Report on Scientific Council Hearing Meeting on Potential Abuses of Power

Hello all,

First and foremost, my apologies for not posting this earlier. We needed not only to condense two 4-hours-meetings' logs into a manageable report, as well as make sure that all SC members agreed with the content. Naturally enough, like all things Neualtenburgerish, sometimes a compromise had to be met.

Also, this sort of meeting was important for several reasons. It establishes precedent; it also clarified some procedures and obscure interpretations; and finally, it also raised a lot of questions (more will probably be found after more people read these posts) which will take lots of forum discussions and in-world meetings to answer.

For the benefit of those without patience to read the full report, here goes first a resumed version...

Resumed version:

1) Sudane Erato reposted an old post of Ulrika Zugzwang, stating Ulrika's claims of having departed from Neualtenburg and even Second Life. This reposting was found not to be illegal under Neualtenburg Law. 2) Ulrika Zugzwang deleted that post on emotional and subjective grounds. As a non-citizen (and thus not a member of the SC), this is a direct violation of the Constitution, which states that forum moderation is the duty of the SC. Also, the act itself - deleting someone's post under an emotional pretext based on perceived intent - is a restriction on the freedom of speech.

3) The SC views the role of forum moderation to be its de jure sole jurisdiction, although technical limitations, not under the City's control, prevent the SC to enforce that sole jurisdiction effectively.

4) Aliasi Stonebender, acting as an SC member, in the presence of perceived threat (justified by previous threats carried out in the forums), but unable to effectively apply forum sanctions (due to technical limitations), immediately applied in-world denial of access to Neualtenburg to Ulrika Zugzwang. This action is deemed to be part of the SC's duties (and has been used repeatedly in the past) but naturally subject to a posteriori validation by the SC, which can deem the sanction to be removed, kept temporarily, or made permanent.

5) The failure of the SC to promptly remove a non-citizen (Ulrika Zugzwang) and a non-member of the SC (Kendra Bancroft) from moderation status will be analysed on subsequent meetings.

After reviewing testimonials proving 1), and evaluating the rest of the points, the SC decided that restricting access to Neualtenburg, temporarily or permanently, is too strong a sanction. Instead, Ulrika Zugzwang will have unlimited and unrestricted access to Neualtenburg, its events, or its institutions, but will not be able to apply for citizenship status and/or acquire a plot in Neualtenburg. This temporary ban from citizenship will remain in place until the end of the current SC's Dean and can be appealed afterwards.

No laws have been violated by either Sudane Erato or Aliasi Stonebender (no crimes have been committed). Ulrika Zugzwang now has the option to file claims to the Civil Court of Neualtenburg, suing either (or both), and or make demands of compensation regarding intent and emotional stress caused by any or all the above mentioned actions of Neualtenburg citizens.

(Saturday, April 14th 2006, 4 PM SLT and Friday, April 20th 2006, 4 PM SLT)

Full version


Synopsis

The Scientific Council of Neualtenburg was petitioned to inquire into the events leading to a forum post (originally written by Sudane Erato) on the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forum, deleted by Ulrika Zugzwang, and the subsequent immediate intervention of Aliasi Stonebender, member of this Scientific Council, who promptly denied access to the Neualtenburg sim to Ulrika Zugzwang.

During this process, the difficult task of the Scientific Council (SC) was to separate the emotional charges on these actions ("intent" from alleged infractions, violations, or abuses of power ("crime".

To further add to the SC's difficulties, technical limitations prevented a more swift pronouncement.Forum posts, once deleted, are no longer visible; there is no "track" on what precisely has been written, or commented upon or on posts previously deleted.In some cases, not even the moderators are able to see the deleted posts.

Forum moderation under the Linden groups is also subject to limitations, when trying to enforce Neualtenburg Law:

1. The post by Sudane Erato was deleted by a non-citizen, who is not bound to Neualtenburg Law
   
2. The "immediate sanctioning powers" employed by an SC member are not codified into law, but used mostly through a rule of precedent.
   

Furthermore, the facts were not clear enough for the SC to engage in a court trial; the petition was based on incomplete comments, apparent contradictions, and on a campaign of raising public awareness with unfundamented opinions on the facts. Thus, the first task for the SC was to hold a hearing, listening to all parties involved, to determine what information the deleted post had contained, and establish an understanding of the sequence of events resulting in the suspension of access to the Neualtenburg sim.

The second task of the SC was to find out if any direct violations of Neualtenburg Law (the Code of Law and the Founding Documents) occurred, and, if so, what sanctions were applicable, and to whom.

Attendance

1. Gwyneth Llewellyn (Dean of the SC), Dianne Mechanique (only on the 2nd part of the hearing due to the grid attack), Diderot Mirabeau [voting SC members]
   
2. Flyingroc Chung (first part of the hearing), Aliasi Stonebender [non-voting SC members]
   
3. Claude Desmoulins, Sudane Erato [both partially during the first part of the hearing]
   
4. Kendra Bancroft [part of the 2nd part of the hearing]
   
5. Traxx Hathor, Clint Turner [independent visitors, with no allowed participation except when directly addressed] & a third avatar [unrecorded non-participant].
   

Procedures

The Scientific Council is bound by the Constitution to inquire into possible violations to Neualtenburg Law and the Founding Documents, abuses of power, and analysing threats to Neualtenburg's integrity. While it can also analyse petitions and suits of libel, defamation, or similar disagreements between citizens (and non-citizens), this hearing, falling under the categories of "Citizen (or non-citizen) appeals against a government decision" and "Abuse of Power", focused on establishing what exactly was written on Sudane Erato's post that provoked Ulrika Zugzwang into deleting it immediately, causing Aliasi to view that act as an abuse of power and immediately apply sanctions.

Since, according to Torley Linden, the original post is not retrievable, the SC had to invite a number of witnesses to establish if the following comment made by Sudane Erato (/103/ab/98524/1.html#post983115) was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing more than the truth:


Claude Desmoulins, Aliasi Stonebender, Sudane Erato, and Ulrika Zugzwang were called to bear witness on the above statement (Claude and Ulrika through previously written declarations).

On this point, all witnesses were interviewed separately (the meeting was private during the inquiry phase), and all agreed to the content of the deleted post. It was found out to be, indeed, a verbatim quotation of one of Ulrika Zugzwang's previous posts, declaring her intention of leaving both SL and Neualtenburg permanently.

However, during the hearing, new evidence was produced. The forum tools allow to give a reason for deleting a post; Ulrika Zugzwang added:

"Edited to remove a snarky post by Sudane and to remind the SC to remove my name from the list of forum moderators".

Ulrika's testimonial also added the following reason for deletion:

"Why did I choose to remove this post? Because it was off topic, rude, and cruel and I didn't want to look at it."

The witnesses were then re-called to confirm that the original reason was indeed on the "Reasons for Editing" box before Sudane Erato changed it. All agreed to Ulrika's testimonial.

