Administrative Omnibus Act

[Deleted]

The following legislation is up for scrutiny until 27th December 2018 at 11pm GMT, at which point it shall move to a vote.

Administrative Omnibus Act
Category: Charter Amendment
Authors: Korolevia, Ivory Rhodes, Daophi
Co-Sponsors: Student Loan Debt, Burninandom

An Act to strengthen administrative response to extraordinary events and formalise previously informal administrative structures in the DSA. 

Chapter I: General Provisions
I - This Act may be cited as the “Administrative Omnibus Act”
II - This Act shall come into force upon its passage.

Chapter II: Charter Amendment I
I - A new entry is inserted into the ‘Definitions’ section of the Charter, and another altered:

Extraordinary Misconduct - behaviour of a resident that could reasonably be considered extraordinarily distasteful or damaging to the region. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

• Trolling or conducting arguments in bad faith.
• Harassment, especially that of a sexual nature.
• Promotion of fascist, racist, bigoted or otherwise offensive views or imagery.
• Use of derogatory, abusive, or degrading comments or language towards other persons.
• Intentional misgendering or misuse of pronouns.

Administrative Privileges - Those privileges including but not limited to:

• Suppressing or editing Regional Message Board and Forum posts
• Altering the World Factbook Entry
• Altering the Forum structure and/or content as a staff member
• Ejecting and/or banning nations from the region
• Accepting, rejecting, and/or soliciting embassy requests
• Adding or removing regional tags
• Distributing region-wide mass telegrams
• Having the “Administrator” privilege on the regional Discord server
• Having access to the DSA Google Drive

Chapter III: Charter Amendment II
I - The current Article 3 shall become article 4, with all subsection numbering altered as such.
II - A new subsection 4.1.4 is inserted into the Charter, with the current subsections 4.1.4 through 4.1.7 moved down one position:

Subsection 4.1.4 - Expulsion by the Cabinet
1    In certain extraordinary circumstances, it may be that the executive body of the region is required to perform an expulsion in order to best protect the interests and/or health of the region without waiting for an expulsion by the court to be completed.
2    By a simple majority vote, the Cabinet may expel a resident of the region who has committed an act of extraordinary misconduct.
3    Upon the passage of a Cabinet vote, the subject resident shall be removed from the DSA.
4    Repeated re-entry into the DSA by the expelled party will result in a temporary ban until the explusion has been reviewed by the Court.
5    The President shall issue a statement on behalf of the cabinet simultaneously with the expulsion, and evidence used in conjunction with the expulsion shall be offered for distribution to any resident who requests to view such material, subject to potential restrictions.
6    The Cabinet may apply to the court of the DSA to have the ban on a Cabinet-expelled resident extended if the nature of the charge is deemed to warrant it.
7    The Court of the DSA will have the final say on all expulsions undertaken by the Cabinet.

Chapter IV: Charter Amendment III
I - A new Article 3 is inserted into the Charter
II - A new Section 3.1 is inserted into the Charter

Section 3.1 - Discord
Subsection 3.1.1 - Administration
1    The administration of the Discord shall consist of the Cabinet, and shall be granted administrative privileges accordingly.
2    The owner of the Discord, when not a member of the Cabinet, shall be responsible for fulfilling all reasonable requests made by the Cabinet.
3    The Cabinet may, by a simple majority vote:

• Kick any user of the Discord
• Sanction any user of the Discord

4    Sanctioning a Discord user requires that all roles aside from pronoun roles shall be stripped from the user and replaced with a role that limits permissions to view or send messages in any number of channels.
5    The Cabinet may, by a ⅔ majority vote:

• Modify the rules of conduct for the Discord
• Create or modify the rules for any specific channel
• Create, modify, or delete channels in accordance with Subsection 3.1.3
• Ban any user from the Discord

6    Any Cabinet member may delete content that violates DSA regional principles or displays extraordinary misconduct so long as such content is documented.
7    The Court of the DSA may review any kicking, banning, or sanctions placed on any Resident by the Cabinet pursuant to subsections 3.1.1.3 and 3.1.1.5.

Subsection 3.1.2 - Rules, Rulemaking
1    Whenever a new rule relating to the Discord is implemented, Congress shall be notified immediately and all created rules are subject to review by Congress.
2    No rule shall be made to allow the promotion or distribution of pornography, nor should any rule be made to allow for any violation of Discord’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines.
3    All Residents using the Discord shall be allowed to view the public audit log.
4    The rules of each channel must be displayed in the channel description. If a rule is not posted in the channel description, no administrative action may be taken to enforce it.
5    Any Resident may challenge any rule created by the Cabinet in the Court of the DSA.

