bgbba v. TheOrangeWizard, Dec 2018

Case

With Tigen presiding, on 9th December 2018, Oddish charged TheOrangeWizard with Infringing Freedom of Expression. The case was expanded to a class action lead by bgbba. TheOrangeWizard was found guilty of a minor violation of Article 1 of the Yoahtlan Bill of Rights and put on probation.

Proceedings

Oddish:

I would like to sue TheOrangeWizard for going against the freedom of expression in limitying the guests voice channel to 5 people only

bgbba:

I would like to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of the citizenry of Yoahtl against OrangeWizard for the following:

Arbitrary and unnecessary deletion of channels leading to losses of culture and community

Limiting our ability to engage with others for no reason by making the guests channel have a 5 man limit

I am bringing these measures as the Chieftain and primary representative of the Yoahtlan people to their government. I will not accept an out of court settlement and restitution of the aforementioned channels and removal of person limits is unacceptable, I seek the setting of a legal predecent about how the metagame is managed and who has the authority to make unilateral decisions.

Oddish:

welp my trial but +1

SpaceVolcano:

Tigen you are nominated to preside over the case of bgbba vs. TheOrangeWizard. Since it is a class action Oddish your request is moved within this class action and bg may call upon you as needed.

Tigen:

Alright. I think bgbba has made a more-or-less comprehensive statement on what charges this trial relates to. Would he like to provide any further additions to his opening statement before we hear orange's opening statement? Keep in mind, we will be doing a full presentation of evidence, direct examinations, and cross-examinations to follow, so I don't expect massive details right off the bat.

bgbba:

No. In order to not politicize this any more than it already is, I’ll be waiving my right to make further opening statements

Tigen:

Very well.

TheOrangeWizard, please provide for the court any opening statements you would like to have heard before we proceed, as well as how you plead.

TheOrangeWizard:

The deletion of channels was not arbitrary, I only deleted channels that had extremely low and low quality traffic. No culture or community worth mentioning was lost.

The decision to cap users in guest vc did have a reason, being that a number of individuals in government appear to consider information security irrelevant and talk about whatever they want in public voice chat.

If anything you should be criticising me for not going far enough, not only can the user cap be bypassed by anyone in government or on the defence team, it, like most other discord permission changes, can be reversed by any member of government at any time. Which it has.

If deleting unused channels is a major concern held by the community, I suppose I have to plead guilty.

The claim that putting a cap on guest vc stifles free speech "for no reason" is absurd. It is at worst a minor inconvenience to revert. Not guilty.

Tigen:

Alright, there we have our opening statements. bgbba, please bring forward your first round of evidence/witness, then we will hear Orange's rebuttal.

bgbba:

For my first witness to the arbitrary deletion of channels, I call XCstar

Tigen:

Very well. XC, please make your presence known in this channel as soon as possible so we can begin questioning.

bgbba:

Please tell the court, in your own words, your experiences with channels being arbitrarily deleted

Feel free to expound at length

XCstar:

The one I am most familiar, of course, is politics_irl.

Although I fully admit a lot of my posting was low quality, there were discussions that allowed citizens the freedom of expression.

I think banning me and other notable individuals from discussion and having the amount of discourse decline being reason for removal of the channel is ironic.

I'll rephrase that for clarity. It's odd to ban people from talking in a channel, then use "low volume" as a reason for removal of channel.

That is my most personal experience regarding channels being deleted. All of my other channel participation is generally untouched by admin powers.

I think a broad range of channel and opinionated discourse makes for a more informed community, in which we can interact with and elect citizens based on our observations in channel discourse.

And channel deletion prevents that.

Tigen:

Any further questioning bgbba?

bgbba:

No

Orange May cross examine

TheOrangeWizard:

XCstar, do you feel that your right to freely express yourself has been infringed, given that much of what was posted in politics_irl has simply moved to guest chat (currently zoomer_containment)?

XCstar:

Actually, no.

