First they came for the blankflags,
and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a blankflag.

Then life got considerably better :)

@SYnapse: Please present your case.

If you can post new threads and keep your virtue,
Snub the elites not lose the common touch,
If neither mods nor howling trolls can hurt you,
If all men disagree, and all too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving silence,
With thirteen months worth of news and fun,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll soon be back, my son!

Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat!

My case is that the mods have no authority to intervene in the content of threads unless they are:

- in breach of the flagrant site rules (anonimity, cheating accusations)
- spamming

Now the method of jurisprudence I'd like to use is the method of intent, in which we look at the intention of the law passed rather than it's literal interpretation.

The literal interpretation of spamming is to repeatedly impose upon the forum in this case, a series of unwelcome messages, and in this so far the mods are within their authority to use interpretative methods to enact a silence.

However using the intention method let us look at why spamming is an offense, ie. What offences it was meant to prevent, as spamming rules are a preventative form of legislation. I will on this basis prove that my client was not the intended recipient of the brunt of this law as passed by Kestas.

I believe that in full face of the facts of this website the intention of spamming law is perfectly clear. Though I have no quote from Kestas to support this, I think we can agree that his intent was in a minimal forum involvement by the mods. Spamming laws were enacted for the prevention of what I feel are a few key areas - advertising and bots who would post threads for their websites as an example, or perhaps somebody who would inhibit the usage of the forum through insulting in multiple threads, things to this effect.
The words of Kestas say that “Mods & admins take a relaxed approach to rule enforcement based on mutual respect for other players”, and this tells us that he intended a liberal playing environment where mods were a measure to be used when necessary”. This is backed up further by “Mods & admins give the benefit of the doubt to a reasonable degree.”

Now what is a “reasonable degree”? Wikipedia shows the English common law approach, “The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:
• the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
• the extent of the risk so created;
• the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
• any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.”
The reasonable degree of moderation is therefore to weigh up these risks and to make a proper decision. When the mods silence blankflag, they should have considered these factors as according to American and English law. Let us deal with them one at a time:
the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create– here the forseeable risk of harm is nothing less than a complete violation of the natural right to speech. One feels as though the mods here directly stand affaced to the Declaration of the Rights of Man when they deny a person his right to speak.
versus the utility of his actions – the utility here is to remove a person who can be silenced by users anyway. I see very little case for public utility in the actions of Jmo et al in this decision.
The likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others – we know that blankflag is unstable, and perhaps had finally found a place to vent his frustrations. I am not claiming insanity here, but most doctors we know would find blankflag at least schizophrenic. Now supposing the loss of his ability to communicate with others on this forum drives him to suicide or self-harm? This brings us to the final point
Any alternatives of lesser risk – the alternative here is to rely on the existing legislation to protect other users. Kestas wrote that “A user-driven approach is generally taken to forum moderation” and there are already facilities in place for subjective silencing. Or consider this “Rarely self-moderation isn't enough; e.g. threads which share information on a private / anonymous / gunboat game, or threads about suspected multi-accounters / meta-gamers / bugs.

These have a negative impact on games” – here the intention is clear – the law is designed to protect GAMES, not the users of the forum.
As blankflag is a) not of sound mind to be found guilty of spamming, and b) as a system was already in place to protect other users from his spamming, as the definition of spamming is clearly intended for other purposes and as the forum legislation clearly indicates a minimal moderator intervention, my case is that in this instance Jmo and the mod team clearly outstepped their jurisdiction. Consider what you will about my client and his questionable opinions, the utility of silencing him is outweighed by the risks to public utility and freedom of speech.

I leave this to your deliberation.

tl;dr

Oh well, that is a beautiful appeal by SY. Are you studying to become a lawyer, napsie?

I have not penetrated much into blankflags propaganda. It seems to be part of something as I have noted as a strong Internet-based trend.
Well, I think if he rewords his basic axiom from speaking of "elites" to "institutions" I think he might be on a very enlightening track.

For the case of his relative silencing...
While silence in itself is always a precious thing, in a case like this it is only relative. The reason for to silence one is to leave enough space for the others to cackle so they need not be relatively silenced by the "spamming" of one.
The only formal solution, as this forum has no subdivisions, would be to explicitly and automatically limit the number of threads a user could start eg per week.

There was a similar case with Mujus a year ago, when he agreed to use one only thread - not a new each day for his daily reading.
Something similar could have been suggested for "the flag". Else we may have reason to suspect it was indeed rather for his content than his "spamming" he was banned.

Poor SYnapse... A perfectly good afternoon gone to waste...

I would like to respond and make the case against blankflag, and in support of the decision to silence him.

Let's be clear on two points:

a) blankflag has been silenced by the Admins, not the Mods.

b) The rule blankflag violated, and for which he has been silenced, is this one:

"7. Do not spam the forum or private messaging system

You are welcome and indeed encouraged to join in with the community but be sensible. Try to keep replies relevant to the conversation and don't start too many threads at once."


