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."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The prosecution rest it's case.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just saying: if anyone wish to fill a complain regarding a case of wiki vandalizm, just let me know.

Otherwise, this is a trail of Antonio regarding a specific situation.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, I guess with technical informations provided by both Libertas and Afleitch, as well as prosecution and defense briefs, court have enough informations to make a judgement.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, Marokai, but if we use your logic now, everyone can easily claim "no, it wasn't malicious" etc.

The point is: we had an edition war and the defendant was a side that initiated it, and this law is about preventing such things. He was removing a legitimate content.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, Marokai, but if we use your logic now, everyone can easily claim "no, it wasn't malicious" etc.

I would advise against suggesting this as a potential precedent, because yes; anyone can claim a lack of malicious intent.  In order to analyze this case properly we must consider not only the defendant's claim but any facts that might corroborate his assertion.  If we are to find that he is not guilty, that does not necessarily indicate that anyone can just claim to be innocent and then be acquitted.  This being said, there are legitimate reasons to consider the argument you are providing as being contrary to the spirit of the statute that has enabled this lawsuit.  The hinging clause clearly restricts itself to decidedly malicious behavior, and whether the defendant's actions were truly malicious is not as clear-cut as you seem to suggest.

Mr. Attorney General, do you believe that the defendant's actions can be accurately described as malicious in light of the steps he took to communicate with his adversary?  Would you go so far as to say that these public records enhance the strength of your case?

I will have some questions for the defendant soon also.

Your honor.

I believe this case may become precedental for simple reasons: the issue was never brought to the court, we have a lot of problems defining a status of party colours and, last but not least, this is the first prosecution under a section regarding wiki vandalization.

Also, I have a firm beflief that intentions are not important here. The results are.

The prosecution would like to call Tmthforu94 as a witness.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously, Libertas decided to use a legal way only after his tried to convinve the defendent to cease his activities failed. I think it was appropriate from his side to first try to resolve this on wiki talks.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Your Honor,

Due to my tenure as Attorney General expiring tommorow, I have to leave this case to my immediate successor.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hello everyone!

I've put a great deal of thought into my handling of this case, and I've decided to move forward with the following action:

In order to accommodate Libertas, along with my personal belief that ongoing cases should at least be respected to some degree, I will personally appoint anyone Libertas desires to argue the case on his behalf.

If Libertas does not, however, respond with any sort of recommendation, I will refuse to argue this case myself, and will drop this case. I do not believe in this case myself, but I want to give Libertas an opportunity to continue this case himself.

If Libertas hasn't responded within 24 hours-ish, I'll proceed with the latter action.

Thanks for your patience, everyone.

Marokai, despite my feelings and social connections here, I haven't rescued myself from this case neither should you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Marokai, I don't feel it's right for you to say, as AG, "ok, find me someone to prosecute or I'll quit". Libertas is the one who brought a complain, not a member of prosecution team. And you're a head of the prosecution stuff.

Ok, I'll fully understand if you'd want to excuse yourself because you argued in Antonio favor before becoming AG. That's a perfectly valid argument. But as AG, you really shouldn't drop or let the case die. Want to excuse yourself, appoint an impartian special prosecutor.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyway, it is my belief that this case just should be resolved.

I bet Ebowed is really cursing all of us.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Too bad the case, which could, regardless of verdict, be potentially major landmark one, turned that way.

Good at least Ebowed made ruling, instead of letting it die on 20 page.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also, I am under NO obligation to pursue ANY case that I don't want to.

I really wanted to abstain from incoming bitching fest but...

Well, I didn't really want to brought those charges as your predecessor, giving the fact Antonio is my oldest, along with Barnes, forum friend. Yet I did because those were my duties.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thanks for saying I'm an idiot who conspired secretly with Libertas in order to make himself look bipartisian.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thanks for saying I'm an idiot who conspired secretly with Libertas in order to make himself look bipartisian.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you, I just got a little heated here, you know that I like you personally. I'm a little tired of being the scapegoat here taking the fall for every single person that pops in this thread. I was trying to make the best out of a crappy situation that I didn't feel you handled very well, and that Libertas abandoned. For that, I've been called biased, lazy, unwilling to do my job, partisan, etc, etc. I'm a little tired of it all.

I agree I didn't handled this well. But what the hell was I supposed to say to Purple State? "F**k you, Mr. President, I'm not doing this"? I didn't appoint any special prosecutor for one reason: my tenure was coming to an end and you were a designate, so I assumed making such a decision, since you'll replace me within a days, wouldn't be good idea.

I regret this case ended this way. No, I'm not talking about verdict, I mean that it actually become, and all parts share responsibility, a joke. There's going to be a lot of bitching, a lot of divisions etc. etc.

But without me. In last month I already were a spacegoat few times. Enjoy yourself guys. I have better things to do than getting involved in yet another bitchfest.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, you're really not helping your cause.

Just saying.