Last night's RA transcript....

...has been posted to the wiki.

Whoa! I am thrilled with the introductory work by Patroklus. It's the kind of oversight that the SC should provide but is not. To see it then focused in an attempt to provide oversight is satisfying. It cuts through the ad-hoc democratic (mob-rule) decisions like butter.

Interestingly, Patroklus brought up the issue of sentencing which I had never considered as being improper before. Upon reviewing the bill of rights, I see that Article 11(2) seems to embody his very argument. Check it out Patroklus. It could imply that N'burg needs to develop a penal code quickly.

I think it would have also been useful if he had discussed how the hearing was in fact a trial and because a jury was not provided it was unconstitutional. Further, the excuse that I am not entitled to a trial by jury because I'm a foreigner, is itself in violation of four Articles in the bill of rights. Finally, while not contained in any of the founding documents, I have also been troubled by the denial of a hearing to address these concerns and the denial of a retrial.

All in all there is one constitutional violation and five bill of rights violations by the SC alone in N'burg's first (mis)trial. This compares to my single violation of the constitution that started the whole thing.

~Ulrika~

Not to mention your repeated violations during your tenure as Dean, but that's water under the bridge.

apparently it's not --but then perhaps we should overlook your own violations.

The point is we should overlook no violations, including my own. We must be consistent and fair with everyone everywhere. This is an issue of justice above the personal desire to avoid guilt.

~Ulrika~

Well, in relation to that matter, what's done is done. I've had my say and that's an end to it as far as I'm concerned. My position from the start has been that the sanction is a fair one, though I believe the process was flawed. Banning Ulrika from becoming a citizen for a short period of time is a fairly mild sanction and comes to an end later this year.

The key task for Neualtenburg now is to press on with clarifying the issues raised. To my mind it is more important that we sort ourselves out with respect to our own citizens than that we tie ourselves in knots dealing with every eventuality that non-citizens could present.

My proposal on non-citizens is dealt with in another thread here. I don't believe we should have to offer a trial by jury to Joe Griefer who nukes the sim for the hell of it. My proposal is that we should be able to deal with those who seek to attack us swiftly and, because we are a democratic republic, subject those decisions to oversight. But that should not be onerous, we don't need to jump through hoops on this.

Nonsense. How can a challenge to an illegal trial be dismissed with a cliche? As if a man must serve his sentence despite all learning that the jury was bribed. It doesn't happen in RL and it shouldn't happen here.

The ban is in fact indefinite. It only ends when Gwyn is removed as Dean, which given the quality of the other members, could be a very long time indeed. The fact that it's indefinite constitutes an unusual and cruel punishment, which is also forbidden by the UDHR.


Your opinion is in violation of the bill of rights, which states that everyone everywhere is subject to a trial by a jury of their peers.

What is the use of laws, if folks just get together and decide as a group what collectively feels right, which is what I see you doing in this thread. This is the very ad-hoc direct democratic process operating outside of the N'burg system I mentioned before. The constitution and bill of rights are ignored (unless they are used as a tool to punish others) and folks just go with what they feel like doing. I say obey the damn laws consistently and equally.

~Ulrika~

If you practice what you preach your speeches will not ring so hollow in the future. It's like the old saying... 'do as I say, not as I do'.

Nope, I wouldn't expect that at all. Have you filed a complaint against me to the SC yet?

Incorrect, if I have been understanding N'burg policies and procedures correctly. Your ban is only in effect until the end of her current term, which has been stated to be a maximum of 6 months. There is nothing preventing her from being elected multiple times over, but once a new term begins, you may petition to have the ban lifted.

The only sense in which your sentence is indefinite is that you might be told, every six months, that the sanctions against your citizenship have not been lifted. I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that if Ulrika does appeal and is unsuccessful, the sanctions will not be extended for more than the term of the then-current Dean. I consider N'burg to have acted quite reasonably towards you, at least during this current dispute; and if you are consistently refused permission to apply for citizenship, then I predict that it will reflect more on your behavior during that most recent term-of-office than on their hatred of you.

