SENATE RESOLUTION: The Atlas Forum Supremacy Amendment (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To state the obvious regarding the supremacy of the rules of the Atlas Forum and the Terms of Service and its enforcement

Be it resolved in both chambers that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the regions, the Fourth Constitution shall be amended as follows:

The Atlas Forum Supremacy Amendment

1. The Fourth Constitution of Atlasia recognizes that the game exists on the boards of the Atlas Forum, located on uselectionsatlas.org.

2. The Fourth Constitution of Atlasia recognizes the supremacy of the Terms of Service for the Atlas Forum as being superior to all constitution and statutory provisions and that no constitutional or statutory provision may contradict the Atlas Forum's Terms of Service.

3. That the actions taken by Administrators or Moderators of the Atlas Forum are separate and distinct from their actions as citizens of Atlasia and they shall not be restricted, nor obstructed by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision, in their enforcement of the Terms of Service by atlasian constitutional or statutory provision.

4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as to provide immunity to moderators who violate any statutory provision that doesn't conflict with or obstruct enforcement of the terms of service.

This amendment amends the Atlasian constitution to recognize the existence and superiority of the Terms of Service and to shield moderators and administrators from prosecution or obstructing of their duties as mods stemming from Atlasian Constitutional or Statutory provisions. It also provides a clear dividing on where this applies and where it doesn't.

People's Regional Senate

Sponsor: NC Yankee
Senate Designation : SR21:21

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I just composed this Amendment to addressed the issues raised in this thread:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=345836.msg7073519#msg7073519


It establishes the supremacy of the Atlas Board's rules over that of the Constitution and statutory provisions. It sets out the actions of the moderators taken to enforce the provisions of the terms of service as being separate and distinct from their actions as citizens of atlasia and then limits immunity to prevent any kind of abuse.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As outlined elsewhere, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, I agree with all the essential parts of the interpretation with re: the relationship between Atlasia and the Atlas Forum presented here. Not sure about the efficacy of the proposed amendment, mostly because (a) I dislike redundancy, but more importantly (b) I worry this will only further complicate matters by appearing to "grant" the Mods authority over Atlasia (I know that's not what this amendment actually does, but some people are dumb). I would have preferred this take the form of a SC opinion, but that would require a lawsuit, and that would be a waste of everyone's time.

[Dr. MB]

I mean if Atlas was shut down for whatever reason this would basically stop Atlasia from continuing. I'd probably expect Atlasia to die with it but in case someone wanted to revive it somewhere else why should that be stopped?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean if Atlas was shut down for whatever reason this would basically stop Atlasia from continuing. I'd probably expect Atlasia to die with it but in case someone wanted to revive it somewhere else why should that be stopped?

What if rephrased the amendment so that it was vague about dependence on the forum itself, while clearly establishing that as long as it does reside it is subject to forum rules if that makes sense?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As outlined elsewhere, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, I agree with all the essential parts of the interpretation with re: the relationship between Atlasia and the Atlas Forum presented here. Not sure about the efficacy of the proposed amendment, mostly because (a) I dislike redundancy, but more importantly (b) I worry this will only further complicate matters by appearing to "grant" the Mods authority over Atlasia (I know that's not what this amendment actually does, but some people are dumb). I would have preferred this take the form of a SC opinion, but that would require a lawsuit, and that would be a waste of everyone's time.

Would you have any recommendations to improve the wording so that it is clear that such authority is not being established? I included clause 4 complete for that reason and it could be expanded or modified as desired or deemed necessary to resolve the concern.

[Sestak]

I tend to agree with Truman - the idea that an Atlasian ingame process could be seen as "granting" these powers makes the implication that Atlasian game processes have the right to grant (and by extension, to take away) those powers. It's a bit of a tricky spot; I feel like it should be implicit that the ToS is superior over anything within the game, but that also leads to problems. I've previously thought the best resolution would be a case put in front of the Supreme Court that ends in a ruling that moderator decisions are non-justiciable within Atlasia, putting everything to rest.