You try to base your case partly on the interpretation of this rule, and in particular by taking a view on what may, or may not be considered "spamming". You appear to argue that blankflag's threads should not be considered spamming in terms of this rule.

Unfortunately, there is a crucial problem with your argument - blankflag himself described his activities as spamming. He made it clear that spamming the forum was his intention. Therefore he laid himself open to sanction on the basis of Rule 7.


Let's review the recent history of the case:

Shortly after his return to the site in September, blankflag posted a pointless thread entitled "i rule", in which he stated, and I quote:

"i will not have my spamming chilled by the threat of another ban"

Clearly such statements demonstrate that his *intention* was to violate Rule 7 by spamming the forum. He knew his actions were against the rules and he deliberately set out to break them.


Shortly after making the above statement, blankflag created another pointless thread entitled "the navy uses mixed caps?"

At this point jmo issued the following warning:

"blankflag (userID=51201), please refrain from creating threads in the forum that are, as you self admitted in thread=1050991, spam. Additional violations will result in a silence. - WebDip Admin"

blankflag responded by posting:

"jmo you are an idiot and i assure you i will make new threads as i see fit, you can silence the messenger but the truth will remain"

Again, blankflag clearly understood that his actions were likely to result in a silencing, and in spite of this, he re-stated his intention to continue posting threads, the nature of which he had previously acknowledged as spam.

blankflag immediately continued to provoke the admin team by creating a thread called "breaking: jmos mother worked at a thermometer factory" in which he made allegations regarding jmo's mother, and asserted that jmo was homosexual.

goldfinger intervened on this occasion, imposing a 24-hour silence and explaining this action:

"Blankflag - (userID=51201) you have been silenced for 24 hours for spamming the forum and ignoring a moderator warning - goldfinger0303"

In light of the above incident, jmo posted a further warning in the "the navy uses mixed caps?" thread, stating:

"blankflag (userID=51201), any additional spam threads on your part will result in a silence of no less then a year. -WebDip Admin"

Following this, blankflag continued to create idiotic new threads on a fairly regular basis. Things reached a head when blankflag created the thread "jamiet, jmo, draugner and steephie coming out..." (threadID=1058175)

The result, as we all know, was the the year-long silence blankflag had previously been warned about was put into effect.


In summary, the case against blankflag is as follows:

- He himself stated that it was his intention to spam the forum.
- He was warned about his conduct on multiple occasions.
- He responded to warnings by stating that he intended to continue spamming. He acknowledged more than once that he expected to be silenced and did not care.
- He was given further warnings and was specifically warned that his next silencing would be for at least a year.
- He yet again failed to curtail his behaviour and was therefore silenced for a year, as promised.

blankflag brought this punishment on himself. Indeed I would go so far as to say he actively sought it. He knew he would be silenced, and his silence I have no sympathy.

As a final comment, you make the statement that "the law is designed to protect GAMES, not the users of the forum" However, this argument is inconsistent with your own prior conduct on the forum, SYnapse. You have previously indicated your support for the concept of silencing users for creating bothersome threads (as per your demand that I be silenced to punish me for creating thread=1054547, a thread which had nothing to do with GAMES).

Wow :D
Thanks for this comprehensive account, Jamie. You are an attorney.
Right, this case seems crystal clear, and no reason to believe Jamie and others are blatant liers... covering up for "the elite"... :D
Obviously blankflag is the kind who wants to be a martyr.
A pity... There could be streaks of gold in whatever impressions drives him toward his fanaticism.

Jamie, you make several troubling points which I wish to address.

Firstly, your use of Blankflag’s testimony should not be considered for two reasons. Firstly, Blankflag’s interpretation of the rules has no consequence on what the rules actually are, and his self-claim to spamming is no more relevant than if I claimed to be cheating by posting this thread. Secondly we discussed earlier the concept that Blankflag is not of sound mind. If his ravings were as according to the forum, less than what we would expect from a sane person, then his interpretation of the spamming law can hardly be said to be that of a reasonable and sane person either.

With regards to previous comments, let me remind you that Blankflag is now unable to even defend himself on the forum and must resort to appealing through the private sphere which as we know will not result in any action. Blankflags ability to add to this case increases my concern twofold that there has been a serious breach of justice in this case.

“He was warned about his conduct on multiple occasions” – if his behaviour is not to be considered spamming as according to the intention of the law of Kestas, then warnings do not, and should not affect the principle upon which he was silenced.

Let us acknowledge the fact that Blankflag was first and foremost looking for attention. Your words that “blankflag brought this punishment on himself. Indeed I would go so far as to say he actively sought it. He knew he would be silenced, and his silence I have no sympathy” are absolutely correct, and precisely the source of my own sympathy. Lest we imprison every lunatic who goes into a police station confessing to murders he did not commit and so forth, we cannot prejudice against the poorly formed opinions and conduct of someone who, to all extents and purposes, was not interfering with the operations of webdip.