The private part of the hearing meeting finished at this point, and the SC's was from now on free to attend. The proceedings then tried to establish answers to the following questions:

1) Was Sudane's original post considered abusive, defamatory, libellous, or in violation of any of Neualtenburg's Laws, the Constitution, or the founding documents?

The SC members agreed that quoting from previous posts is protected free speech, and pointed to the very fact that Ulrika's current signature on the forums still bears a "condensed" form of the deleted post in question, viz: "I, Ulrika Zugzwang, having recognized that the economic, temporal, and emotional costs associated with my participation in SL have exceeded my family's threshold, swear upon hitting the "Submit Reply" button to walk away from SL (and similar virtual worlds), its forums, and email permanently."

The SC agreed that there was no basis to consider Sudane's original post in violation of any of the laws or the founding documents.Naturally enough, Ulrika is free to sue Sudane if she feels that she was emotionally harmed through the action of Sudane's reposting Ulrika's own words.

2) Was Ulrika's act, based on Sudane's original post, justified, taking into account that the SC considers itself to have jurisdiction over the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forum?

This question actually had to deal with two separate issues: one, if the SC has in fact jurisdiction over the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forum; the other, if Ulrika's act was justified.

The complex issue that needed to be explained here is how exactly the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forums are moderated.Due to severe limitations on the way the groups are tied to forums, only the group leader can add or remove moderators at their whim.This fact was confirmed with non-presential testimonies by Torley Linden, Jeska Linden, and Robin Linden (although Robin explained that under extreme circumstances, the Linden Abuse Team may remove a group leader from moderator status). It was thus established that the forums were moderated by two members of the SC (Aliasi Stonebender and Gwyneth Llewelyn), one non-member of the SC (Kendra Bancroft), and one non-citizen (Ulrika Zugzwang), the latter being the only holder of the power of adding or removing moderators.

Moderators also have the power to establish their own moderating procedures (legitimately or not). Since only two of those were members of the SC, the criteria were different between them and the non-members of the SC. The SC draws upon the Neualtenburg Law and Founding Documents to base their decisions of moderating; others are not so bound. Kendra Bancroft, present at the meeting, and as forum moderator, gave evidence to support Ulrika's claim: under Kendra's own moderation rules (known as "The Stand" [http:// forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=70411], never officially adopted as the forum rules of moderation), both Kendra and Ulrika claim the ability to delete posts if they are "considered an attack" because of the perceived intention of Sudane's post to be "designed to be (personally) hurtful."

Clearly, a duality of criteria is impossible to sustain in this case. It was the SC's views that it had sole de jure jurisdiction on forum moderation (independently of the technical ability to do so), and that there was a single set of criteria - the Neualtenburg Code of Law and the founding documents - to apply. This is the common, accepted idea of most of the citizens (but clearly not all of them, Kendra being one exception).

It was quickly established that, assuming the SC has jurisdiction over the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forum, Ulrika, as a non-citizen (and therefore not a member either of the SC or the Government), did act without de jure legality by deleting a post; she was only able to do so because of her special powers as a moderator. Thus she acted by having a power she was not supposed to have.

Forum posts were brought forward to support the idea that, for a long time, the SC had sole jurisdiction and that the moderation duty was part of the SC's responsabilities.

So, it was deemed that Ulrika's acts were unjustified, based on the SC's having sole jurisdiction on forum moderation.

3) Assuming Ulrika's act was deemed an abuse of power, was Aliasi's decision to immediately apply sanctions, through the means she chose, justified?

In the context of the de jure distinction the SC made, it was deemed that Ulrika's act was indeed an abuse of power, since she acted on a technical ability to delete forum posts, a power that was not sanctioned by the Government (neither could have been, since that power can only be delegated by the City onto the members of the SC).

The next step was analysing Aliasi's act. Although it is a fact that her action of suspending Ulrika's access to the sim of Neualtenburg was immediate, and unilateral, it was also subject to review by a further SC hearing (the one currently taken place). Aliasi's defense of her act was that she, as an SC member, entrusted by duty to protect Neualtenburg's integrity, and based on previous threats of Ulrika (made as late as January 2006) to remove all the content in Neualtenburg she viewed as being rightfully hers (an issue to be addressed at subsequent SC hearings), as well as Ulrika's continued behaviour (in the forums), perceived as "disruptive", induced Aliasi to suspend Ulrika's access to the Neualtenburg sim until the issues could be cleared by an SC hearing that would establish the sanctions to apply.

Diderot Mirabeau underlined that, due to the way the very limited moderation tools on the forums work, there is no way for an SC member to apply a forum-based sanction to another forum moderator; thus, the only sanction available to Government officials are effectively by using in-world tools. Also, Aliasi's actions would be subject to review by the SC (whereas Ulrika's, as a non-member would be technically not under Neualtenburg's jurisdiction).

4) Can we establish a legitimate act of negligence by the SC for letting Ulrika (a non-citizen) and Kendra (not a member of the SC) to keep "moderator status" in a forum that allegedly only the SC has jurisdiction over?

It was found that the SC was not negligent in that they acted in a reasonable manner but it is also clear that they should have requested the removal of both Ulrika Zugzwang and Kendra Bancroft as moderators at the first opportunity. Further hearings by the SC and eventually other branches of Government will look into this failure of promptly removing the moderators that were not members of the SC.

In the mean time, Ulrika has asked for removal of her own moderator status in the Neualtenburg Projekt forums, and the report on this hearing will go to Linden Lab for further investigation of the Linden Abuse Team.

5) Do any of these alleged abuses of power (assuming that they were validated by the hearing up to this point) constitute a violation of the Laws of Neualtenburg, the Constitution, or the founding documents, and, if so, are they deemed illegal (ie. a violation) or just an abuse (ie. something requiring arbitration, but not a trial)?

Sudane Erato's original post was deemed just to be a reposting of Ulrika's original post in January. This hearing considered that this action was not illegal in itself (ie. it was neither a violation of Neualtenburg Law, nor of its founding documents).

Ulrika's acts were deemed to be a direct violation "in spirit" of the role of the SC's duties as moderators of the group forums (The Neualtenburg Constitution, Article III, Section 1: "Its service roll is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.", as well as a violation of the founding documents, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by removing another's freedom of expression with an emotional and subjective excuse. This act was deemed to be sanctionable to the extent of appliable sanctions to non-citizens (which are limited in scope).

Aliasi's actions, since they were the only available means of immediate sanctioning to prevent what Aliasi considered to be a "perceived threat" of a non-citizen to the integrity of Neualtenburg (a power Aliasi had, as a member of the SC and a forum moderator), as well as being "suspension measures" to be reviewed by the SC in session, are not found to be abusive, but routine duties required to be executed by any SC member.