Subsection 3.1.3 - Organization
1    The Discord shall consist of roles which adequately distinguish between the many functions of the government and levels of membership both within and outside the DSA. Such roles can include and are not limited to:

• Foreign Visitors
• Foreign Diplomats
• Residents
• Members of Congress
• Ambassadors
• Cabinet Aides
• Department Directors
• The High Judge
• Cabinet Ministers
• The President 
• The World Assembly Delegate

2    The Discord shall always consist of optional roles for pronouns. These roles can be requested by any user of the Discord at any time, and cannot be added or removed from a user without the permission of said user. When available, these roles will have the ability to be self-assignable by users themselves. The following roles will always be available, however pronoun roles can be created for users upon request:

• He/Him
• She/Her
• They/Them
• Any Pronouns
• No Pronouns

3    The Discord shall contain any number of channels for any number of topics. In order to be an effective means of communication, it is recommended that independent channels exist for the following:

• General Discussion
• Announcements
• Congress
• Closed Door Cabinet sessions

Chapter V: Charter Amendment IV
I - Section 3.2 is inserted into the Charter

Section 3.2 - Forum
Subsection 3.2.1 - Administration
1    The administration of the Forum shall consist of the Cabinet and the High Judge, and shall be granted administrative privileges accordingly.
2    The owner of the Forum, when not a member of the Cabinet or the High Judge, shall be responsible for fulfilling all reasonable requests made by the Cabinet.
3    Any Cabinet member, or the High Judge, may delete content that violates DSA regional principles or displays extraordinary misconduct so long as such content is documented.

Subsection 3.2.2 - Organization
1    The Forum shall consist of roles to identify users by the following subdivisions:

• Foreign Visitors
• Foreign Diplomats
• Residents
• Members of Congress
• Ambassadors
• Ministry-Specific Roles
• Cabinet Ministers
• The High Judge
• The President 
• The World Assembly Delegate
• Forum Nation

2    The Forum shall contain any number of boards for any number of topics. Independent boards must exist for the following:

• Laws of the Assembly (with permanent sub-boards Passed DSA Legislation and Passed Amendments to the Charter of the DSA)
• Congressional Elections and Votes
• The Court of the DSA

Subsection 3.2.3 - Privacy
1    Cabinet members or the forum owner may not disclose the email address or IP address of any user registered on the forum. The only documentation of any user’s email address or IP address that may be kept offsite may be kept by the Minister of Justice or High Judge for the sole purpose of maintaining expulsions, bans, or otherwise.

[jes5862]

I completely agree with this.

[trecrahn]

Agreed

[Deleted]

Under 3.1.1:

"6 Any Cabinet member may delete content that violates DSA regional principles or displays extraordinary misconduct so long as such content is documented."

Where are such things documented?

[Administrator Account]

Dec 21, 2018 13:38:01 GMT @burninandom said:

Under 3.1.1:

"6 Any Cabinet member may delete content that violates DSA regional principles or displays extraordinary misconduct so long as such content is documented."

Where are such things documented?

No place is specific, however we do have an extensive google drive folder that can house screenshots. Similar language referring to documentation is already in the Charter.

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2018 13:50:33 GMT Administrator Account said:

No place is specific, however we do have an extensive google drive folder that can house screenshots. Similar language referring to documentation is already in the Charter.

Ok, thanks. I assumed there was an answer, I just didn't know what it was .

If I might make a suggestion -- at least as it pertains to discord moderation actions, you can have a #moderation-actions that's visible only to people with mod powers that they can at least log something like "removed post from {user} due to rule {rule}." 

I approve of this proposal and would like to co-sponsor it in current or modified form.

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2018 13:53:41 GMT @burninandom said:

Dec 21, 2018 13:50:33 GMT Administrator Account said:

No place is specific, however we do have an extensive google drive folder that can house screenshots. Similar language referring to documentation is already in the Charter.

Ok, thanks. I assumed there was an answer, I just didn't know what it was .

If I might make a suggestion -- at least as it pertains to discord moderation actions, you can have a #moderation-actions that's visible only to people with mod powers that they can at least log something like "removed post from {user} due to rule {rule}." 

I approve of this proposal and would like to co-sponsor it in current or modified form.

I’ve added you to the co-sponsors. Regarding a possible Discord #mod-actions, the moderation team of the Discord consists of the Cabinet and any actions will have been discussed and almost certainly documented in closed-door cabinet anyway. I personally don’t think the benefits of keeping such things in a different channel necessarily warrant clogging the discord (for mods at least) with an additional channel.

