HOUSE BILL: Atlasian Evidentiary Disclosures Act (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Renumbers all appropriate Sections of SB-2017 to account for this change.[/quote]

People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: Peebs for Ted
House Designation: HB 1182

[Mike Thick]

Hi, guys. This is just a bill I wrote to dot our I's and cross our T's in regards to things like subpoenas. I'm not a legal expert by any means, so although I think the bill I wrote is at least a solid start, I'm open to whatever amendments you guys might suggest.

[Blair]

Would this gives justices the power to theoretically ask for PMs?

[Mike Thick]

Would this gives justices the power to theoretically ask for PMs?

I was going to ask a moderator so I could amend this to reflect site policies if necessary, but some things came up -- I'll explain the weirdness of the physical evidence situation tomorrow.

[Mike Thick]

Would this gives justices the power to theoretically ask for PMs?

I was going to ask a moderator so I could amend this to reflect site policies if necessary, but some things came up -- I'll explain the weirdness of the physical evidence situation tomorrow.

Okay,

Short answer: The Presiding Judge in a trial would be able to issue subpoenas at their discretion, or at the behest of counsel. So, yes and no. Subpoenas of PMs would be pretty tough to enforce, for obvious reasons, but I see no reason that private forwarding of messages could not be used to comply with site policy in lieu of public postings.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would this gives justices the power to theoretically ask for PMs?

I was going to ask a moderator so I could amend this to reflect site policies if necessary, but some things came up -- I'll explain the weirdness of the physical evidence situation tomorrow.

Okay,

Short answer: The Presiding Judge in a trial would be able to issue subpoenas at their discretion, or at the behest of counsel. So, yes and no. Subpoenas of PMs would be pretty tough to enforce, for obvious reasons, but I see no reason that private forwarding of messages could not be used to comply with site policy in lieu of public postings.

I am somewhat concerned that requiring the forwarding of PMs might be a TOS violation or at the very least something that the forum administration would be dubious about. I think we should consult with them on that aspect.

[Mike Thick]

Would this gives justices the power to theoretically ask for PMs?

I was going to ask a moderator so I could amend this to reflect site policies if necessary, but some things came up -- I'll explain the weirdness of the physical evidence situation tomorrow.

Okay,

Short answer: The Presiding Judge in a trial would be able to issue subpoenas at their discretion, or at the behest of counsel. So, yes and no. Subpoenas of PMs would be pretty tough to enforce, for obvious reasons, but I see no reason that private forwarding of messages could not be used to comply with site policy in lieu of public postings.

I am somewhat concerned that requiring the forwarding of PMs might be a TOS violation or at the very least something that the forum administration would be dubious about. I think we should consult with them on that aspect.

I’m a step ahead of you — contacted a mod about it a few days ago. They’re currently hashing it out in the cave, but even if it is a problem, we can just amend the bill to reflect that.

[Mike Thick]

Anyone have any more comments or concerns? If you don't, I'm going have to assume that you're okay with the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would this gives justices the power to theoretically ask for PMs?

I was going to ask a moderator so I could amend this to reflect site policies if necessary, but some things came up -- I'll explain the weirdness of the physical evidence situation tomorrow.

Okay,

Short answer: The Presiding Judge in a trial would be able to issue subpoenas at their discretion, or at the behest of counsel. So, yes and no. Subpoenas of PMs would be pretty tough to enforce, for obvious reasons, but I see no reason that private forwarding of messages could not be used to comply with site policy in lieu of public postings.

I am somewhat concerned that requiring the forwarding of PMs might be a TOS violation or at the very least something that the forum administration would be dubious about. I think we should consult with them on that aspect.

I’m a step ahead of you — contacted a mod about it a few days ago. They’re currently hashing it out in the cave, but even if it is a problem, we can just amend the bill to reflect that.

Interesting, but we really cannot proceed until we receive feedback, at least on that aspect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the latest on that moderator feedback?

[Lumine]

With permission from this esteemed body, the issue was discussed and Muon posted the following on the Forum Community Guidelines as the general policy to follow:

There have been some questions about the use of personal messages (pm's) in posts. The Terms of Service are not completely clear, so after some moderator discussion we have come up with this policy based on what is in the Terms of Service.

The Terms of Service forbid posts which are invasive of a person's privacy. This is interpreted to include posting the contents of a pm without the consent of the sender. Moderators may share pm's specifically related to moderating duties in the Moderators Corner (aka the Cave). Users playing games on the Forum may give blanket consent to have pm's specifically related to the game posted on the Forum in threads related to the game. Even with the consent of the sender pm's may not be posted on the Forum if they would violate the Terms of Service by containing material which is "false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law".

[Pragmatic Conservative]

With the recent news of restrictions over sharing pm and the low amount of court cases making this act not overly necessary; I motion to table this bill.

[Oakvale]

I object to the motion to table.

Even with restrictions on the posting of PMs the bill covers a wider range of evidence and, most importantly, compulsion to testify that are essential to the functioning of the legal system.

It's true that there has been a relatively low number of cases in recent months but trends do not continue indefinitely, and, indeed, as we plan to investigate the Korean fiasco it seems apparent that subpoena power should be codified in advance of such.

[wxtransit]

What would happen if one did not disclose the required information if a subpoena was ordered?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with Oakvale that we should not move forward with tabling at this stage. I think at most we should strip the section in question, but before that I would look at potential ways to restructure it to comply with the TOS.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What would happen if one did not disclose the required information if a subpoena was ordered?

We have always seem to have lapses in the statute when it comes to defining a sentence for contempt of court.

[Mike Thick]

Hi, guys. Sorry I haven’t checked up on this in a while — school just started up for the first time since the fire, and I’ve been pretty busy. I’m 100% okay with whatever amendment is necessary to make this bill TOS-compliant.

Perhaps we could add a subclause specifying that, for a subpoena of physical evidence to be issued, parties must formally give the blanket consent Muon specified? Theoretically, these parties could just refuse, but that isn’t a problem we wouldn’t have anyway.

(On a side note, having a real State Representative respond to my inquiries about fake policymaking is probably the high point of my time on Atlas thus far )

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

(On a side note, having a real State Representative respond to my inquiries about fake policymaking is probably the high point of my time on Atlas thus far )

lol

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would probably be Sunder before i could compose something. So if anyone else wants to go ahead today, you are more than welcome to.

[Mike Thick]

It would probably be Sunder before i could compose something. So if anyone else wants to go ahead today, you are more than welcome to.

I’m leaving town in a little less than an hour, and won’t get back until Monday evening. Would be great if someone else could write the amendment

[Oakvale]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Renumbers all appropriate Sections of SB-2017 to account for this change.[/quote]

People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor Feedback?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Renumbers all appropriate Sections of SB-2017 to account for this change.[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Pending
Status: Awaiting Feedback

Noting the long history none forth coming feedback from this particular bill sponsor, I have contacted the sponsor directly to get their attention.

[Mike Thick]

Peebs is technically the sponsor, but I’m cool with this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Renumbers all appropriate Sections of SB-2017 to account for this change.[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: A vote is now open on the above Amendment, Representatives vote Aye, Nay or Abstain