Ulrika Zugzwang is fully entitled to file further claims to the SC, or directly sue Sudane Erato, if Ulrika believes that the original post by Sudane was indeed "off topic, rude, and cruel", and demands compensation for emotional distress resulting from that post. This suit, if presented, will follow on the Civil Court of Neualtenburg, since it was deemed that Sudane's post did not violate any Neualtenburg Law or the founding documents and wastherefore not "illegal".

Sanctions

Furthermore, on the last SC meeting (Saturday, April 22nd 2006), having analysed the facts presented at the hearing, as well as the SC's duty to apply sanctions, it was found out that "preventing access to Neualtenburg's sim" was deemed too strong a sanction to apply, as it is a measure only enforced in the past when active griefers defaced the City. Although the threat to remove buildings (a possibility Ulrika has) was publicly made and repeated, it was never fullfilled, and the SC views, in general, that this threat is low.

Instead, the SC will apply, as sanction, effective immediately, a temporary ban from re-acquiring citizenship, on the grounds that Ulrika Zugzwang failed to recognize the role the Constitution and the Neualtenburg Code of Law, by violating them deliberately. As the first step of any citizen is to recognize these documents as being the foundation of Neualtenburg civil life - the acquisition of a plot being a technical issue - it is the SC's deliberation that an individual unwilling to abide by the legal system and procedures of Neualtenburg is not worthy of becoming a citizen.

This ban is effective during the current term of the SC's Dean, and an appeal can be made on the subsequent term to revoke the suspension of citizenship acquisition, naturally assuming full compliance and acceptance of the Neualtenburg Code of Laws and its founding documents during this period. Until then, Ulrika Zugzwang will have unrestricted and unlimited access to visit the City and the right to participate on all its public events, as well as full access to the City's legal structures to present further claims, pending or future, but will not be able to acquire plots in the City or gain citizen status.

At the same meeting, Aliasi Stonebender's resignation from the SC was also accepted.


The City of Neualtenburg in Second Life, April 23rd, 2006


The Scientific Council - Gwyneth Llewelyn, Dianne Mechanique, Diderot Mirabeau, Flyingroc Chung

