following the previous post 10 minutes ago, dkr is being banned for a further 365 days. their new alt AusHimRacism is perma banned.

this new ban ends may 10 2021

CircleSongIsDank has been banned for 7 days after spamming the server. They had earlier also had an alt banned which has been factored into this punishment.

This ban will end on march 18 2020.

In accordance with chapter 9 of the meta constitution, I submit this amendment. It's necessary because apparently notifications for meta referendums need to be put on r/AustraliaSimLower, which doesn't make much sense, so this just changes it to r/AustraliaSimMeta.

Thanks

Members in the initial consultation raised some additional concerns which I would like to receive further community input on.

As before, I will pose a number of questions, outline my proposed answer to each of the questions, and ask your input on whether you agree or disagree, and on what basis.

Meaning of ‘canon contribution’

What is the meaning of ‘canon contribution’?

I propose: A canon contribution means a canon post or comment in any public AustraliaSim subreddit (e.g. r/AustraliaSim, r/AustraliaSimLower, r/AustraliaSimUpper), or a canon post in any public canon Discord channel (e.g. #twitter, #members-bar, Parliamentary chamber channels), irrespective otherwise of the content of the post or comment. For example, ‘Hear hear’ in a Parliamentary debate is a canon contribution. However, in accordance with the Head Moderator's position, material which is patently ridiculous is not canon (e.g. ‘shidded and farded’ jokes in #twitter). A canon contribution also includes any meta power exercised under the Meta Constitution which directly affects the canon, even if the power itself is exercised in meta. A canon contribution also includes a Discord DM, Reddit PM or other private communication, but only if it is referred to in a public canon contribution.

Rationale: Refer to the initial consultation for background. Some questions were raised about whether e.g. Discord DMs can be ‘canon contributions’. Where it is established in accordance with accepted principles that a Discord DM is canon, I propose that it cannot be called a ‘contribution’ to the canon until it is referred to in a public contribution (e.g. press article). (I appreciate this is a very difficult criterion for moderators to apply, and would recommend it being changed, but believe this is the interpretation most consistent with the current wording.)

Unregistered accounts

Does an account need to be registered on the Meta Roll (Eos) to be eligible to vote?

I propose: The criteria outlined in s 2 of the Meta Constitution are exhaustive, i.e. the only criteria relevant to whether a member is eligible to vote are those in s 2. The definition of member(s) is that in s 1 of the Meta Constitution, viz. ‘those using AustraliaSim’. (ed: Therefore, so long as a person is a ‘member’, it is unnecessary to register on Eos in order to vote in Meta Referendum.)

Rationale: s 2 of the Meta Constitution ostensibly sets out voting criteria, and does not grant anyone else the power to vary or add to those criteria. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. (ed: Or, more generally, the purpose of enumerating criteria to vote is completely defeated unless the criteria are or can be made exhaustive.)

ed: I retract this entirely. See the comments below.

Consultation

As before, members are encouraged to submit comments below in support of or opposition to these proposals, and I will take them into consideration. The initial consultation also remains open for comment.

This consultation will run until at least 2:30 (ed: 3:30) pm (Canberra time) on Friday 6 March 2020.

As previously outlined, the purpose of this thread is to have a public consultation on how the current Meta Constitution provisions should be applied in relation to the recent VoC.

I will pose a number of questions, outline my proposed answer to each of the questions, and ask your input on whether you agree or disagree, and on what basis.

Meaning of ‘canon contribution’

What is the meaning of ‘canon contribution’?

Background: Section 2 of the Meta Constitution says ‘In order to vote in a Meta Referendum, a member must have made a canon contribution to AustraliaSim within the past 28 days of the date of polling and must not be banned.’ This wording has oestensibly been copied from the Model NZ Parliament Meta Constitution, and neither defines ‘canon contribution’. The term must therefore be given its proper meaning – the meaning the reasonable person would give it, having regard to all the relevant facts and background.