[Former President tack50]

Well, it's definitely too late for the Supreme Court case to happen, though if Congress prefers that route there is always this option to force it:

1: There is a referendum in any of the 3 Atlasian regions (as I don't think there are proper national referendums). Congress could possibly force a national referendum though on some pointless bill though. The kind of referendum that sees abysmal turnout and like 95% yes anyways

2: Someone makes a blatantly TOS breaking vote while capturing a screenshot for evidence

3: Someone sues to the Supreme Court

[Dr. MB]

I mean if Atlas was shut down for whatever reason this would basically stop Atlasia from continuing. I'd probably expect Atlasia to die with it but in case someone wanted to revive it somewhere else why should that be stopped?

What if rephrased the amendment so that it was vague about dependence on the forum itself, while clearly establishing that as long as it does reside it is subject to forum rules if that makes sense?

Sounds good

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, it's definitely too late for the Supreme Court case to happen, though if Congress prefers that route there is always this option to force it:

1: There is a referendum in any of the 3 Atlasian regions (as I don't think there are proper national referendums). Congress could possibly force a national referendum though on some pointless bill though. The kind of referendum that sees abysmal turnout and like 95% yes anyways

2: Someone makes a blatantly TOS breaking vote while capturing a screenshot for evidence

3: Someone sues to the Supreme Court

This is not a good idea. Even if to achieve a desired end, intentionally breaking the TOS to do it, would be problematic and furthermore, it goes against my stated policy on how to handle votes in such circumstances.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tend to agree with Truman - the idea that an Atlasian ingame process could be seen as "granting" these powers makes the implication that Atlasian game processes have the right to grant (and by extension, to take away) those powers. It's a bit of a tricky spot; I feel like it should be implicit that the ToS is superior over anything within the game, but that also leads to problems. I've previously thought the best resolution would be a case put in front of the Supreme Court that ends in a ruling that moderator decisions are non-justiciable within Atlasia, putting everything to rest.

The problem with this is that it presumes the outcome of a Supreme Court case, which generally is not a good idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MB, thoughts on this possible amendment?

SENATE RESOLUTION

To state the obvious regarding the supremacy of the rules of the Atlas Forum and the Terms of Service and its enforcement

Be it resolved in both chambers that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the regions, the Fourth Constitution shall be amended as follows:

The Atlas Forum Supremacy Amendment

1. The Fourth Constitution of Atlasia recognizes that the game currently exists on the boards of the Atlas Forum, located on uselectionsatlas.org.

2. The Fourth Constitution of Atlasia recognizes the supremacy of the Terms of Service for the Atlas Forum as being superior to all constitution and statutory provisions and that no constitutional or statutory provision may contradict the Atlas Forum's Terms of Service, as long as it exists on boards of the Atlas Forum..

3. That the actions taken by Administrators or Moderators of the Atlas Forum are separate and distinct from their actions as citizens of Atlasia and they shall not be restricted, nor obstructed by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision, in their enforcement of the Terms of Service by atlasian constitutional or statutory provision.

4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as to provide immunity to moderators who violate any statutory provision that doesn't conflict with or obstruct enforcement of the terms of service.

This amendment amends the Atlasian constitution to recognize the existence and superiority of the Terms of Service and to shield moderators and administrators from prosecution or obstructing of their duties as mods stemming from Atlasian Constitutional or Statutory provisions. It also provides a clear dividing on where this applies and where it doesn't.

People's Regional Senate

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tend to agree with Truman - the idea that an Atlasian ingame process could be seen as "granting" these powers makes the implication that Atlasian game processes have the right to grant (and by extension, to take away) those powers. It's a bit of a tricky spot; I feel like it should be implicit that the ToS is superior over anything within the game, but that also leads to problems. I've previously thought the best resolution would be a case put in front of the Supreme Court that ends in a ruling that moderator decisions are non-justiciable within Atlasia, putting everything to rest.

Also does a grant necessarily become implied as the result of "recognizing an existing paradigm"?

[Former President tack50]

As a sidenote while we are at it, I will say that a confirmation hearing (even a non-binding one) for the Fantasyland board moderators IMO would be an interesting concept and probably fun, but it would be a pain for the mods and I'd rather just keep Fantasyland safe instead of tempting Dave or muon/Virginia to delete it out of existance without mercy.

It would also sort of force the mods to be semi-active here (which is not the case for Gustaf for example; or really for any mods outside Yankee and YE).