Claude Desmoulins: We're live.
Diderot Mirabeau: testing testing ... 1 2 3 4
Claude Desmoulins: If I go AFK and the hearing goes private, go ahead and send me home.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: sorry sorry
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let me put the notecards inside the Penguin
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh
Diderot Mirabeau: it's a neat armour that one Aliasi ...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this won't give objects
Sudane Erato: no
notarized Testimony: Touch the receipt for commands.
An object named notarized Testimony owned by Gwyneth Llewelyn gave you Testimony.
Sudane Erato: its a notecard giver
Sudane Erato: script
Aliasi Stonebender: thanks.
Diderot Mirabeau: is it bought or built?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Claude is here anyway
Aliasi Stonebender: so, this is?
notarized Testimony: Touch the receipt for commands.
notarized Testimony: The document "Testimony"
notarized Testimony: was signed on 2006-04-15 by
notarized Testimony: -- Claude Desmoulins
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There should be three documents inside.
notarized Testimony: Notarized in the Nota Bene office at Neualtenburg 193,186
Gwyneth Llewelyn: A copy of the email you got
Gwyneth Llewelyn: slightly changed because of us *not* closing the sim
Gwyneth Llewelyn: then Ulrika's testimony
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and Claude's
Sudane Erato: whose card is "Testimony"?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's Claude's
Sudane Erato: ahhh
Sudane Erato: the quote and the url were identical...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Wait wait.
Sudane Erato: the url was just for authentication
Sudane Erato: sorry
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ;)
notarized Testimony: Touch the receipt for commands.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think I should have put the guidelines as well... one second
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I thought I had put those inside a notecard
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but I forgot them
Gwyneth Llewelyn: sorry about that.
Diderot Mirabeau: I have the guidelines in a notecard
Diderot Mirabeau: from touching the penguin
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, that is the invitation
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe I mixed them up ;)
Diderot Mirabeau: ah yes .. I was only looking at the title
Claude Desmoulins: Any questins regarding my statement?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well Claude
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let's just start from the beginning
Gwyneth Llewelyn: First, as per Dianne's request
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The guidelines I'll be giving to the SC members
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (the 2 witnesses won't receive them until everyone gave their testimony)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: should not be considered "written on stone"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but only guidelines for *this* meeting.
Flyingroc Chung accepted your inventory offer.
Aliasi Stonebender accepted your inventory offer.
Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So... thanks to Claude, who has been in touch with Torley Linden
Gwyneth Llewelyn: there seems to be no way to recover a deleted post
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aaah hello Romeo.
Romeo Vantongerloo: hello
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We're at a meeting right now which will have a public part and a private part, Romeo.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You're welcome to attend the public part.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I'll ask you to go down in a few minutes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and then you can come up again.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This will actually be true for Aliasi, Sudane, and Claude
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We just require two questions to be answered for now.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Since we can't 'recover' the deleted post...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We wish to know what it was on it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If it just had the reposting from Ulrika's own text here: /103/1b/83872/1.html#post857429/103/1b/83872/1.html#post857429
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or if there was something else.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, I'd like to ask one thing from Aliasi first, if I might...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (it will make things simpler)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aliasi, did you or did you not see the original post that Ulrika allegedly deleted?
Aliasi Stonebender: I did not see it, no.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, so you may stay here with us.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm since Claude is away, lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That makes things easier hehe
Sudane Erato: :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oops he woke up!
Flyingroc Chung: spoke too soon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude, can you go down for just one minute please?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude? ;)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aaah
Claude Desmoulins: Do you mean leave the room?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, please
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think this might be quick
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok so the questions to Sudane.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane, did your original post
Gwyneth Llewelyn: only contain the quoted text from Ulrika's orginal one
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or did you add anything else?
Sudane Erato: yes... I carefully considerd it... it was averbatum quote of Ulrika's Jan 22 post... and the url provided so that people could see it
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Sudane Erato: only
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, let's get Claude back in!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: where is he?!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It was quick, hehe
Sudane Erato: wb :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, Claude, you already know the two questions
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you wish to repeat the answers...
Claude Desmoulins: Will be with RL kids, will try to check every few minutes.
Claude Desmoulins: My notecard indicates what i saw and read,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Did Sudane post only the text she quoted with the URL, or was there anything else?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (this is just for the record, lol)
Claude Desmoulins: No
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, thanks.
Claude Desmoulins: Shall I leave for good now?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: At this point I'll quote Ulrika's testimonial
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No no
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's now 'public' hearing from this moment.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The 'private' bit
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is just because I'm a bit uneasy
Gwyneth Llewelyn: about having witnesses listen to each other when answering the same questions.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Although this is SL
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and people can IM each other anyway, so this is rather pointless.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But it's good practice :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: From this point on
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we can have the meeting "public"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And after reading Ulrika's testimonial
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'll invite the remaining SC members
Gwyneth Llewelyn: To ask for further clarification
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But only ? and this is important ? only regarding these 2 questions.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ulrika claims:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "It should be noted that I did provide a reason for editing the post. The post was originally a block of quoted text with a link."
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "After replacing this post with a period ("."), I placed in the "reasons for editing" box the following: "Edited to remove a snarky post by Sudane and to remind the SC to remove my name from the list of forum moderators." "
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "Naturally, when Sudane restored the link (without the quote), her reason-for-editing entry had replaced mine."
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So
Sudane Erato: shul i add anything?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you wish, lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have no specific questions to you, Sudane.
Sudane Erato: actually, Ulrika's "Reason" was a bit longer... but of the same drift
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All witnesses agree on what Aliasi saw.
Sudane Erato: as to what Ulrika found offensive
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's irrelevant.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe sorry to be rude :)
Sudane Erato: :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Irrelevant in the sense that it's not needed for the testimony.
Sudane Erato: ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What I hoped to make clear
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is that Aliasi acted upon what she saw: a post deleted by Ulrika
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that was rather innocuous
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Although there might be other reasons, explanations, etc
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the point is ? this is what Aliasi *saw*.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Do you all agree?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I mean the SC members hehe)
Flyingroc Chung: I think that Ulrika would say that he post was not innocuous at all.
Diderot Mirabeau: I agree this is what she would have seen according to the testimonies
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ulrika's comments: "Why did I choose to remove this post? Because it was off topic, rude, and cruel and I didn't want to look at it."
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But remember. Aliasi did *not* see any of that!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (neither did the rest of us, for the record)
Sudane Erato: but she saw the reason
Gwyneth Llewelyn: she = Ulrika or Aliasi?
Diderot Mirabeau: Aliasi
Sudane Erato: Aliasi
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let me scroll back....
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aliasi, did you see Ulrika's original comments on the reason why she deleted the post?
Aliasi Stonebender: I saw the deleted post (well, edited into a single period) and those reasons, yes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All right, thanks.
Sudane Erato: it was some hours later...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm, and so did Sudane and Claude, I'd say?
Sudane Erato: taht i edited the clarification
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (we have to wait a bit until Claude wakes up, lol)
Sudane Erato: yes!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyone would care to ask for further clarification on the facts presented?
Flyingroc Chung: Do you recall that "Edited to remove a snarky post by Sudane and to remind the SC to remove my name from the list of forum moderators" was given?
Flyingroc Chung: er that that quote was the reason given
Aliasi Stonebender: Me?
Sudane Erato: it was... along with more
Flyingroc Chung: yes, aliasi
Aliasi Stonebender: Yes. that was the reason.
Flyingroc Chung: sudane you believe there was more, but along the same lines?
Sudane Erato: yes...
Flyingroc Chung: ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok, we have another visitor, hehe
Traxx Hathor: thx Gwyn : )
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hi visitor :) You're welcome to listen in, but you'll have to promise to remain silent.
Traxx Hathor: I promise
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that this silence means that we can safely agree on the facts...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We should now move to the list of questions I have prepared.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 1) Was Sudane's original post considered abusive, defamatory, libellous, or in violation of any of Neualtenburg's Laws, the Constitution, or the founding documents?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aliasi ? you're welcome to comment at this point as well.
Sudane Erato: is this something i should stay for?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Sudane
Gwyneth Llewelyn: at this point, the discussion is open
Aliasi Stonebender: As I did not see Sudane's original post, I cannot comment on it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: As per the guidelines:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "This part of the meeting will follow the general guidelines of the usual SC meetings (and RA ones at well), ie. everyone may participate (providing they're participating in orderly fashion, of course),"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (Traxx, to you: all our meetings, on the public part, will give voice to any citizen. Visitors are able to attend and listen, but not participate, unless specifically asked to)
Diderot Mirabeau: this is my view on that issue following the statements of the witnesses and testimonies brought before the SC
Diderot Mirabeau: No. Quoting people lies within permissible freedom of speech and is not in conflict with any other rights as long as it does not consciously misrepresent the intent of the original poster.
Sudane Erato: then I fear I must leave
Sudane Erato: i'm soory
Sudane Erato: i think its ok?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: awww you have to go so early? :(
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure... you'll get the transcript.
Sudane Erato: sorry... saturday night is bad for me...
Sudane Erato: big time :)
Sudane Erato: I will leave the recorder runjning
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, thank you Sudane!
Sudane Erato: :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We've heard from Diderot.
Sudane Erato: bye all
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyone else would like to comment?
Diderot Mirabeau: bye Sudane
Gwyneth Llewelyn: FR?
Flyingroc Chung: Just that I agree with Diderot that quoting from previous posts in this protected free speech.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Flyingroc Chung: *is protected free speech*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: My reasoning is also similar.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ulrika had actually posted the original post on the very same forums.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, Sudane was just "bumping" the same text, back from the past
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And, from evidence presented
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane did not even add further comments
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aliasi, any thoughts?
Flyingroc Chung: I believe Ulrika's current signature quotes from that old post as well.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, excellent point, FR!
Aliasi Stonebender: On this? It seems obvious to me. One can hardly call a post a hateful slander if you said the very thing.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I completely forgot that, yes
Diderot Mirabeau: it does indeed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let me quote for the record:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "I, Ulrika Zugzwang, having recognized that the economic, temporal, and emotional costs associated with my participation in SL have exceeded my family's threshold, swear upon hitting the "Submit Reply" button to walk away from SL (and similar virtual"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: worlds), its forums, and email permanently."
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aliasi, there is one old rule I've always read: it's not plagiarism if you plagiarise yourself.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In this case, it seems that Ulrika's claim of the post being "it was off topic, rude, and cruel and I didn't want to look at it."
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Seems to refer to her *own words*.
Aliasi Stonebender: Yes, which makes it an odd thing, although possibly technically correct, to say.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Odd is ok :)
Flyingroc Chung: I think Ulrika's comment refers to the fact that
Sudane brought it back up, rather than the words itself.
Flyingroc Chung: That is the act that she finds cruel etc. is the *act* of reminding her of her own words.
Diderot Mirabeau: I am not so keen to let this discussion delve into a psychological analysis of the mind of Ulrika ...
Diderot Mirabeau: I'd prefer that we focus on the question of whether the post made by Sudane was in violation of any of the founding documents or laws of Neualtenburg
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No no, Diderot, you're right.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The only reason for quoting Ulrika
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is that she did NOT view Sudane's post
Gwyneth Llewelyn: as "in violation of any of the founding documents"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but as "off topic, rude, and cruel and I didn't want to look at it"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I wished to make it clear
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that all of us here (and Ulrika as well)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: did NOT see Sudane's post as a clear violation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or even an indirect one.
Diderot Mirabeau: furthermore ... may I add .. that with the comment made in the "reason for editing" field .. "To remind the SC to take me off the moderator's list" ... implies she was fully aware at the time of not having the privilege of the SC to moderate the user...
Diderot Mirabeau: ... forums ...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's question 2)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Question 1) was actually just to make sure that we all agreed on this subject.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let's move to that bit, Diderot.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 2) Was Ulrika's act, based on Sudane's original post, justified, taking into account that the SC considers to have jurisdiction over the "Neualtenburg Project" group forum?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We might add a few things to that effect.
Diderot Mirabeau: I have a rather long statement to make on this issue
Gwyneth Llewelyn: May I ask the members of the SC if you got a copy of Claude's conversation with Torley?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And then let's hear Diderot.
Diderot Mirabeau: I do
Flyingroc Chung: I got it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aliasi, did you get that as well?
Aliasi Stonebender: Yes, I did.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Diderot Mirabeau: Ulrika's current ability to modify and delete other posters contributions is not founded on authority vested in her by being appointed to a public office of the government of Neualtenburg.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we'll add that document to the transactionsm, since Torley gave Claude permission
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and yes Diderot ? the floor is yours now)
Diderot Mirabeau: The only ones authorised to make changes to posts in the Neualtenburg forum according to the constitution are members of the SC and Linden Lab employees.
Diderot Mirabeau: Ulrika has been able to modify the constitution because she was not removed from the list of moderators upon her stepping down as dean of the SC.
Diderot Mirabeau: As far as I can tell from the investigations performed (refer to the transcript of Claude's conversation with Torely)
Diderot Mirabeau: have shown that Ulrika is the only one able to request LL to remove her from the list of moderators
Diderot Mirabeau: Her modification of a post is in violation of articles 12 and 19 of the UDHR in so far as since she does not have the government mandate to interpret exceptions granted by article 29 (2), which is only available to members of the SC.
Gwyneth Llewelyn lost connection with the Neualtenburg sim at this point; others did as well

Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat logging is on!
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Backup logger available... currently inactive
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it says yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, notecards, notecards...
Diderot Mirabeau: do we need to touch it?
Aliasi Stonebender: just in case, I did.
Diderot Mirabeau: and it didn't explode?
Diderot Mirabeau: I'll try it too then
Gwyneth Llewelyn: just 1 more minute guys, sorry about that
Diderot Mirabeau considers getting himself another glass of orange juice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure... hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok
Aliasi Stonebender accepted your inventory offer.
Dianne Mechanique: Dianne considers pausing the movie
Kendra Bancroft accepted your inventory offer.
Dianne Mechanique accepted your inventory offer.
Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.
Traxx Hathor accepted your inventory offer.
Aliasi Stonebender accepted your inventory offer.
Kendra Bancroft accepted your inventory offer.
Dianne Mechanique accepted your inventory offer.
Diderot Mirabeau: has this document been revised since our last session Gwyneth?
Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.
Traxx Hathor accepted your inventory offer.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: no
Aliasi Stonebender accepted your inventory offer.
Diderot Mirabeau: ok
Kendra Bancroft accepted your inventory offer.
Dianne Mechanique accepted your inventory offer.
Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.
Traxx Hathor accepted your inventory offer.
Aliasi Stonebender accepted your inventory offer.
Kendra Bancroft accepted your inventory offer.
Dianne Mechanique accepted your inventory offer.
Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.
Traxx Hathor accepted your inventory offer.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: One thing is missing — the TRANSCRIPT.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *slaps her forehead*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry — I have to retrieve that from email.
Diderot Mirabeau goes for juice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We'll give Dianne & Kendra a chance to read what they haven't seen so far.
Dianne Mechanique: i think i hae read all this before
Dianne Mechanique: as well as the transcript of the aborted session
Dianne Mechanique: digesting it all on the lfy i sanother matter however :)
Diderot Mirabeau: indeed
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Kendra Bancroft: I have familiarized myself with the prosecution's case
Dianne Mechanique: prosecution?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ack... *where* did I put that transcript? :(
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyone has it on a notecard, by chance?
Diderot Mirabeau: did you find it?
Diderot Mirabeau: I have it here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, I sadly haven't....
Diderot Mirabeau: I have it in a note card now
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd love a copy, please. I can't understand what I've done with it :P
Diderot Mirabeau: I'll give it to you
Diderot Mirabeau gave you Transcript SC hearing 2006-04-15.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We need an archivist, desperatly!
Diderot Mirabeau: and a job description :-)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's easy!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "Fullfilling all my wishes as personal slave..."
Diderot Mirabeau: easier said than done ;-)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oops, what alt am I logged in with??
Diderot Mirabeau: hehe
Diderot Mirabeau: we might try one of the Gorean sims
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok!
Dianne Mechanique: i have a question aout the notecards
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Shall we officially start? Dianne, have you given everybody a copy of the transcript?
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 1 full. Sending email, starting reel 2
Dianne Mechanique: if i could ask before procedeing
Dianne Mechanique: i dont have it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Please do :)
Dianne Mechanique: well my recollection is we are deciding on whthere in the first instance Ulrika had the right to delete the post
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and sorry — that question was to Diderot....)
Dianne Mechanique: or whether it was a bad thign to do
Dianne Mechanique: but in the notecards
Dianne Mechanique: it says that we are only deciding whether he has a reason to do so.
Diderot Mirabeau: done
Dianne Mechanique: those are different things
Dianne Mechanique: is that a typo?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: First, Dianne, we tried to establish the *facts*
Dianne Mechanique: or is that what we are deciding on?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The first thing we needed to do, since there is no easy way to know what was deleted and how
Dianne Mechanique: right
Kendra Bancroft: are the facts in dispute?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Was to establish what was on Ulrika's post
Diderot Mirabeau: Sudane's?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes they were, Kendra, after all, no one saw what Ulrika posted, except for 4 people.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Sudane's — thanks, Diderot.
Diderot Mirabeau: Sudane?
Diderot Mirabeau: you're welcome
Kendra Bancroft: Sudane's post was a verbatim re-post of Ulrika's leave-taking post
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, no one saw what Ulrika *deleted* :) hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes
Kendra Bancroft: with a link to that same post
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We can fairly establish that.
Diderot Mirabeau: we have already established that
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All testimonies to the effect are clear on that.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We also know more.
Dianne Mechanique: yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ulrika gave a reason for deleting the post.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ulrika: "Why did I choose to remove this post? Because it was off topic, rude, and cruel and I didn't want to look at it."
Kendra Bancroft: I would argue that Sudane's post was a personal attack --and one I would have deleted myself had Ulrika not done so first
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We proceeded to answer 5 questions.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 1) Was Sudane's original post considered abusive, defamatory, libellous, or in violation of any of Neualtenburg's Laws, the Constitution, or the founding documents?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The overall agreement was, "no"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We started on question #2
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 2 full. Sending email, starting reel 1
Kendra Bancroft: I would disagree
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We note that on record, Kendra.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Although that question is for the SC ;)
Dianne Mechanique: did you wnat to present further evidence that it was?
Kendra Bancroft: Not unless the SC disputes my claim that I am an operating moderator it doesnt
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok... let me recap a bit again, then.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The first part of the meeting was to establish the facts.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That we did.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The second part of the meeting is interpretation of the facts.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Something that the SC is supposed to be able to do, as good as possible.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hopefully, justifying the interpretation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And the third part will be to define consequences of that interpretation.
Kendra Bancroft: Then this hearing has already made it's conclusions --there is no need for me to be here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not at all, Kendra.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: First, we still have lots of open questions.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I'd like to know, as a citizen...
Kendra Bancroft: The questions you believe you have answered are in dispute as far as I'm concerned
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... why you consider the interpretation of the SC incorrect.
Kendra Bancroft: Because I as a moderator of the forum believe that Sudane's post was an attack
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (that's just question #1, mind you, we have at least 4 to discuss further, although Diderot was starting to answer to #2 when the grid crashed)
Diderot Mirabeau: this hearing is being held under the presumption that the SC maintains judicial authority over the forums .. if there is evidence to suggest that is not the case I want to have that clarified before wasting my time
Dianne Mechanique: how so though?
Dianne Mechanique: on what evidence do you believe that?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes Diderot — we work on that assumption.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I'd like Kendra's answer as well — as Dianne asked.
Kendra Bancroft: It was an attack because it was meant to suggest that Ulrika said she was not returning --and so had no right to voice a concern over the Constitution --a right we extend to any person in SL citizen or no
Dianne Mechanique: an attempt to silence her like?
Kendra Bancroft: it was in effect calling her a liar who deserved no voice
Kendra Bancroft: yes, Diannne
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Kendra, may I remind you that Ulrika's own signature states precisely that? (that she has no intent of returning)
Kendra Bancroft: what does that matter?
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 1 full. Sending email, starting reel 2
Dianne Mechanique: i dont agree
Dianne Mechanique: that it was taht strong
Dianne Mechanique: it might have been rude-ish
Dianne Mechanique: but not an attempt to silence her
Dianne Mechanique: or call her a liar or whatever
Kendra Bancroft: W@as it designed to be hurtful?
Kendra Bancroft: I think so
Kendra Bancroft: personally hurtful? definately
Dianne Mechanique: i dont think we can tell the intent
Dianne Mechanique: since no words were used
Diderot Mirabeau: if people cannot stand to be exposed to quotations of their own words then they have no place in a discussion forum
Dianne Mechanique: any intent we see
Dianne Mechanique: woudll be reading it in
Kendra Bancroft: The intent of this quotation was to tell her to shut-up
Diderot Mirabeau: that's your interpretation
Dianne Mechanique: it was a reminder of her status
Dianne Mechanique: or her statement of her status
Dianne Mechanique: but the intent isn't clear to me
Kendra Bancroft: and my interpretation as a moderator of these forums I might add
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, that's also Ulrika's interpretation, but the truth is, Sudane did not even comment on the post!
Kendra Bancroft: Then what was Sudanes purpose?
Dianne Mechanique: it's an inferrence that can be made
Kendra Bancroft: We are playing at games here --the intent was obvious