[westgeist]

As a general rule I am not a fan of being overly specific in law when not absolutely necessary, and I don't feel it is necessary to lay out lists of specific channels, roles, and terms in Discord. If what matters is the underlying functions of the roles, then the language should reflect what functions are a priority. So that is, roles that adequately distinguish members of government and citizens, roles that grant adequate permission to government officials, and channels that allow each department space for their affairs as well as areas for just the government and just citizens to talk. For the pronoun thing, that would mean mandating that roles be available for people to self-select, and, if the available roles do not apply, mandate the creation of additional ones upon request. This mandate also makes sense considering the major offenses listed in the amendment include intentional misgendering. This method of handling the types of roles/channels that need to be on the Discord would preserve everything the current Discord setup does but allow future governments to approach it differently if they deem it necessary/want to. Otherwise, it just seems like unnecessary micromanagement.

[Deleted]

Although I agree with the sentiments expressed and wholeheartedly believe that harassment of any sort must be prevented in the DSA, this legislation lacks in substance and in execution. These grievances prevent me from supporting this amendment and I firmly stand in opposition to this bill for the following reasons:

1. Legislation like this in the DSA already exists. It is my understanding that this act is an amendment and pieces of vacuous legislation such as this will only clutter and make the Charter more nebulous than it already is. This legislation does not serve to amend the Charter and does not reinforce it in any way, shape, or form. This is my major issue with this piece of legislation; other acts and amendments and bills with the exact same aim are already present within the DSA. It is a complete waste of time to even consider passing this amendment for this very reason, we have other policies that are more effective than this unavailing attempt of legislation. 

2. Chapter III, subsection 4.1.4, number 4, reads “Repeated re-entery into the DSA by the expelled party will result in a temporary ban…” I would like clarification on who is enforcing this “temporary ban” and to know what measures are in place to prevent a offender from re-joining the DSA after being removed. 

3. To echo the grievances of a previous comrade, I would like clarification on "6 Any Cabinet member may delete content that violates DSA regional principles or displays extraordinary misconduct so long as such content is documented." as to why such things are documented, how they are documented, and who keeps track of these documents. 

If I have any misconceptions about the message of this bill or DSA policy regarding “extraordinary misconduct”, please do not hesitate to discuss with me. I want to support an open, accepting DSA but this amendment does absolutely nothing to achieve this goal of solidarity and unity we all desire, and if anything, is a step backwards.

[Administrator Account]

Dec 22, 2018 3:55:12 GMT @turkicrepublic said:

Although I agree with the sentiments expressed and wholeheartedly believe that harassment of any sort must be prevented in the DSA, this legislation lacks in substance and in execution. These grievances prevent me from supporting this amendment and I firmly stand in opposition to this bill for the following reasons:

1. Legislation like this in the DSA already exists. It is my understanding that this act is an amendment and pieces of vacuous legislation such as this will only clutter and make the Charter more nebulous than it already is. This legislation does not serve to amend the Charter and does not reinforce it in any way, shape, or form. This is my major issue with this piece of legislation; other acts and amendments and bills with the exact same aim are already present within the DSA. It is a complete waste of time to even consider passing this amendment for this very reason, we have other policies that are more effective than this unavailing attempt of legislation. 

2. Chapter III, subsection 4.1.4, number 4, reads “Repeated re-entery into the DSA by the expelled party will result in a temporary ban…” I would like clarification on who is enforcing this “temporary ban” and to know what measures are in place to prevent a offender from re-joining the DSA after being removed. 

3. To echo the grievances of a previous comrade, I would like clarification on "6 Any Cabinet member may delete content that violates DSA regional principles or displays extraordinary misconduct so long as such content is documented." as to why such things are documented, how they are documented, and who keeps track of these documents. 

If I have any misconceptions about the message of this bill or DSA policy regarding “extraordinary misconduct”, please do not hesitate to discuss with me. I want to support an open, accepting DSA but this amendment does absolutely nothing to achieve this goal of solidarity and unity we all desire, and if anything, is a step backwards.

1. I beg to differ. This legislation furthers the ability of the Cabinet to respond to immediate crises involving the misconduct of other members. We had several bans issued this week that took a minimum of two days to be processed because the MoJ and Court have to communicate with each other extensively about the matter. It gives the Cabinet to power to remove someone from the community legally who is harming it. There are 0 provisions in the Charter (Revision 63) which allow for immediate threats to be removed from the region. The advent of Discord makes this an absolute priority since communication can move quickly. Enumerating the Discord provisions will also make it easier to crack down on extraordinary misconduct, of which there has been a significant amount in recent days. The Discord does fall under the purview of the Charter, however the Discord is a much more complex body that requires different moderation from the RMB or the forum.

