Similar to the Amendment to the Regional Officers Act and the Amendment to the Regional Communications Act currently in debate, this act will expand moderation actions to cover those by non-RMB moderators (such as the bans in Operations Center) and to be for any violation of moderation policy, not just spammers and trolls. These amendments will not remove the Delegate’s ability to order border control actions on nations violating moderation policies, as the Delegate is designated as an ex officio member of the RMB moderation team by the Charter.
I’m not really sure of what the point of this amendment is. Like sure, I don’t have a problem with changing the “spammers or trolls” part, but removing the Delegate’s ability to help out in regional moderation/making it a slower and more bureaucratic process to do so sounds useless. I understand this is not what you meant to do, as the Delegate is an ex officio member of RMB Moderation, but removing this part from the law doesn’t really do anything–in fact, it makes it less clear.
2 Likes
This is a somewhat odd provision. I take it that the idea was to create a carve out of sorts from the typical moderation processes to allow individual moderators to promptly ban severe and obvious spammers or trolls. I say “typical” moderation process since usually at least some portion of the the Admin/Mod team discuss an issue before ordering a border control action for OOC reasons, but there are good reasons for banning blatant spammers immediately rather than convening a discussion.
That said, I wonder if we could substantially simplify this provision to bring it in line with how the OOC moderation team actually functions.
1 Like
May still gave powers to delegate on this point because it’s mostly important that Delegate could use their Border Control if a repeated action against the guidelines, the delegate shall enforce.
To be clear, the Delegate or another Border Control Officer would still execute the border control action as ordered by the Moderation Team. And the Delegate would remain an ex officio member of that team.
This was intended to be a specific exception to the usual rules about not summarily ejecting someone without due process, distinct from the usual enforcement of the Community Guidelines.
1 Like
I’m not sure I understand that though. Spamming and trolling are OOC misconduct covered by the CGs, not IC conduct for which an offender would normally be afforded due process. If a nation is ejected for spamming and trolling, the basis for that ejection is that those actions violate our CGs. And if their ejection is summary, rather than after Moderation Team discussion, it’s because their violation is so severe and / or obvious that it requires immediate action. But it is still OOC moderation action, so I’m not sure why it should be treated differently than any other enforcement of the CGs?
Made these changes.
1 Like
This act was made when the Local Council, which the delegate was not a part of, was tasked with RMB Moderation. Since the Delegate is now a part of the RMB Moderation team, there is no reason to specify the Delegate in this act. This act also expands the scope to include all moderators to allow for in-game bans for off-site offenders.
No, I completely disagree. This completely leaves out raiders and attempted coups.
1 Like
The Border Control Act specifies that unilateral border control actions can be made to combat imminent security threats such as raids/deltips/coups.
1 Like
I support this updated version of this amendment.
Change “violating” to “violated”, though.
1 Like
The logic was to allow the Delegate and RMB Moderators to act immediately without prior approval of Moderators, who are the ones with the actual authority.
1 Like
Is there any provision of the CG that deprives the Delegate or RMB moderators of authority to act unilaterally against spammers or trolls?
Done.
1 Like