Dianne Mechanique: but i dont think its a fact
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If Sudane had said "Har har you're forgetting your own posts" or something to the effect, I'd tend to view things slightly differently.
Dianne Mechanique: even if we assume it was an attack
Dianne Mechanique: its the kind of attack that ulrika makes a lot
Dianne Mechanique: where one cnat really be sure of it enough
Dianne Mechanique: to prosecute
Dianne Mechanique: i dont even think it was an attakc though
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok ok Dianne... I'll have to step in on Ulrika's defense here. The fact that Ulrika does much worse is not being analysed today.
Dianne Mechanique: i know its not relevant
Diderot Mirabeau: the SC has ruled on this issue already and I have seen no further evidence being presented
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We're still limiting ourselves to one single post by Sudane, and Ulrika's deleting it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anything else you'd like to add, Kendra?
Dianne Mechanique: i am saying that it wouldnot stand up in a court of law to call it an attack
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 2 full. Sending email, starting reel 1
Dianne Mechanique: its mrerely a reposting of the persons own words
Dianne Mechanique: IMO of course
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Dianne — actually, as Diderot so well mentioned, it did not even stand up in *this* court.
Dianne Mechanique: heh
Kendra Bancroft: Nothing other than the fact that I find the SCs ruling to be partial in it's judgement
Diderot Mirabeau: this is a serious accusation
Kendra Bancroft: And I am making it
Dianne Mechanique: if we are in the fact gathering stage
Dianne Mechanique: then we must only admit facts
Dianne Mechanique: how can an opinion or an inferrence
Dianne Mechanique: be considered a fact
Dianne Mechanique: it is recorded as a dissenting opinion on a fact only
Dianne Mechanique: or should be
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We try to be as objective as possible, Kendra. Note that Ulrika did not file a suit against Sudane, considering that Sudane's post was "abusive, defamatory, libellous, or in violation of any of Neualtenburg's Laws, the Constitution, or the founding docs"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... if Ulrika had done that, we'd probably come to another conclusion
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but we have to take Ulrika's answers as evidence as well: "Why did I choose to remove this post? Because it was off topic, rude, and cruel and I didn't want to look at it."
Kendra Bancroft: Suppose I had gotten to the post first --before Ulrika . I'd have deleted it myself
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, Kendra, what I mean is... while *some* would consider it an "attack"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or "libel"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The point is, not even Ulrika saw this that way.
Kendra Bancroft: But I do
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure Kendra :D
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And probably others would see it that way as well — God only knows how many people find everything abusive these days.
Kendra Bancroft: There is a difference. I'm a moderator of those forums
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But we have to stick to what we have to work with, facts. No one (and I'm including Ulrika here!) found this post abusive, libel, defamation, or in violation of any laws.
Dianne Mechanique: I find ulrika plushies abusive :)
Diderot Mirabeau: Neualtenburg is a republic based on law and not a sim governed by the opinions and whims of individuals
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok. For the record, let's keep Kendra's opinion as forum moderator (we'll talk about that issue here later anyway) that the post was "abusive"
Dianne Mechanique: agreed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Since at the time of deletion, 1 out of 4 people found it "an attack", it should go on record.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And let's move to point #2.
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 1 full. Sending email, starting reel 2
Gwyneth Llewelyn: To restate:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 2) Was Ulrika's act, based on Sudane's original post, justified, taking into account that the SC considers to have jurisdiction over the "Neualtenburg Project" group forum?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I'll give Diderot an opportunity to continue his argumentation
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And then you all can join in if you wish.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Diderot — you've got the floor :)
Diderot Mirabeau: thank you Dean ... I would but I cannot since its based on the premise actually expressed in the question .. that the SC maintains judicial authority over the forum ..
Kendra Bancroft: The SCs consideration that it has sole jurisdiction is not in the Constitution --only that it has the role of moderating --not tha it has the exclusive role
Diderot Mirabeau: I have heard several times now this evening that a single individual for some reason considers herself to have authority aboe that of the SC
Diderot Mirabeau: and I would need this issue to be settled before being able to continue with my argument
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, Kendra. But the argument here is that, at the time the issue happened
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the SC was considered to have the authority and responsability of moderating the forums.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This was questioned *later*
Kendra Bancroft: But not sole jurisdiction
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But we cannot make judgements on the laws/concepts of the future, when dealing with the past!
Kendra Bancroft: we aren't
Kendra Bancroft: You are
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, sole jurisdiction was what was CONSIDERED that the SC *had* at the time of the incident.
Kendra Bancroft: The Constitution as it stand now and at the time did not have issue with me as a moderator
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, irrelevant though.
Kendra Bancroft: in fact the very issue of my remaining moderator had been addressed months earlier
Diderot Mirabeau: there is written record in the forums of Ulrika adding you as an "observer" while the dean of the SC since you do not have the formal authority to be a moderator of the forums
Kendra Bancroft: so my role of observer is what?
Diderot Mirabeau: to verify that thread deletions are not made without proper procedure
Kendra Bancroft: If I observe that a personal attack was made --my opinion counts for nothing?
Diderot Mirabeau: that is what was written .. let me find the link
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Kendra... I'm sorry for being hard here... but all of that is besides our hearing today!
Dianne Mechanique: it's really unclear what "observer " means
Dianne Mechanique: but it implies non-action
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 2 full. Sending email, starting reel 1
Kendra Bancroft: Then I must say that the hearing has already been decided and the Council is wasting my time
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, Kendra, the hearing exists for one single purpose only.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We're not redefining how the forums work, or how they should work
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We may do that tomorrow, on our regular meetings
Kendra Bancroft: Yes --in fact you are
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No
Kendra Bancroft: I'm the only one adherering to the forums as they exist now
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry to be stubborn :) But we're doing this hearing, based to what was EXPECTED from the SC.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree things have changed...
Kendra Bancroft: The SC is expected to moderate the forums --this does not preclude ME from also moderating
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... and these expectations of the SC have changed as well re: forums...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Perhaps not, Kendra, in the sense that this will probably be our future interpretation.
Aliasi Stonebender: May I make an observation of my own?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But we have to work on *past* interpretation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Go for it Aliasi — you're a member of the SC too!
Kendra Bancroft: Ulrika's crime is acting as a citizen when she was no longer such
Aliasi Stonebender: Well, I was, at any rate - anyway.
Aliasi Stonebender: Now, my understanding, the understanding that seems to have been the common one, is the SC DID have sole moderating power; Kendra's moderator status was strictly as observer. I think most of us who were there at the time remember this, I could dig up a p
Aliasi Stonebender: post.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Kendra Bancroft: Is my role as Observer of more weight than anyone else who observes the forums simply by reading them?
Aliasi Stonebender: However, in any case, I'd say the nature of who can moderate the forums is a side issue and not pertiant - as kendra said, the argument here is not based on who had a moderator flag in the LL forum software.
Dianne Mechanique: it's unclear
Aliasi Stonebender: but on Ulrika as a *non citizen* moderating, whereas Kendra was at least a citizen.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, *after* the issue, Ulrika stated the very same thing — placing the responsability on the SC for *not* removing non-SC members from the forums as moderators (this is actually also irrelevant, but it strengthens that view)
Kendra Bancroft: And a member of the Government, Aliasi
Aliasi Stonebender: well, is at least, didn't mean to past-tense. was at the time, still is.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So... the point here is that the citizens of N'burg
Gwyneth Llewelyn: at that time, considered the SC to have jurisdiction over the group forum
Patch's Funky Chat Logger - for Gwyn: Chat log reel 1 full. Sending email, starting reel 2
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is that correct?
Aliasi Stonebender: basically, all I'm saying is for THIS hearing, the matter of "are moderators any citizen with a mod flag, or only SC members" isn't relevant.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree.
Dianne Mechanique: i would agree with that but i think we do have to take the real state of affairs into account
Dianne Mechanique: as well as the belief of the way things were
Kendra Bancroft: Where were the cries of the citizenry about the status of listed moderator's then? Youy assume facts not in evidence
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There were none to the best of my recollection, *before* the act.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Since everyone at least *assumed* that the forums were SC-moderated.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Unless anyone wishes to disagree, and has evidence to point to the contrary?
Kendra Bancroft: Then it is this august body that is stating a change in how things were percieved at the time. Not me
Dianne Mechanique: i think we are gathering a consensus on how things were percieved at the time