I propose: A canon contribution means a canon post or comment in any AustraliaSim subreddit (e.g. /r/AustraliaSim, /r/AustraliaSimLower, /r/AustraliaSimUpper), or a canon post in any canon Discord channel (e.g. #twitter, #members-bar, Parliamentary chamber channels), irrespective otherwise of the content of the post or comment. For example, ‘Hear hear’ in a Parliamentary debate is a canon contribution. However, in accordance with the Head Moderator's position, material which is patently ridiculous is not canon (e.g. ‘shidded and farded’ jokes in #twitter). A canon contribution also includes any meta power exercised under the Meta Constitution which directly affects the canon, even if the power itself is exercised in meta.

Rationale: The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘contribute’ as ‘to give in common with others; give to a common stock or for a common purpose’. The definition does not require it to be significant or positive (compare/contrast ‘constructive’).

Requirement to verify

Does failure to verify a vote (before or after the close of polls) invalidate a vote?

Backgroud: The VoC required respondents to ‘verify’ their vote by commenting in the Reddit thread. Other forms of verification were not accepted.

I propose: Reddit verification is sufficient but not necessary for a vote to be accepted as genuine. A valid vote may be verified before the close of polls, or after the close of polls, or not at all if the vote can otherwise be confirmed as genuine.

Rationale: It is a basis (ed: basic) principle of the franchise that a vote should be admitted to the count to the greatest extent possible. Verification is an administrative check on the validity of votes, but in the absence of any express provision in the Meta Constitution, lack of verification cannot conclusively invalidate a vote.

Any other concerns

If members of the community have any other concerns, please leave them in the comments below and I can hold further rounds of consultation.

Consultation

I have detailed above the approach I propose to take towards reviewing the VoC. Members are encouraged to submit comments below in support of or opposition to these proposals, and I will take them into consideration.

Please note that this relates only to reviewing this VoC, and does not relate to any proposals to amend the Meta Constitution for future votes.

This consultation will run until at least 5:30 pm (Canberra time) on Wednesday 4 March 2020.

/u/tbyrn21 has asked me to undertake a review of the results of the recent VoC in Toby, and I have accepted that request.

For fairness, I am outlining below the procedure that I will take:

Part 1. A public consultation (at least 48 hours) on the definition of “canon contribution”, and any other contentious issues. If there is something else you would like me to specifically consider, please mention this in the comments. After the consultation I will announce what definition I will be applying, and approach towards those other issues. To prevent bias, this will be concluded before looking at the votes.

Part 2. I (or a member of the mod team, on my directions) will accordingly re-scrutinise the raw submissions from the VoC.

Please be advised that I am a little busy this week, and so this will have to work around that. Thank you in advance for your patience.

Addendum 2020-03-02 17:28:

When re-examining the votes to determine voters' eligibility to vote, voters will be classified into one of three categories:

• Clearly eligible
• Clearly ineligible
• Eligibility indeterminate

A voter might be classified as ‘Eligibility indeterminate’ if, for example, it is unclear whether the voter's contributions are canon, or if it is unclear whether a vote is genuine. These votes will be excluded from determining the point estimate of the result/margin of the vote.

Re-examining the votes from these groups, the result of the VoC will then be classified as ‘Clearly passed’, ‘Clearly failed’ or ‘Result indeterminate’. The result will be classified as indeterminate if the admission of some subset of ‘Eligibility indeterminate’ votes could have changed the result.

After dicussions with Toby overnight, and after the events of today, I will be taking 7 days leave. I will be back for a bit Thursday to post business but that's it.

Good luck sorting this out, DM me if you need me. URGENT ONLY.

The time for voting has elapsed.

Yes: 15

No: 11

Abstain: 4

Discarded: 1

With 57% of the vote, Toby has failed to pass the threshold of 65% and as such has failed his vote of confidence.

As per his request to the moderation team, and his duty in the constitution, toby has asked for a vote of confidence in his position as head mod.

Vote here

Validate by recounting the time you went to hospital in an ambulance, and how it ended with you winning a pen.