We have discussed what blankflag has done, but let us discuss what he has not done for a moment:

• He has not cheated or violated game rules in any way
• He has not violated anonymity rules, or commented on gunboat games, or any such infractions
• He has not racially offended people, made a joke out of rape or other conducts which are held frequently in this domain.

Let us deliberate for a moment on the guilt of this person. He has admittedly projected his opinions in a method unbecoming and which he has been warned and silenced about. I agree that his silence has been self inflicted. But the legal principles of his silencing are not sound. He has been silenced for his opinions and for his tenacity to spread them, a behaviour which Kestas has already admitted can and should be SELF moderated. The infraction committed by the admins stands, and make no mistake this is a political case, with wider implications on the community. If we accept that admins should silence users for making repetitive and controversial opinions, we implicate a wide range of users including YellowJacket and Krellin, who repeatedly come on the forums each day to post vile racist and offensive material.

I urge you and the community to consider in this case who is wrong, who has been wronged and why we hold different standards for a person because he is vulnerable to ridicule.

@ SYnapse:

"• He has not cheated or violated game rules in any way
• He has not violated anonymity rules, or commented on gunboat games, or any such infractions
• He has not racially offended people, made a joke out of rape or other conducts which are held frequently in this domain."

You have previously called for users (including myself) to be silenced for offences other than this. Why has your attitude changed now?

Aside - you really jeapordised Kestas with that thread. He could have faced legal action if somebody posted their bank details.

Legal action from whom, and under what legislation?

@ SYnapse: I also take serious issue with your statement that: "blankflag is now unable to even defend himself on the forum and must resort to appealing through the private sphere which as we know will not result in any action."

We do not know this. blankflag has the right to appeal to Kestas. Your own defence of blankflag rests partly on the claim that the Admin Team have misinterpreted the rules as intended by Kestas. If that is the case, Kestas can overturn blankflag's silencing. If blankflag appeals to Kestas, and he does not overturn the decision, we must conclude that you are wrong.

As Blankflag I doubt has the acumen or knowledge to contact Kestas, he is left with little option left to him. It is our duty therefore to raise the awareness of this to the forum who may appeal on his behalf.

Admins always inform members they can appeal to kestas if they feel they've been mistreated.

You're making the mistake of thinking that Blankflag is a free-minded rational agent. Blankflag is a mentally disturbed, vulnerable person who has fallen foul of our ridicule and that's why when he was silenced hardly anyone would defend him. The reason why people like Krellin get away with copious acts is their self-confidence, and Blankflag lacked it. We are all bound to our instincts and at the final moment we thought to laugh at Blankflag as he was banished from our midst. I don't blame you, it was the easy thing to do. But to stop and feel compassion for him, that's more difficult and the more moral thing to do.

I bid you good evening gentlemen.

I don't get the whole thing. This is a private web site, not the Department of Justice. This is, in effect, Kestas' place, and whatever he says, goes.

He said that admins may decide in such issues. They did. There is nothing to make a forum post about. If you feel like Blankflag is incapable of making an appeal he should, do it yourself (preferably only with his consent) in a way Blankflag could. I know, that comes with no recognition, well, that's how benevolence usually goes.

@ SYnapse:

1. blankflag created his own website, and for a time regularly updated it with all sorts of uninteresting content. He can do that, yet you think he is simultaneously incapable of sending an email to Kestas?

2. If you really are sure that blankflag lacks the ability to send an email, why don't you email Kestas on his behalf, rather than appealing to the forum. For one thing, I don't think you'll find all that much sympathy on the forum, and for another thing, regular forum members do not have the ability to overturn blankflag's silencing.

3. I would possibly have some pity for blankflag, were it not for his repeated attacks on the LGBT community. In any case, whether I feel pity for him or not, I don't want to read his spam. The forum is a better place without his spamming.

4. blankflag has not been banished. He has been silenced from posting on the forum. He can still play games, which after all is the primary purpose of the site.

Since I haven't seen an appeal request from you or blankflag or anyone else I'm considering this matter resolved. If you want an appeal on his case email us and/or kestas or get blankflag to do the same. Please see site rules on where to send these type of requests.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php

"Why contact a mod/admin:
Mods can:
Pause/Unpause/Draw games when a player is unavailable to vote.
Access months of server logs and the software to detect/analyze possible multi-accounters based on a range of criteria.
Ban/unban users, reset user/game passwords, give/take points, change game settings like phase length, etc.
Silence / unsilence forum threads and users, and reduce the cool-off period for a silenced user.
For these issues use the info below to send reports. For other issues such as bug reports, general questions, etc, you should go elsewhere (e.g. the built-in forum or the developer forum).
Where to send
Use the game/user reporting tool, present at the bottom of game and user-profile pages, to lodge a report that mods will see. (Currently in beta.)
Email the moderators at [email protected], not their personal addresses.
The admin can be contacted at [email protected], if you want to appeal a mod decision."


And locked.