[2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/FunnyMan

High Court
1

This is being posted, in my capacity as an Associate Justice, on behalf of Orcuo/FunnyMan, who Telegrammed me in my capacity as Delegate.

The spoiler below is the Telegram I received, in verbatim.

Telegram

[spoiler= Ban Appeal]
Hi there. I was banned from TSP for actions disclosed in an official report I’ve linked below.

Funnyman/Orcuo ban

It’s been nearly a year since then. I wish to appeal this ban. My reasons are as follows:

I do not believe the original verdict on my actions were not completely fair. I believe that some (not all) of the factors contributing towards my ban were not of best judgement, and that actions taken my moderation afterward were not appropriate either. My reasoning for which can be listed in the dispatches below;

The following are screenshots taken from the original incident;

NationStates | Dispatch | The Original Incident

The following are screenshots taken from after the original incident in which moderator HumanSanity warned me for my actions;

NationStates | Dispatch | The Aftermath

I would then be banned from TSP in the following weeks to come from when those screenshots were taken;

The following is screenshots of me attempting to contact the then moderators to answer some questions I had (and when that inevitable failed, contacting the then delegate Tepertopia);
NationStates | Dispatch | The Corruption

Disgracing this information; I believe I have had time to improve from my actions. While I do not believe I did everything wrong, I do understand and accept that I was wrong in some areas. I believe being banned from TSP, as well as remaining in the rejected realms for 9+ months have taught me better online mannerisms and behaviors. I also wish to apologize to anyone that I may have hurt with my actions.

If you, as delegate, would be kind to respond to this telegram (or forward it to someone who can), I would be most grateful. I am willing to answer any questions you or the South Pacific regional staff have. I thank you for your time.

[/spoiler*]

3 Likes
2
High Court of the South Pacific

[2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/Funnyman

Let this serve as notice that this petition has been received by the High Court and has been assigned the following identifying information:

Docket Number
2401.HR

Reference Name
Review of the Ban of Orcuo/Funnyman

Request
Administrative Ban Appeal

Submission: 15 Jan 2024

3
High Court of the South Pacific

[2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/Funnyman

Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved that this case is not justiciable.

The petitioner may request an in-chambers opinion on the decision rendered on this matter no later than 2024-01-20T19:00:00Z.

Submission: 15 Jan 2024 | Determination: 17 Jan 2024

4

Your Honor,

The petitioner requests an in-chambers opinion on the rationale for the case being non-justiciable.

1 Like
5
In-Chambers Opinion

[2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/Funnyman

Chief Justice Kringle on behalf of the High Court.

Petitioner requested the Court for relief on the indefinite ban imposed on them by Regional Moderation on 23 February 2023 for “a pattern of discriminatory trolling across multiple incidents” (Nakari, 2023).

Under the Charter VII.4 the High Court is empowered to “declare any (…) official act of government, in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law” (Charter VII.4). This power is exercised only upon the submission of a case and the determination that it is justiciable (Judicial Act 3.2); that is, that the case is a valid and non-frivolous question directly related to the application of laws, and that it relates to an “official act of government”.

Petitioner has not satisfied either of the conditions listed above.

Their request was for the Court to lift the existing ban not on the grounds that there was error or that it was somehow irregularly imposed, but rather because they “have had time to improve from [their] actions” (Orcuo, 2024). It is not within the remit of the Court to undo actions of other entities for reasons outside the correction of errors; if any appeal is due, then the correct institution for that is Regional Moderation, as the party that imposed the ban, or in the ultimate instance Regional Administration, as the entity that oversees the actions of moderators.

Their request is also not a clearly valid application of the Court’s authority. It is not clear to the Court that is has jurisdiction over the decisions of Regional Moderation, an entity that does not fully operate within the bounds of the regional government and which enforces out-of-character rules of community conduct. While the Court will often endeavour to err on the side of a petitioner when it comes to personal relief, it would be remiss to assume for itself a prerogative that it cannot conclusively say that it possesses.

For the foregoing reasons this case is deemed not justiciable.

Footnotes and References

  1. Nakari (2023). Funnyman/Orcuo ban. Retrieved from Funnyman/Orcuo ban.

  2. Charter of the South Pacific; Article VII, Section 4 (2024). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

  3. Judicial Act; Article 3, Section 2 (2023). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

  4. Orcuo (2024). Request for Request. Retrieved from [2401.HR] Review of the Ban of Orcuo/FunnyMan.

Submission: 15 Jan 2024 | Determination: 17 Jan 2024 | In-Chambers Opinion: 21 Jan 2024