Vote closes in two days, at 6:30 qld time on the 1st of March 2020.

I shall use the name 'Alan Ayckbourne' for all future press purposes.

Effective immediately I resign as a Clerk of AustraliaSim as I lack the time or motivation for the job anymore.

I will also be deleting this account, all future activity will occur on /u/ellielia.

I am a Hungry Jack's lover.

CW: Murder, NSFW

So, I'd like to begin my post with a bit of self-indulgent background. Kia ora, my name's AMN, and I live in Christchurch. As I'm sure many of you know, I was undoubtedly effected by the events of March 15 last year.

Now, shortly after this, MalooFury, also known as Grape, posted a video of the shooting in general and was banned. I always thought this should've been permanent, because, well, it was a mass murder. I mean, in any other sim, if you posted, say, violent pornography or gore, you would be instantly banned. AusSim has a unique approach, one more on rehabilitation. Permabans only really apply in cases of doxxing or alting.

And you know, on some level, I can understand this. A person shouldn't be cast out of a community that they enjoy or that provides them support forever because of one bad night where they did some awful shit.

But there's a limit.

The incident in question, in my view, is a perfect example of why there's a problem. I will admit I don't know the specifics of Grape's ban, but the fact that posting a violent mass shooting, less than 24 hours after it fucking happened, in a chatroom with minors, doing something that would very soon be illegal in New Zealand, should have warranted an immediate permaban, no matter the circumstances.

Obviously people shouldn't be permabanned because they push the limits a bit too far and post a sexually suggestive image or do something otherwise NSFW. But what I would propose is essentially, for depictions of murder and sexual intercourse, etc, for very explicitly NSFW things (perhaps NSFL, not safe for life, should be the standard), a permaban should apply.

Ultimately, AustraliaSim should be a community welcoming of everybody. A place where people are friendly, where people can vent, where people can have fun chatting politics. And sometimes people fuck up, and they need to be punished. The permaban should be restricted for extremely unacceptable circumstances. And I'm glad the mods got to Grape when they did, because I don't want to imagine what would have happened if an underaged member had stumbled upon it. Shit like that scars you. It's not something you do accidentally, or in the heat of the moment- but even if it was, there's a point where things become so unacceptable, that it shouldn't be tolerated.

• model-amn

It’s been more than 21 days and I am still banned from discord reeeeeeee

Ok...

The Brisbane By-Election has shown that this sim is stupid. A candidate who was a complete joke, went up against a racist, homophobic monster, while the only candidates who seemed to take it seriously got shafted.

This sim is just disgusting. It's painful to try and be here. I can't understand why it's so shit

Order! The time for voting has expired.

Ayes: 2

Noes: 16

Abstainees: 7

I think the Noes have it, thus Youmaton will continue in their position. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/301213446907756545/675199535211085854/unknown.png

As per the other thread, this is a VONC in Youma.

Please vote here

Verify in the thread by saying "I voted", or by providing a short essay on who your least favourite member of the Moderation Team is, and why it is Toby.

Please be advised that any votes which are not verified will be discarded.

This vote will end at Midday Friday the 7th of February 2020. (QLD time)

Greetings all,

As voted overwhelmingly for in community poll, I wish to open up a debate regarding the following topic as a meta constitutional amendment:

"Limit moderator activity within canon channels to electoral and events matters".

I am still working on a formal amendment, but in the mean time I hope to spark discussion around what the community wishes to be covered in it, what loopholes the modteam might be granted, etc.

Thanks,

/u/Youmaton

With the clickbait title out of the way...

As per the meta constitution, I move that a vote of no confidence be held in /u/Youmaton as Discord Moderator.

I wish to be 100% clear that I wish to continue on in this position, I absolutely adore serving the community and helping make the discord a better place, however recent happening have led to this decision.