2. This simply gives the authority to the MoJ and President (who are responsible for ordering ejections and bans and facilitating them respectively) to "ban" a nation from the DSA. An example of this was when The Rich Union kept violating their temporary ejection order by the Court, and so we had to seek a temporary ban from the in-game region from the High Judge directly. Instead of adding layers to the process, the Cabinet would have the ability to bar someone from re-entry until the Court has finished reviewing the case.

3. Burni's concern was to where they are to be kept. As administrators, we are often confronted with some truly disgusting material, some of which is illegal to be in possession of. The reason such content is documented is so that administrators are held to a high standard, but also ensures that evidence is preserved against the offending party. Requiring the evidence be placed anywhere in particular could violate real world laws but also the terms of service of websites where it is hosted.

The Charter overall does a great deal to mitigate the damage people can do, however its scope is quite limited and can be ambiguous at times. The Charter doesn't cover the Discord effectively because its definitions about why someone could be removed are vague, and often require lengthy explanation. By defining extraordinary misconduct, we make specific actions crimes so that they can be punished. It is most important to remember this point: This bill is written as a direct response to the string of poor behavior on the Discord and on the RMB, which could not be addressed for at least two days because of the current bureaucratic process. This legislation was written by the two most prolific authors of legislation in the DSA, myself and Korolevia, and was consulted with the current Minister of Justice. We believe our collective experience serves as the inspiration for much of this bill, what we as administrators see as necessary actions that must be taken to adapt to the enormous community the DSA has become. You are not on Discord, however it has 150 members on it and contains hundreds of thousands of messages. Cabinet communications, and communications to the High Judge from the Cabinet, are handled almost exclusively on Discord. We may not always have this luxury of being able to communicate across branches of government effectively, and in fact, a member who has declared their candidacy for High Judge is not on the Discord. We, as in the Cabinet and many respected members of congress, see this legislation as a necessary step forward to ensure that the DSA always remains a safe and inclusive community.

[Administrator Account]

Changes made:

Subsection 3.1.3.1 is altered to require that roles adequately distinguish the functions of government, and gives recommendations for these distinctions.

Subsection 3.1.3.2 is altered to reflect the inclusion of channels as a critical recommendation rather than requirement.

[Deleted]

Dec 22, 2018 1:52:57 GMT westgeist said:

As a general rule I am not a fan of being overly specific in law when not absolutely necessary, and I don't feel it is necessary to lay out lists of specific channels, roles, and terms in Discord. If what matters is the underlying functions of the roles, then the language should reflect what functions are a priority. So that is, roles that adequately distinguish members of government and citizens, roles that grant adequate permission to government officials, and channels that allow each department space for their affairs as well as areas for just the government and just citizens to talk. For the pronoun thing, that would mean mandating that roles be available for people to self-select, and, if the available roles do not apply, mandate the creation of additional ones upon request. This mandate also makes sense considering the major offenses listed in the amendment include intentional misgendering. This method of handling the types of roles/channels that need to be on the Discord would preserve everything the current Discord setup does but allow future governments to approach it differently if they deem it necessary/want to. Otherwise, it just seems like unnecessary micromanagement.

Hi there, thanks for your feedback.

I'm not going to speak to the utility of governmental role specification, I'll leave that to the other co-authors. However, I do think that there are good reasons to enumerate pronoun roles as opposed to just leaving it totally ambiguous:

it's enumerated because:

1. it gives people an understanding of what we mean by pronoun roles; people might be unfamiliar with what we mean by that terminology, and the enumeration helps to clarify it for them.

2. it specifically validates people who do not use He/Him or She/Her
by specifying other pronoun roles. This is a clear way to signal that the DSA accepts people of all gender identities within the charter. If you don't specify the roles in the amendment, then "pronoun roles" could literally refer to just cis people, or even to just men.

3. the roles we specified will cover the vast majority of people, and any other pronouns that people use (ze/zir etc) can be added when the need arises, which is specified within the legislation.
But, because we currently don't have anyone on the server who uses "ze/zir" or something else, it wouldn't make sense to try and preemptively codify those into the legislation.


as the only concern with specifying pronoun roles is an aesthetic one, related to your desire to not overspecify in legislation, it is my belief that the reasons to include them eclipse the reasons to omit them.

[Deleted]

For the record, I include here two posts I've just made on discord.

I've quite a few minor nitpicks that aren't substantial which will take more time than I thought to put together and doing so within the next 4 days will be a problem.

