Public IP Address Amendment [Passed to Regions]

[Hans-im-Glück]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Franzl

I have got no good feeling when with this proposal, but the current system don't work and we must do something. Maybe this is a good way to fight against trolling and sockpuppeting. When we do nothing this idiots will destroy this game.

We have only hear the opinion of one moderator, our colleague Senator afleitch. It would certainly be good to know the opinion of the other forum moderators.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

I strongly support this bill, and I urge Senators to pass it the most rapidly possible. This measure will become absolutely necessary in the next times...

[bullmoose88]

If you disagree with the Keystone Phil rule and/or my decision in Sewer Socialist this constitutional amendment is absolutely the best way to go.

[Franzl]

If you disagree with the Keystone Phil rule and/or my decision in Sewer Socialist this constitutional amendment is absolutely the best way to go.

I'm not sure it's a matter of disagreeing with your decision. I believe you made the correct ruling based on current law and the precedence set by Keystone Phil. I think (hope) most people feel the same way.

But even though you ruled correctly, I think it's important to decide whether we want to maintain the current legal situation.

[Franzl]

oh, and I accept Afleitch's amendment as friendly.

[bullmoose88]

I understand. I was just saying if you wanted to exempt an IP search from the warrant requirement that this was a good way to go. Absolutely better than an ovrhaul to the reasonable search requirement in the constitution.

[MaxQue]

I think than we need something to say than the bill is retroactive to the January 1st, 2009, to get rid of the illegal account of Sewer Socialist.

Is that is even possible?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think than we need something to say than the bill is retroactive to the January 1st, 2009, to get rid of the illegal account of Sewer Socialist.

Is that is even possible?

Probably not, unfortunately.

[Hash]

I support Afleitch' amendment and will vote in favour of that.

[Fritz]

Couldn't the resulting action taken by the mods as a result of the IP check be used as evidence, under existing law?  In the case of Sewer Socialist:

As a moderator of this forum I am prepared to state that Dave Leip has privately divulged to the moderators that Sewer Socialist and IWW are posting from identical IPs.

If you click the link provided by Peter, you get:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

Couldn't the resulting action taken by the mods as a result of the IP check be used as evidence, under existing law?  In the case of Sewer Socialist:

No, as the Attorney General had no probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

[Fritz]

Couldn't the resulting action taken by the mods as a result of the IP check be used as evidence, under existing law?  In the case of Sewer Socialist:

No, as the Attorney General had no probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

But no search warrant is needed for the evidence I just posted.

[Franzl]

Couldn't the resulting action taken by the mods as a result of the IP check be used as evidence, under existing law?  In the case of Sewer Socialist:

No, as the Attorney General had no probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

But no search warrant is needed for the evidence I just posted.

At least in my opinion, the IP match as evidence was already tainted because the Attorney General used illegal evidence to charge Sewer Socialist with a crime, and cannot be used now.

[afleitch]

Ultimately any bill should come down to the essential permise 'is it about what you need, or what you want?'

For me it comes down to what is needed. Hence for the purposes of convention what Fritz posted from Peter should be accepted by the courts, but to keep things sweet the GM has to embed posts like these in Atlasia by posting them on our boards. I was opposed to the release of IP's because a) they are collected for the Forum not for a game and b) they would rely on evidence obtained from boards outside the Fantasy Election board.

The amendment I raised is a convoluted way to address this. Though comment from the Judges would be beneficial here

[Purple State]

Ultimately any bill should come down to the essential permise 'is it about what you need, or what you want?'

For me it comes down to what is needed. Hence for the purposes of convention what Fritz posted from Peter should be accepted by the courts, but to keep things sweet the GM has to embed posts like these in Atlasia by posting them on our boards. I was opposed to the release of IP's because a) they are collected for the Forum not for a game and b) they would rely on evidence obtained from boards outside the Fantasy Election board.

The amendment I raised is a convoluted way to address this. Though comment from the Judges would be beneficial here

So, I am suddenly creating stories implicating people in crimes?

Can someone explain what my new duties will be? From what I see, a mod will inform the GM of an IP match privately, which I will then embed in a story, which will lead to the conviction of said individual.

[afleitch]

Ultimately any bill should come down to the essential permise 'is it about what you need, or what you want?'

For me it comes down to what is needed. Hence for the purposes of convention what Fritz posted from Peter should be accepted by the courts, but to keep things sweet the GM has to embed posts like these in Atlasia by posting them on our boards. I was opposed to the release of IP's because a) they are collected for the Forum not for a game and b) they would rely on evidence obtained from boards outside the Fantasy Election board.

The amendment I raised is a convoluted way to address this. Though comment from the Judges would be beneficial here

So, I am suddenly creating stories implicating people in crimes?

Can someone explain what my new duties will be? From what I see, a mod will inform the GM of an IP match privately, which I will then embed in a story, which will lead to the conviction of said individual.

