Atlasia v. Antonio V

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Your Honors,

As the Attorney General of the Republic, I charge Antonio V with a violation of the Section 1, Clause 5 of the CCJA, which reads: "Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages."

[Antonio the Sixth]

I plead not guilty. I'm glad to announce that I accepted Pacific Governor Oakvale's offer to represent me for this case.

Before starting to argue, we should probably hear the plaintiff's reasoning.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I PMed justices. I hope they are aware of the charges.

[Oakvale]

Just checking in. I'm happy to represent Antonio and confident he'll be found not guilty of these charges.

[Hash]

What happened?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

What happened?

TPTTAA reporter - From what I can tell
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Template:Atlasian_Political_Party/party_colors/Pop&action=history
He keeps changing the POP colour from THIS to THIS

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just wonder if we can begin with no response from Justices?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Give them a little more time IMO

[Sam Spade]

I'm here.  But I would really prefer not to do it and give Ebowed his first chance...    So give us a little time.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm here.  But I would really prefer not to do it and give Ebowed his first chance...    So give us a little time.

Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

[Ebowed]

A consolidation of facts from both the Attorney General and the defendant's council would be appreciated before moving forward.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thank you, Mr. Justice.

The facts are as follows: Antonio V has been waging an edition war on wiki, changing all over again Populares color template. That wasn't just one accident.

We're presenting an edition history as an evidence: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Template:Atlasian_Political_Party/party_colors/Pop&action=history

While the defendant argues he was motivated with a desire of changing a color to ensure a better quality of wiki, that is not a justification of his actions.

Emerald is an officially adopted party color of Populares and, thus, Antonio V actions fits perfectly a crime described by the CCJA (Section 1, Clause 5):  "Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages".

The prosecution fully realized that this is a first case regarding wiki vandalizing, but I'd like to said, as an Attorney General, a person responsible for maintaining statute on wiki, that we cannot simply tolerate edition wars and removing content if we want to keep wiki what it is intended to be: a clear and useful source of knowledge.

[Oakvale]

Thank you, Mr. Justice.

Antonio V is charged with "maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages".

Of course, Antonio did edit the party color of the Populares - several times. That much is true. However, I do not believe Antonio is guilty of the central tenet of the charge - "maliciously editing".

It is perfectly clear from the evidence - on, for example, Libertas' talk page - that Antonio believed himself to be acting in good faith, attempting to improve the usability of the wiki for all, not out of some strange spite for the Populares party.

The defendant simply attempted to slightly change the color associated with the Populares in order to avoid confusion with an older party who shared that same color. Was this misguided? Certainly, but it was in good faith, and, thus, not malicious.

I'd also note that the Constitution makes no mention of official party colors, so the definition of such as "legitimate content", rather than a convenient way of distinguishing the parties on a map, is questionable.

In short, Antonio made a misguided decision, but not a malicious one. He is not guilty of this alleged crime.

[afleitch]

If the Court permisses, I would like to make a statement as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of Antonio V

[Ebowed]

If the Court permisses, I would like to make a statement as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of Antonio V

Absolutely.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Of course, there is no law about official party colors, just as there is no law about party symbols/names etc. etc. Yet, those are oficially adopted and used by parties, and fits very well a definition of legitimate content. Also, no law states colors used cannot be similar to others.

It would be just like changing party names anywhere, because of "quality".

I believe Antonio V should been try to resolve this matter more civilized way, rather than waging an edition war.

Your honor, I'd like to use an opportunity to call witnesses.

[afleitch]

Mr Supreme Justice, distinguished Justices.

I have always been of the opinion that all claims made to the Court are grievances that on which legitimacy or illegitimacy should not be conferred based upon how large, small, pressing or trivial they may seem. However the charges brought against Antonio I believe lack any foundation on which to argue in their favour. On the question of 'intent'; was Antonio expressing any malice or maliciousness in changing the party colour of the Populares to avoid what he perceived to be a 'confusion' with past party colours? This I feel is the weakest thrust of the argument made by the prosecution. Only then, when intent is satisfied can the Court look at whether he is guilty of removing 'legitimate' content. The prosecution concedes that party colours are not enshrined in law. It also concedes that no law states that party colours have to be distinctive from earlier parties. I would therefore ask the Court to consider whether party colours, which the prosecution concedes are not covered, governed or protected by law or statute qualify as 'legitimate' content.

If I may be permitted to be a tad pedantic, we are told that the colour is being changed from 'Emerald' which is cited as the official Populares party colour. However records indicate that this colour is in fact Paris Green, a hue derivative of copper.

At most Antonio can be considered to be 'guilty' of pedantry or stubborness.

Thank you, your Honours.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Your Honor, I'd like to ask Mr. afleitch to support his claim about Paris Green being a recorded Populares colour, as on Populares wiki page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Populares) it is clearly stated that Emerals is a party colour.

Also, we believe that waging an edition war perfectly fits maliciousness.

[afleitch]

Your Honor, I'd like to ask Mr. afleitch to support his claim about Paris Green being a recorded Populares colour, as on Populares wiki page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Populares) it is clearly stated that Emerals is a party colour.

Also, we believe that waging an edition war perfectly fits maliciousness.

That is not what I said. If I may clarify; the code given for the correct 'emerald' Populares colour here:

THIS

Is in fact 50C878 - Paris Green. Which is a colour hue derived from copper. My point was it is difficult to accuse Antonio of changing the colour of Populares from 'Emerald', when it is debatable that the colour chosen was Emerald in the first place. Note he hasn't changed the name 'Emerald', merely the colour chosen to represent that hue.

He could argue that...

THIS

...could also represent the colour Emerald.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Your Honor, I'd like to ask Mr. afleitch to support his claim about Paris Green being a recorded Populares colour, as on Populares wiki page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Populares) it is clearly stated that Emerals is a party colour.

Also, we believe that waging an edition war perfectly fits maliciousness.

That is not what I said. If I may clarify; the code given for the correct 'emerald' Populares colour here:

THIS

Is in fact 50C878 - Paris Green. Which is a colour hue derived from copper. My point was it is difficult to accuse Antonio of changing the colour of Populares from 'Emerald', when it is debatable that the colour chosen was Emerald in the first place. Note he hasn't changed the name 'Emerald', merely the colour chosen to represent that hue.

He could argue that...

THIS

...could also represent the colour Emerald.

Thank you for clarification, Afleitch.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

[afleitch]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

While the issue over the colour palette itself is not the main thrust of my argument then yes there has been some back and forward. Officepark set it as 50C878 in February, Antonio changed it to 00CCCB. Libertas changed it back, but back to 5EDA9E then a minute later to 009E60 then 00A86B and so on...

Again, different interpretations of the colour.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The prosecution rest it's case.

[Purple State]

Doesn't there need to be the determination of jury selection, witnesses, etc.?

[minionofmidas]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

You certainly couldn't make the claim that that was "malicious". [/highly informal amicus brief]