In the interim, my major points of concern are:

Is it really necessary to have immediate expulsions to maintain order? A long time ago in an interweb far away, I wrote a section of law dealing with this type of issue as follows:

"The President & the Prime Minister shall be responsible for the decorum and order with which any person with posting rights of the official alliance forums may use the forums. As such either the President or Prime Minister are free to use any or all of the powers available to them as administrators of the official alliance forums to ensure that the Alliance is not brought into disrepute through any person's conduct on the forums. Any measure so taken against a member of the alliance shall have no effect upon that member’s membership status of the alliance."

Rather than running a coach and four through our slow deliberative tradition in legal issues, I think this would be a better approach. Strip posting rights, suppress posts, kick from the discord etc, and then present your case for expulsion to the court. In sum, I don't agree with section 4.1.4 at all.

My second major issue is with section 3.2.3 which puts the Minister of Justice or High Judge into the role of a GDPR Data Controller. I'd recommend we tread carefully. I'm not familiar with the exact nature of the "back office" part of our forums, but I'd be surprised if a list of banned email addresses and IP addresses can't be maintained there.

My third issue. Section 3.1.2: cabinet makes the rules but instead of congress being entitled to overturn by vote, it can only challenge them in court. IMO this is a transfer of legislative power from congress to cabinet.

There's also, 3.1.1.7 which seems to contradict itself and the first sentence of 3.1.2.1. On the one hand, the Court has final say (see first sentence 3.1.17), OTOH, congress may review. If the Court has had the final say, just what would be the point of the a subsequent review by Congress?

[Administrator Account]

Dec 23, 2018 23:01:20 GMT @bananaistan said:

For the record, I include here two posts I've just made on discord.

I've quite a few minor nitpicks that aren't substantial which will take more time than I thought to put together and doing so within the next 4 days will be a problem.

In the interim, my major points of concern are:

Is it really necessary to have immediate expulsions to maintain order? A long time ago in an interweb far away, I wrote a section of law dealing with this type of issue as follows:

"The President & the Prime Minister shall be responsible for the decorum and order with which any person with posting rights of the official alliance forums may use the forums. As such either the President or Prime Minister are free to use any or all of the powers available to them as administrators of the official alliance forums to ensure that the Alliance is not brought into disrepute through any person's conduct on the forums. Any measure so taken against a member of the alliance shall have no effect upon that member’s membership status of the alliance."

Rather than running a coach and four through our slow deliberative tradition in legal issues, I think this would be a better approach. Strip posting rights, suppress posts, kick from the discord etc, and then present your case for expulsion to the court. In sum, I don't agree with section 4.1.4 at all.

My second major issue is with section 3.2.3 which puts the Minister of Justice or High Judge into the role of a GDPR Data Controller. I'd recommend we tread carefully. I'm not familiar with the exact nature of the "back office" part of our forums, but I'd be surprised if a list of banned email addresses and IP addresses can't be maintained there.

My third issue. Section 3.1.2: cabinet makes the rules but instead of congress being entitled to overturn by vote, it can only challenge them in court. IMO this is a transfer of legislative power from congress to cabinet.

There's also, 3.1.1.7 which seems to contradict itself and the first sentence of 3.1.2.1. On the one hand, the Court has final say (see first sentence 3.1.17), OTOH, congress may review. If the Court has had the final say, just what would be the point of the a subsequent review by Congress?

Immediate response is sometimes neccessary, which we learned this past week with a string of offenders running amok on the Discord and RMB. Sadly, we can't just stop people from posting on the RMB, so kicking is the only way to halt someone from continuing to make a ruckus at least on the RMB. 4.1.4.7 is included so that the Court always reviews any expulsion made by the Cabinet. It is not a power that we necessarily want, however its relatively limited to cases of extraordinary misconduct, requires a supermajority of the Cabinet, and is always subject to review. We have to understand our community now exists at multiple levels, and simply suppressing posts on the RMB no longer proves that it can solve a problem. We recently had to wait days to remove people from the community who posed an immediate harm, this stops that without giving the Cabinet significant power.

IP addresses are only viewable by the owner of the forum, and no permission set exists to allow the second highest group view it. This means unfortunately that the people responsible for maintaining bans may not be able to to their fullest extent. I understand your apprehension on this and we'll discuss tweaking the language to make it better.

On the third point, that can be fixed immediately once I speak to Korolev. It is likely that 3.1.1.7 will be changed to look more like 3.1.2.1.

[Deleted]

Changes made:

Edited 3.1.1.7 and 3.1.2.1 to clearly identify the rights and jurisdictions of the Court and Congress regarding the review of actions undertaken by the Cabinet on the Discord. That is, the Court shall be able to review kicks, bans and sanctions while the Congress shall be able to review new Discord-related rules.