And you all thought that publicity was bad for N'burg. I'm becoming an armchair pundit just out of interest in your fracas.

Again, your opinion is meaningless in the face of the law. That is, it was an illegal trial in that it violated the constitution with a sentence that does not fit the crime. However, let's assume your correct. In that case, the sentence is by definition of indefinite. It's essentially life banishment with a possibility of parole.

However, I think you're wrong in that there is no parole offered every six months. It will extend until Gwyn is no longer Dean of the SC, which is even more extreme. If I'm wrong, please do the needfull and quote that sentence for us here to analyze, eh?

~Ulrika~

Ha! I'm tempted to say "Back at you, sugarbubs", but that would be sexist.

So, "Back at you!" As outsiders both, our opinions are indeed meaningless in the face of the law.

I will endeavor to, though before I do, I'll repeat that the sanctions against you may be extended for as long as Gwyn is Dean, but based on her comportment so far, I suspect that if this happens, it won't be because Gwyn is Dean, but because the government of N'burg still is unsatisfied that you recognize and respect its laws.
First HERE

Pertinent areas underlined for clarity. That's your official "sentence" pronouncement from your "trial", Ulrika.

Next, HERE

Underlining again added by me.

I'm guessing about getting an extension every 6 months, and I said as much. It's easily possible that, were you to appeal the sanctions, you'd be sent packing and told that they were now permanent. This doesn't seem to be in keeping with the even-handed actions that I've seen N'burg take so far against you. (during this recent mess, anyway. I've no real idea how you were treating each other back in December).

All of this discussion of how permanent your sentenc is though..... it's moot. You've already stated very unambiguously that you have no intention of returning to citizenship. If you applied to have the sanction lifeted, you would be adding credibility to a pronouncement that you claim is invalid.

Actually, in all modern democracies due process is extended even to foreigners, as it should be in N'burg too, according to its bill of rights. An ad-hoc interpretation of the founding documents by a member of the SC, while defending their illegal trial, is what lead to its revocation. I find it particularly repulsive that the bill of rights was perverted, now denying equal rights to an entire class of people, just so a single person could avoid admitting that they violated the constitution.

By the way, thank you for looking up that quote. Since reading through the transcript, so great was my disappointment, that I've been unable to return to see exactly what the terms were. It is in fact an indefinite sentence with the terms you described. What I find particularly amusing is that the rational that supposedly inspired the punishment, "an individual unwilling to abide by the legal system and procedures of Neualtenburg is not worthy of becoming a citizen" doesn't seem to apply to current officials, several of which have violated the constitution many times over in recent weeks. However, this is not surprising, as my real crime wasn't breaking a law but instead angering a group in power who retaliated by staging a trial with the a-priori goal of banning me from the project. It's so Third World.

Indeed the state of my ability to seek citizenship is moot, however the quest for justice is not. Members of the SC conducted an illegal trial, denying me my constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by jury. Further they have ignored Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which they're bound, that states that "everyone everywhere" has the right to recognition as a person before the law. It is a matter of principle that this transgression be recognized and corrected.

~Ulrika~

Well, part of it has.

The transcript as I see it ends like this:



The last line appears to be incomplete, and I suspect that there may be more lines after that that didn't make it to the transcript. (Perhaps a size limit in a copy-and-paste buffer or the Wiki software or something?)

If there is more to the transcript, could it be made available, please? Perhaps splitting it up into two Wiki pages, if necessary?

Thanks.

Gwyneth Llewelyn: You mean because I'm exceptionally stubborn?
Claude Desmoulins: I need to go.
Pelanor Eldrich: Bye Claude, thanks!
Claude Desmoulins: Let us adjourn please.
Flyingroc Chung: k
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, thank you
Kendra Bancroft: I just want to be the first one to hold office in all 3 branches
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yay
Pelanor Eldrich: k
Flyingroc Chung: we've gone through the whole agenda, actually.
The meeting closed at 17:46 Linden time.