. Use channels appropriately. --- 5.1 No spamming outside of the #meme-spam channel. Less so - the bank is a government channel and I would argue Gagium's actions did not exhibit professionalism (5.3). As for the invocation of the spam chain rule - the command was used at least three times, there were breaks between due to the recent speed of the channel. In addition to all relevant rules and laws, nothing impeded Gagium from expressing his concerns in any open or public channels. It is my opinion that the warn did not violate freedom of speech stipulations in the region, nor is there an arbitrary standard for moderation being created. The channel is new and rules being created for it as issues arise is nothing new, and Gagium was told to cease his behavior prior to being given a bot warning. The warn was not for disobeying a Consulate personally, it was for disobeying them in the context of moderation. You are not entitled to continue that speech. Now, I am willing to overturn the two warns (Gagiumand Washingtonian Republic) on a singular basis unrelated to the freedom of speech charges levied in regards to the warn - the fact that no appropriateness precedent was yet chosen for the channel. However, I think it needs to be codified clearly that the bank channel, due to its weird fusion between discussion and frequently used bot commands, is at the full discretion of moderation for such issues. And that this specific instance be henceforth defined as a rule violation. A ruling in line with this stated position would clarify that simple disputes in regards to warns though are not meant to be handled in the Court of the Republic, rather in the police channels, unless deemed to be of extreme nature at the discretion of the court itself. I think that is important to stability while maintaining a balance with openness. Preventing misuse of the court is important as is protecting consistent and fair rule enforcement. Does the defense, Gagium, and the remaining Consuls of the Republic find this agreeable? That is all for now.
Gagium: May I ask Quebecshire a question?
Quebecshire: If no other Consul wishes to present a position, yes. Be brief.
Gagium: This may or may not be relevant to the case, however, if the Consulate is counted as part of the “Server Police” (as mentioned in your point regarding 1), should they not be given the LPF role?
Quebecshire: No, as the LPF specifically derives their authority from Consulate based Constitutional provisions, and the post in server rules begins with "The Server Rules, mandated and enforced by the Office of the Consulate and the League's Police Force, will be posted here for ease of access." Consuls are not officers, rather they outrank the LPF and mandate it, so no role change is necessary.
Gagium: Alright. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Quebecshire: Are there any questions from either Gagium or WashRep in regards to my position statement? Washingtonian Republic
Gagium: I concede Quebecshire’s point regarding Rule 1, however while Quebecshire’s actions may have been justified under Rule 1, I still do not believe that they were constitutionally justified. I find the latter portion of Quebecshire’s statement to be agreeable.
Quebecshire: Does any other Consuls of the Republic wish to present a dissenting or concurring (but different) opinion to the court, or do they wish to sign on to the one presented?
Eminople: I wish to sign to the one presented.
Terranihil: I concur with Quebec's statement.
Quebecshire: It is the opinion of the Court of Appeals to sign on to the above statement published by Quebecshire. The warns delegated to Gagium and Washingtonian Republic will be overturned on the grounds that the rules and intents of the channel were not effectively communicated to the public, and therefore, cannot be properly enforced. While the posts were in violation and therefore consequences did not violate freedom of speech, it is the duty of moderation to make clear the expectations, and thus the warns will be overturned, but the precedent of what is acceptable in the channel will remain as rights to speech were not impeded. The court is adjourned.The entire case was held on 9 August 2020.
Ruling
Gagium and Washingtonian Republic's warns were removed since the spam policy was not properly communicated.