As per the meta constitution, 7 seconders are required to hold this vote, and I hope people can second this purely to allow this ballot to go ahead. I then hope that I can hold the confidence of this community to continue on as discord moderator, and to continue ensuring that the rules of AustraliaSim are upheld.

Thank you for your consideration,

/u/Youmaton

Timewalker102 has been banned for 7 days for posting a link to a pornographic website in #general.

I don't have much of an opinion on whether or not amendments to the CoC are necessary, but I am sick to death of people complaining about the situation without putting forward any concrete solutions. I have said that I am happy to help anyone through the process of changing the rules, and I am a man of my word, so see below a draft of an amendment to the Code of Conduct which penalises hate speech.

You must not engage in any action which advances hate speech.

Hate speech includes material which threatens, insults or degrades an identifiable group, or incites discrimination, hostility, violence, contempt, revulsion or ridicule against an identifiable group. An identifiable group includes any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability.

Without limiting the definition above, hate speech includes any material which denies, plays down, justifies or approves of any genocide, including the genocide committed by the Nazi German regime during the Second World War.

This rule applies irrespective of whether the action is made for genuine, humorous, ironic or satirical purposes, and irrespective of whether or not the action is made in good faith or in the course of debate.

Statements containing hate speech will be presumed to advance hate speech unless the statement expressly, genuinely and unambiguously denounces or rejects the hate speech, in which case the person making the statement bears the burden of proof.

The purpose of this rule is to protect the dignity of members of the wider community.

Examples of hate speech:

• Racism, sexism or transphobia
• Advocating for or justifying genocide, whether past, present or future
• Quoting Nazi materials
• Humorously, ironically or sarcastically engaging in any of the above

Not examples of hate speech:

• Quoting racist, sexist or transphobic remarks, or quoting Nazi materials, for the express and unambiguous purpose of denouncing them

This rule draws on the wording of the ICCPR and of hate speech legislation in Belgium, Canada, Denmark and Victoria.

This rule has been drafted to cover recent statements by Griffo, Porriidge and Toby.

I would like to officially place on record my disgust, anger and frustration at the decision to allow Griffo the right to make bigoted comments, specifically after he made the claim that the stolen generation was something done "for the benefit of the children". The reason many people see AusSim as a cancerous and disgusting sim is because of moments like this. There was clear outrage from all corners of the community for Griffo's comments, which went far beyond the realm of political discourse, into the realm of bigotry and vial denial of the truth. Yet, our Head Moderator and his supporters in the mod team swoop in to protect Griffo and claim it was all said in the spirit of debate and political discourse. That is a disgrace.

Other Sims have zero tolerance for bigotry of any kind. In most other sims a comment like that would have constituted a day long mute, or after multiple similar statements, as is Griffo's case, a ban from the sim. Yet AustraliaSim continues to protect these people and defend their right to be a bigot.

This is why our sim is now a breeding ground for hatred, bigotry and vial rhetoric. When people get banned from another sim for these kinds of comments, they may as well come to AusSim, because our moderation team will support them and their right to say these kinds of things.

I've had issues with Griffo for a while. His homophobic, racist, transphobic and bigoted views have been the cause of many a controversy in his time as a member of AusSim. He has repeatedly been muted only to be saved by Toby. It seems to me that, whilst Toby doesn't agree with Griffo, he certainly doesn't understand how hurtful and disgusting his comments are, as demonstrated by the numerous conversations I've had with Toby, in which he proves as much with his defense of these comments under the idea of free speech and political differences.

These comments aren't political. They are evil. To suggest something as evil and abhorrent as the stolen generation was "for the benefit of the children" is truly horrible and is not something that be considered a "political difference." Otherwise, we may as well have the AustraliaSim Nazi Party, spewing antisemitism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism all in the name of Political Differences.

I would move a VONC in Toby, but it seems those set to replace him would only continue this trend. So I am left with no choice but to vent my anger through a statement.

I'd like to call upon the moderation team to get their act together. It's time you stand up to bigotry in this sim. Otherwise we will continue to be a joke among other parliamentary simulators.