The following documents were also presented at the hearing meeting:

- To the SC members: guidelines for the procedures of the meeting
- A statement by Ulrika regarding her actions and her justifications for them
- A testimonial by Claude Desmoulins regarding the content of the deleted post
- An authorised chat log between Claude and Torley explaining the nature of the group forums and why it's impossible to remove

Furthermore, on April 21st, the SC met again, and its agenda included a revision of the hearing meeting and the sanctioning that was established. A transcript of that meeting is on the Neualtenburg Wiki. As the meeting was not limited to this point, it's not reproduced here.

Pardon, I don't want to interrupt... it's just surreal for me to be brought up in something like this.

It's really complex!

Yipes! Negligent and abusive behavior in the government is unrecognized, overlooked, and unpunished, while the trouble-making foreigner pays the ultimate price in a virtual society -- an indefinite ban on citizenship.

While there are several logical errors in your analysis (which I'll revisit over the next couple of weeks), I want to make a few simple observations. First, this precedent contains a punishment that is quite possibly cruel and most definitely unusual. What exactly is the precedent for punishing someone for the term of the Dean of the SC (a position that has no term limit)? It seems like this is a political exile that's in effect for the duration of the current power structure. It's so Mussolini, that it gives me goose-bumps.

From a legal perspective, I'd say that the biggest flaw in your analysis is that it fails to adequately reconcile the conflict between Linden "law" and city law, using this ambiguity to selectively apply jurisdiction and thus culpability. For instance, using paraphrased quotes from your text:
These contradictory statements are resolved, of course, by the selective and complete supersession of Linden "law" with city law to my detriment. However, this same conflict between Linden "law" and city law is resolved differently here:
The fact that the SC cannot remove moderators as per Linden policy is used as a mitigating factor in regards to negligence, despite the statement that it was in fact responsible. So, Linden "law" is superseded in one instance yet remains a mitigating factor in another.


Now the tough stuff. It is obvious to me that this hearing is a quasi-legal charade executed to achieve the a priori goal of exiling a troublesome dissident. The SC has become the executioner in a vengeful and angry bureaucracy -- an oligarchy comprised of long-time N'burg members that run the sim by direct democracy behind a facade of governmental structure and protocol.

~Ulrika~

For anyone reading the scornful words above I'd just like to supplement the above diatribe with the observation that we are between three and four members of the Scientific Council of Neualtenburg, who have spent upwards of 12 hours each preparing the case and engaging in consideration and deliberation of the merits of arguments and evidence through an open minded dialogue. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to read through the documents and proceedings of the case rather than rely on the words of an individual, who quite obviously has an interest in representing the facts from a point of view to suit her own agenda.