No; thats not what I was getting at. You don't embed anything in a 'story'. You simply report what has been confirmed by a mod by quoting it as a stand alone comment. That way the quote exists inside Atlasia (as opposed to on another board) and can be relied upon by the court if need be.

It's a very round about way of getting this thing passed.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you click the link provided by Peter, you get:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
The account has now been deleted by Dave I believe, meaning that we can no longer access the profile associated with it.

My thoughts as a moderator - I would not be prepared to publically divulge the numerical info of an IP address - it constitutes an act of questionable legality in the real world as it is identifiable information. I am, and remain, very willing to divulge the moderators investigations into the nature of alleged sock accounts.

As an Atlasian, I find the present state of affairs that allows the situation that Franzl describes to be wholly undesirable. I think the Chief Justice does as well, and I find it commendable that he sticks to what he believes the Law calls for in spite of its obvious practical failings.

An Amendment needs to address these concerns - the afleitch proposal is a good start, though I would counsel against specific reference to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act as it will probably be superceded by another Law at a point in the future, not to mention the fact that there are other criminal statutes on the books that came after the CCJA.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you click the link provided by Peter, you get:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The account has now been deleted by Dave I believe, meaning that we can no longer access the profile associated with it.

My thoughts as a moderator - I would not be prepared to publically divulge the numerical info of an IP address - it constitutes an act of questionable legality in the real world as it is identifiable information. I am, and remain, very willing to divulge the moderators investigations into the nature of alleged sock accounts.

As an Atlasian, I find the present state of affairs that allows the situation that Franzl describes to be wholly undesirable. I think the Chief Justice does as well, and I find it commendable that he sticks to what he believes the Law calls for in spite of its obvious practical failings.

An Amendment needs to address these concerns - the afleitch proposal is a good start, though I would counsel against specific reference to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act as it will probably be superceded by another Law at a point in the future, not to mention the fact that there are other criminal statutes on the books that came after the CCJA.
[/quote]

Thank you Peter.

And you are right about the reference to the CCJA.

Therefore with a simple deletion;

-----

Public IP Address Amendment:

Section 1.

a. Criminal charges may rely upon as evidence, the testimony from a Forum Moderator, or any testimony publically posted on 'The Atlas' board, that a poster may have committed a crime against Atlasia.

b. This testimony shall be posted publically by the Game Moderator should it concern any citizen of Atlasia.

c. This testimony may be used in criminal trials as evidence without a search warrant.

---

Probably need tidied up. Changes would be welcome.

[Purple State]

Okay, fair enough. I will need people to make sure I see these things, just in case I don't venture out of the fantasy boards.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a bit confused as to what that Amendment actually does, but I'm probably not understanding it for a very silly reason. Could someone dumb down what that actually does in relation to the problem that necessitated this Amendment in the first place?

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you click the link provided by Peter, you get:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The account has now been deleted by Dave I believe, meaning that we can no longer access the profile associated with it.

My thoughts as a moderator - I would not be prepared to publically divulge the numerical info of an IP address - it constitutes an act of questionable legality in the real world as it is identifiable information. I am, and remain, very willing to divulge the moderators investigations into the nature of alleged sock accounts.

As an Atlasian, I find the present state of affairs that allows the situation that Franzl describes to be wholly undesirable. I think the Chief Justice does as well, and I find it commendable that he sticks to what he believes the Law calls for in spite of its obvious practical failings.

An Amendment needs to address these concerns - the afleitch proposal is a good start, though I would counsel against specific reference to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act as it will probably be superceded by another Law at a point in the future, not to mention the fact that there are other criminal statutes on the books that came after the CCJA.

Thank you Peter.

And you are right about the reference to the CCJA.

Therefore with a simple deletion;

-----

Public IP Address Amendment:

Section 1.

a. Criminal charges may rely upon as evidence, the testimony from a Forum Moderator, or any testimony publically posted on 'The Atlas' board, that a poster may have committed a crime against Atlasia.

b. This testimony shall be posted publically by the Game Moderator should it concern any citizen of Atlasia.

c. This testimony may be used in criminal trials as evidence without a search warrant.

---

Probably need tidied up. Changes would be welcome.


[/quote]

FWIW: The Prosecutor (and ACLU member) on the forum highly approves this version. Peter's and Afleitch's well-warranted concerns are both adaquately addressed, yet the law would still meet it's worthy goal of fighting fraud.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm assuming Franzl was fine with Afleitch's simple revision, since he accepted it before and nothing really changed in it, so..

I hereby open up a final vote on this Amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abstain until someone explains to me what this does and how it solves the problem.

[Franzl]

Aye, this amendment allows IP matches to be used without fear of illegaly acting for the state and violating the defendent's rights. It is essential that we are able to prosecute people for crimes like voter fraud, which is near impossible in many cases at the present time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll switch my vote to Aye after Franzl reassured me.

[tmthforu94]

Aye