Still, I guess someone could run a poll on Yankee as a mod as the next best thing (of course all the usual caveats for Atlasia polls apply). I recall Wulfric running polls on Lumine and his approval was above water, iirc floating around the mid 50s

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I realize this is the holidays, but this and No Moderator Invalidation are important. Feedback on my questions and comments, will help move things along on both fronts.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

As a sidenote while we are at it, I will say that a confirmation hearing (even a non-binding one) for the Fantasyland board moderators IMO would be an interesting concept and probably fun, but it would be a pain for the mods and I'd rather just keep Fantasyland safe instead of tempting Dave or muon/Virginia to delete it out of existance without mercy.

It would also sort of force the mods to be semi-active here (which is not the case for Gustaf for example; or really for any mods outside Yankee and YE).

Still, I guess someone could run a poll on Yankee as a mod as the next best thing (of course all the usual caveats for Atlasia polls apply). I recall Wulfric running polls on Lumine and his approval was above water, iirc floating around the mid 50s

In the immediate aftermath of the Weatherboy deletion, voters said 45%-42% that Lumine's tactics had gone too far, but his approvals were still at 50%.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As a sidenote while we are at it, I will say that a confirmation hearing (even a non-binding one) for the Fantasyland board moderators IMO would be an interesting concept and probably fun, but it would be a pain for the mods and I'd rather just keep Fantasyland safe instead of tempting Dave or muon/Virginia to delete it out of existance without mercy.

It would also sort of force the mods to be semi-active here (which is not the case for Gustaf for example; or really for any mods outside Yankee and YE).

Still, I guess someone could run a poll on Yankee as a mod as the next best thing (of course all the usual caveats for Atlasia polls apply). I recall Wulfric running polls on Lumine and his approval was above water, iirc floating around the mid 50s

See, this is exactly what I was worried about.

I tend to agree with Truman - the idea that an Atlasian ingame process could be seen as "granting" these powers makes the implication that Atlasian game processes have the right to grant (and by extension, to take away) those powers. It's a bit of a tricky spot; I feel like it should be implicit that the ToS is superior over anything within the game, but that also leads to problems. I've previously thought the best resolution would be a case put in front of the Supreme Court that ends in a ruling that moderator decisions are non-justiciable within Atlasia, putting everything to rest.

Also does a grant necessarily become implied as the result of "recognizing an existing paradigm"?

Generally if we want to recognize something, we do it with a treaty or a resolution, no? An amendment implies something is being changed.

[YE]

As a sidenote while we are at it, I will say that a confirmation hearing (even a non-binding one) for the Fantasyland board moderators IMO would be an interesting concept and probably fun, but it would be a pain for the mods and I'd rather just keep Fantasyland safe instead of tempting Dave or muon/Virginia to delete it out of existance without mercy.

It would also sort of force the mods to be semi-active here (which is not the case for Gustaf for example; or really for any mods outside Yankee and YE).

Still, I guess someone could run a poll on Yankee as a mod as the next best thing (of course all the usual caveats for Atlasia polls apply). I recall Wulfric running polls on Lumine and his approval was above water, iirc floating around the mid 50s

That is unenforceable. Atlas forum moderation issues take precedent over any laws this fictional game takes place. Not to mention how long it takes Dave to respond to requests sometimes. It literally took a year to get Kal added as a mod as I recall.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As a sidenote while we are at it, I will say that a confirmation hearing (even a non-binding one) for the Fantasyland board moderators IMO would be an interesting concept and probably fun, but it would be a pain for the mods and I'd rather just keep Fantasyland safe instead of tempting Dave or muon/Virginia to delete it out of existance without mercy.

It would also sort of force the mods to be semi-active here (which is not the case for Gustaf for example; or really for any mods outside Yankee and YE).

Still, I guess someone could run a poll on Yankee as a mod as the next best thing (of course all the usual caveats for Atlasia polls apply). I recall Wulfric running polls on Lumine and his approval was above water, iirc floating around the mid 50s

See, this is exactly what I was worried about.

I tend to agree with Truman - the idea that an Atlasian ingame process could be seen as "granting" these powers makes the implication that Atlasian game processes have the right to grant (and by extension, to take away) those powers. It's a bit of a tricky spot; I feel like it should be implicit that the ToS is superior over anything within the game, but that also leads to problems. I've previously thought the best resolution would be a case put in front of the Supreme Court that ends in a ruling that moderator decisions are non-justiciable within Atlasia, putting everything to rest.

