The Consequences Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Consequences Act

WHEREAS, the Ziu has barked, but we must be ready to bite,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Title J of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

2. Each officeholder or head of agency shall be responsible for monitoring any boards provided for their use, and reporting any problems to the Chancery as needed. The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary. This behavior is not defined in specifics, but shall include generally treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community.

shall be amended to read

2. Each officeholder or head of agency shall be responsible for monitoring any boards provided for their use, and reporting any problems to the Chancery as needed. The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary. This behavior shall be generally defined as treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community.

2.1. In order to defend the peace of the public commons and to maintain this minimum level of acceptable behavior, the Chancery may respond with warnings and suspensions according to the following rubric.

2.1.1.  After the first offense, the Chancery may issue a written warning and/or disable specific post(s) or thread(s).

2.1.2.  After the second offense, the Chancery may suspend the miscreant's account for 24 hours.

2.1.3.  After the third offense, the Chancery may suspend the miscreant's account for 7 days.

2.1.4.  After the fourth offense, the Chancery may suspend the miscreant's account for 30 days.

2.1.5.  After the fifth offense, the Chancery may suspend the miscreant's account for 1 year.

2.1.6.  For all subsequent offenses, the Chancery may suspend the miscreant's account for a term of their choosing that may not exceed five years.

2.2.  Each decision may be appealed to the relevant cort.  This appeal shall be governed by an abbreviated hearing process, with the petitioner and Chancery each supplying a single brief, and requiring only such testimony or evidence as the cort may request.

Uréu q'estadra så
Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-PROG)

[King Txec]

Can we change the word "miscreant" to "offender" and also I would like to co-sponsor this.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I dunno, "miscreant" sounds funny

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Honesty, what I would personally recommend is that, instead of the 5th violation being a year, is that, at that point, it should be made into a criminal offence under Talossan Law, so on the 5th violation, the matter is referred to the Corts for a trial, with a list of sentencing guidelines for the Corts included in the bill, from loss of posting privileges, to loss of citizenship depending on the severity of the offence (so small mistakes get lesser consequences and gross offences get the biggest penalties)

Also, I think it should also include a clause saying "offences commited in a X (to be determined (2-5 year) time frame)" rather than an indefinite period, at least for minor offences with larger ones being exempt from such time limitations. I think this is a better and more balanced approach, and would be a better approach than solely relying on the chancery to decide (and once it gets longer that a 30 day suspension, I think that should be upto the Corts to decide whether to impose rather than the Chancery)

(Also this is just my current thoughts and not that of my political party or that of the government, just my own personal thoughts for the moment)

[King Txec]

I dunno, "miscreant" sounds funny

Yeah true. We can keep it.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Honesty, what I would personally recommend is that, instead of the 5th violation being a year, is that, at that point, it should be made into a criminal offence under Talossan Law, so on the 5th violation, the matter is referred to the Corts for a trial, with a list of sentencing guidelines for the Corts included in the bill, from loss of posting privileges, to loss of citizenship depending on the severity of the offence (so small mistakes get lesser consequences and gross offences get the biggest penalties)

Also, I think it should also include a clause saying "offences commited in a X (to be determined (2-5 year) time frame)" rather than an indefinite period, at least for minor offences with larger ones being exempt from such time limitations. I think this is a better and more balanced approach, and would be a better approach than solely relying on the chancery to decide (and once it gets longer that a 30 day suspension, I think that should be upto the Corts to decide whether to impose rather than the Chancery)

(Also this is just my current thoughts and not that of my political party or that of the government, just my own personal thoughts for the moment)

This would give the accused people dramatically more due process, extend out the proceedings to weeks or months, and allow them to call witnesses and submit multiple rounds of briefs in their favor. The map is not the territory.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

This would give the accused people dramatically more due process, extend out the proceedings to weeks or months, and allow them to call witnesses and submit multiple rounds of briefs in their favor. The map is not the territory.

However, then you are arguing that the chancery should have powers equal to that of the Corts. For lighter timeframes I think it is fine (again I said 30d or less) for the chancery, but longer timeframes, I think it would be putting the chancery at risk, and bringing it into potential conflicts, which would put the chancery at risk of constant appeals and being defended in cort. At least the way I proposed. Helps to keep the Chancery out of something that could be a huge political argument, and put the more long term consequences into the hands of the Corts which would have a more objective and lasting judgement than that of the chancery.


We have the Corts for a reason to uphold the law in Talossa, that shouldn't be the chancery's job but the Corts, which is why I made my suggestions

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I think the broader question that Antaglha is trying to raise here, is that we seem to have backed off the idea of creating an actual criminal offence of "disturbing the peace"?

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

I am in agreement with Antaglha. I think at some point it should be a cort issue

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm fine if someone has suggested amendments to this one to make this a criminal offense instead, or to have it eventually be one at some point.  I think that the resulting process probably will be more unpleasant for any victims and will definitely be quite slow, given past incidents from prior years (long ago now), which is why I did it this way.  It seemed cruel.  But if people mostly disagree, I'm fine changing it.  Just let me know preferred new language and I'll amend the bill.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm fine if someone has suggested amendments to this one to make this a criminal offense

I'll see if I can write something in time for this Clark

[King Txec]

Something about civil disability could be a potential sentence.

-Txec R

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

We should also include something about previous offenses expiring from one's record. Would be a little silly to go straight to a week's punishment after years of good behavior.

[owenedwards]

Due process is not a bonus privilege under the OrgLaw and its antecedents, so probably the Bill's approach to the accused's right of response should grapple with that.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Due process is not a bonus privilege under the OrgLaw and its antecedents, so probably the Bill's approach to the accused's right of response should grapple with that.

My original bill is structured so that it is a temporary administrative barring from the public commons.  It's not a criminal process, but rather one of temporary trespass.  There's a lot of precedent for this in other legal systems - people can be kicked out of their local town halls for being publicly intoxicated or disruptive, but not banned.  And there's no right to full due process in any system in that circumstance, although there's usually an administrative means of appeal.

That said, it looks like most people want it to be a criminal process.  That will simplify things and just make it a criminal trial.