As of recently at least.

I have had politics related discussion removed in the past though.

TheOrangeWizard:

Okay. Tigen That's all

Tigen:

Alright. Orange, do you have any witnesses, evidence, or personal testimonies you would like to present at this time?

TheOrangeWizard:

I don't have anything to add for now

Tigen:

Very well.

bgbba, do you have anything further to add?

bgbba:

I want to call another witness

Feathercrown

Tell the court about Orange’s actions regarding limiting the guests channel

Feathercrown:

Orange limited the guests channel to 5 people max.

Limiting the guest channel is problematic because it disallows people from being able to freely converse with the Yoahtlans the need to, which limits the right to free speech. They also can't easily make trades, leading to decreased economic growth, or quickly confirm information, leading to misinformation and rumors. While the voice chat is not necessary for communication, it is an important part of Yoahtl's culture, and excluding players from that is wrong. The actual action taken has some reasoning behind it and isn't that bad but the failure to communicate with the rest of the government about the decision to put this limit into place can be a negative precedent for larger acts of Discord modification without general government or at least Chieftain approval.

Tigen:

Alright, TheOrangeWizard, anything you would like to ask Feather?

TheOrangeWizard:

I was going to address all of Feather's arguments individually but they mostly predicated on the assumption that my action had any impact besides annoying people before the change was reversed.

First, with this in mind, on the off chance that the change was not reversed, and one of Feather's hypothetical scenarios where having a hard cap (which it was not; the user limit can be bypassed by anyone in government or on the defence team) on users in vc has some negative result, would it not be reasonable to assume the change would then be reversed?

Secondly, does the precedent that discord changes require government approval actually exist? Has not each of us in government made changes to the discord without consulting one another? Do we frequently consult one another, or the wider citizenry about changes?

From my perspective, the precedent for discord modification appears to be anyone with perms to make changes may do so, and unpopular or inappropriate changes can be reversed.

Feathercrown:

That's why we're making new, official precedent

Also, the point isn't so much that it was dangerous or particularly stifling, but that it had the potential to be

Tigen:

Anything further TheOrangeWizard, be it further questions for Feather or presenting something new?

TheOrangeWizard:

I would like to invite bgbba to propose how discord changes should be made in the future, if the current precedent is indeed insufficient

bgbba:

Tigen, Is it valid for the defense to call the prosecution as a witness at their trial?

Tigen:

I'll allow it

bgbba:

Okay

I propose that channel changes be proposed, just like any other law, to the citizenry, who then votes on it

At least for deletions and restrictions

I think the governmet should be able to create secret or task-oriented channels without having to consult everybody

Tigen:

TheOrangeWizard, Any further questions for bg?

TheOrangeWizard:

That's all from me.

Tigen:

bgbba, Any rebuttle? Otherwise you are free to bring up your next piece of evidence/witness.

bgbba:

No

I'm done

Tigen:

After reviewing the case, I find TheOrangeWizard in minor violation of Article I of the Yoahtlan Bill of Rights. Due to the limited scale of the offense and lack of past precedence, Orange will not be responsible for paying for any damages to bgbba or the people he represents. The defendant will be let off with a verbal warning only.

However, probationary status will be put into place whereby future attempts to limit channel capacity, delete channels, or banning specific citizens without just cause and consulting the rest of the government (in cases where the action is not necessary as part of an emergency situation) will be considered a major violation of Article I of the Yoahtlan Bill of Rights. Should this occur by Orange or any other government member with appropriate permission, harsh penalties may be levied including (but not limited to) judicial review of the position holder's fitness for office.

If any affected party feels that this ruling is unjust, please consult the High Justice for an appeal. Otherwise I'm calling this court case adjourned.

Feathercrown:

Bg mentioned the citizenry but you said the government-- can you clarify/confirm?

Tigen:

Right. I think BG's original post stated he wanted some precedence set. If you want it set to citizens collectively decide, an appeal may be made.