I'd also like to point out that it is the prerogative of SC according to the constitution to conduct trials and reach a final verdict, which is what we have done in this case. There is no point in arguing against our verdict. Should there somehow arise new evidence in the case it will be asssessed for whether it merits the initiation of a re-trial. Trying to come up with "counter arguments" to our legal deliberations at this stage is pointless and shows a remarkable lack of respect for the fact that the Scientific Council has reached this verdict unanimously.

I would therefore encourage forum participants to not get involved in further discussion of this issue since at this stage it is pointless and only shows a lack of respect for the judgement of the SC. Neualtenburg is facing a lot of opportunities with our current influx of constructive and motivated citizens and our evolving framework of law and administrative infrastructure and I encourage readers to direct their energies toward considering how to address these challenges rather than be distracted by the interests of a single individual in hijacking the conversational agenda.

Personally, I have made my last post with regard to this issue.

Yipes! Is this seriously a call for silence backed by an appeal to authority? It seems the SC has in advance decided to institute a policy of silence, to avoid engaging in a critical analysis of its methodology and decisions. This is not the sign of a healthy legal system.

Finally, I should point out the SCs actions are in violation of the constitution, which states: Due to this constitutional violation by the SC, the conclusions of the previous hearing are illegal and should be rendered null and void, with a retrial and judgement by a jury of peers to be convened in its stead.


As an addendum, given that your own precedent allows the indefinite loss of citizenship for law breakers, does this SC transgression not put your own citizenships at risk? My guess is similar to the three other charges leveled towards officials that were dismissed, they will similarly be dismissed without punishment. This leads one to believe that a crime is only punishable, if the criminal is in opposition to the internal oligarchy, and that sentences scale according to the wrath of the internal oligarchy.

~Ulrika~

With the The Scientific Council of Neualtenburg's Unconstitutional judgement against Ulrika Zugzwang, Expat;

The Barony of Altenburg under the protectorship of Die Altenburg Gruppe and under the leadership of Burgermeister Bancroft announces it's intention to secede from the City/State of Neualtenburg.

All private property of Altenburg remains the private property of Die Altenburg Gruppe, as do the rights to the name Altenburg and any architecture built within the area known as Altenburg or any privately owned property of the Altenburg Gruppe, or Kendra Bancroft.

All municipal builds by Kendra Bancroft built and paid for by the City/State of Neualtenburg remain the property of Neualtenburg.

Instead of succession, there is always impeachment. By failing to provide me with a jury, the Dean clearly violated the constitution, which is grounds for an impeachment hearing. The question is, can such a process overcome the underlying oligarchy that exists underneath the facade of government? That is, despite the fact that they are clearly acting in violation of the law and know it, who will censure them if everyone approves of the illegal act?

~Ulrika~

I see no fruitful course at this time other than protest and secession from the State.

The hearing (and the meeting) was indeed lead by a Professor (the Dean in this case) and the veredict was pronounced by a jury of peers (the remaining SC members) on a subsequent SC meeting.

The hearing was also not a "trial" as it was repeated quite often. Its purpose (as I'm now writing for the Nth time) was to define in which way the alleged abuses of power constitued violations of Neualtenburg Law. Separating "intent" — the emotional part — from "violations" — was the most important aspect of this long process.

Once the violations were established, it was required of the SC to pronounce a veredict. And in this case the decision to apply sanctions was not made by the "judge" on her own — but by a jury of peers (namely, all SC members with voting powers). They have even voted to remove the suspension of access to Neualtenburg, and apply a lighter sanction instead — free access to Neualtenburg, its events, and institutions (including, for instance, the right to further file suits on libel, defamation, or demand of compensation for emotional breakdown and stress; as well as full access to the Neualtenburg forums), but a temporary suspension of re-acquiring citizen status, a decision that can be appealed (and yes, FYI, the Dean is also subject to a 6-month-long term).

Any further questions?

No.

Once the violations were established it was required of the SC to indict and call a trial.

Kendra, you know as well as I do that Neualtenburg can't put a non-citizen on trial, we have no jurisdiction over non-citizens!

We can only appeal to voluntary compliance of the law. And as you know even better than I do, the rule of precedent that was applied in the past 18 months is that non-citizens found to be in violation of Neualtenburg Law simply got excluded from participating in Neualtenburg. Actually, this was the first time the SC bothered to do a 12-hour-long multipart hearing... previously, non-citizens were dealt with summary execution of arbitrary decisions (removing posts, banning from sims, etc.) without ever being contested, or given the right to appeal.

You did not even offer the accused the chance to voluntarily submit to a trial.

I ask this of the SC...


You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Beg pardon, Kendra, but could you clarify as to how this is more than a symbolic gesture, if it is indeed intended to be more than that?

In my own state of rebellion I am at least recognizing the ultimate power of the sim owner and the duly appointed sim managers, which is all Linden Lab understands. In fact, you might have noticed my violations of covenant have been removed, by me, under the request of Gwyn (as she is a sim manager). The fact that she's dean of the SC doesn't matter; only the real facts do. The rest of the Neualtenburg "government" may say what it wishes, and I won't care; I just pay my fee to Rudeen and keep on truckin'.

Is all this just fancy talk for what I'm doing?

What do you think secession means?

A peer is a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person. The SC is a group of judges and does not in any way qualify as a jury of peers. In fact most legal systems require a randomly selected group of peers to prevent this very problem.

Here you contradict yourself. Above you state that a jury was present, directly referring to the section on trials in the constitution, yet deny that there was even a trial. Just so we are clear, a trial is a formal examination of evidence by a judge, typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings. So by definition and by your own reference to the constitution, you held a trial. You're using euphamistic labeling to avoid recognizing that you violated the constitution.

~Ulrika~

This is another example of the SC's self contradiction and selective application of jurisdiction. Your statements are in contradiction with your actions, in that you state that a citizen cannot be put on trial (this excuses you from recognizing you violated the constitution), yet this noncitizen was just tried an banned from obtaining citizenship. In other words, the city has jurisdiction over accused noncitizens but not over officials acting upon those noncitizens.

It is an unconscionable abortion of the legal system.

~Ulrika~

Hi Kendra,

Just trying to understand here. Will you be keeping your NB citizenship and Chamber of Commerce post? I surely hope so. Also, is the Barony land part of the larger NB Sim? If so, I'm sure you could remove and keep your IP, but I'm not sure how the land deal would be negociated.

If it's not NB sim land, you're pretty much free to go I figure.
If it's NB land you'd have to negociate to either buy the land or pay NB as part of a vassal arrangement (probably not what you want).

Just fill us in, we're very interested in you and your plans. You're probably the most famous current citizen. Another alternative would be to found another (rival?) city-state sim. Could be very interesting. You two are obviously skilled and dedicated enough.