Also does a grant necessarily become implied as the result of "recognizing an existing paradigm"?

Generally if we want to recognize something, we do it with a treaty or a resolution, no? An amendment implies something is being changed.

Would that have enough legal binding though?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We seem to have been lost in the weeds here, so perhaps lets try knitting the plot back together so at least people can see the situation from the same standpoint.

A concern has been raised about in game legal ramifications for myself serving conducting Mod duties and while a number contest including Truman and myself that these are not valid, many others are not satisfied.

Thus why we have a debate here.

Now the suggestion has been put forth of just letting things fall until a court case arises. - I am not fond of this answer because of its disruptive effects, and any such approach would undoubtedly cause me a great deal of stress at a time when I would rather not deal with such.


The suggestion of intentionally provoking a case is also unworkable because it contradicts the approach I stated when I became moderator.

Lastly, the suggestion of directly regulating moderator duties has been warned about by Truman and then dismissed again by Truman when Tack actually suggested it.

The concept of resolution is interesting, but I don't think it actually solves anything concrete.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay, lets get back on task and hopefully with a new session we can achieve the level of focus to get this going somewhere. I realize this is complex issue and so I will quote my previous post to hopefully set the parameters of debate with all of open discussions present in it and my thoughts on them:

We seem to have been lost in the weeds here, so perhaps lets try knitting the plot back together so at least people can see the situation from the same standpoint.

A concern has been raised about in game legal ramifications for myself serving conducting Mod duties and while a number contest including Truman and myself that these are not valid, many others are not satisfied.

Thus why we have a debate here.

Now the suggestion has been put forth of just letting things fall until a court case arises. - I am not fond of this answer because of its disruptive effects, and any such approach would undoubtedly cause me a great deal of stress at a time when I would rather not deal with such.


The suggestion of intentionally provoking a case is also unworkable because it contradicts the approach I stated when I became moderator.

Lastly, the suggestion of directly regulating moderator duties has been warned about by Truman and then dismissed again by Truman when Tack actually suggested it.

The concept of resolution is interesting, but I don't think it actually solves anything concrete.

[Sestak]

My current take on this is to eliminate the first two clauses and just leave the last two. While the first two officially only state “recognition”, it still borders on the idea that Congress has the power to ‘grant’ supremacy to moderation team and the TOS. I still consider this idea to be both incredibly dangerous and quite stupid - it is an undeniable fact that this game is played on this website, with its terms of service essentially constituting a legal agreement applying to every user of the website, and agreements all of us are bound to in real life should implicilty fall above any Fantasyland law, including the constitution.

Keeping just the last two sections will avoid the “pope crowning Charlemagne” situation  while still keeping at bay the real potential issue - the possibility of statues being passed that don’t themselves violate the TOS but dole out ingame penalties to moderators who enforce them.

[Former President tack50]

I agree with Sestak's proposal. The first 2 clauses seem kind of redundant to me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To state the obvious regarding the supremacy of the rules of the Atlas Forum and the Terms of Service and its enforcement

Be it resolved in both chambers that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the regions, the Fourth Constitution shall be amended as follows:

The Atlas Forum Supremacy Amendment

1. The Fourth Constitution of Atlasia recognizes that the game currently exists on the boards of the Atlas Forum, located on uselectionsatlas.org.

2. The Fourth Constitution of Atlasia recognizes the supremacy of the Terms of Service for the Atlas Forum as being superior to all constitution and statutory provisions and that no constitutional or statutory provision may contradict the Atlas Forum's Terms of Service.

3. That the actions taken by Administrators or Moderators of the Atlas Forum are separate and distinct from their actions as citizens of Atlasia and they shall not be restricted, nor obstructed by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision, in their enforcement of the Terms of Service by atlasian constitutional or statutory provision.

4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as to provide immunity to moderators who violate any statutory provision that doesn't conflict with or obstruct enforcement of the terms of service.

This amendment amends the Atlasian constitution to recognize the existence and superiority of the Terms of Service and to shield moderators and administrators from prosecution or obstructing of their duties as mods stemming from Atlasian Constitutional or Statutory provisions. It also provides a clear dividing on where this applies and where it doesn't.

People's Regional Senate

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the above amendment.