MHA: request for explanation

[janax]

I think you are guilty as sin. Just correcting the misconceptions.

[emily]

I think you are guilty as sin. Just correcting the misconceptions.

legally maybe, morally no.

But all I asked for was a trial.

[Sylveste]

So has the head judge already sissued a summary judgement and sentenced her to ZI?

Technically, non-members also get a trial, as evidenced by Article III, Part Q of the Mostly Harmless Revolution. It's the part dealing with EXTERNAL crimes. Specifically mentions outside entities first strike nuking, non-members spying in game on MHA nations, etc etc. Seems to indicate pretty well that it would be a trial situation. I don't believe the trium has the authority to sentence anyone, only the head judge, even if it's merely a summary judgment of the facts.

I'm sure she's guilty and probably warrants the decision, just pointing out for all the people claiming she doesn't get a trial, that they are wrong. There is at least the pretense of a trial and the head judge has to sign off on the situation.

'''Part A:''' Article III shall henceforth be the legal precedent for specific crimes against Alliance Policy. At all times the punishments and procedure outlined in this Article shall supersede the necessity for a Trial in the MHA court. There are three severities of crimes (Minor, Major and High Crime), and three types of crimes (either In-Game, Anti-Hitchhiker, or External crimes). These rules are applicable to all members of the alliance, regardless of position.

and anyway that apply's to members, she wasn't a member.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Sylveste

[caligula]

So has the head judge already sissued a summary judgement and sentenced her to ZI?

Technically, non-members also get a trial, as evidenced by Article III, Part Q of the Mostly Harmless Revolution. It's the part dealing with EXTERNAL crimes. Specifically mentions outside entities first strike nuking, non-members spying in game on MHA nations, etc etc. Seems to indicate pretty well that it would be a trial situation. I don't believe the trium has the authority to sentence anyone, only the head judge, even if it's merely a summary judgment of the facts.

I'm sure she's guilty and probably warrants the decision, just pointing out for all the people claiming she doesn't get a trial, that they are wrong. There is at least the pretense of a trial and the head judge has to sign off on the situation.

OH my favorite part.

This is the part where other alliances tell us how our alliance works.

You seem to miss a certain part.

Article III: Precedent Guide

Part A: Article III shall henceforth be the legal precedent for specific crimes against Alliance Policy. At all times the punishments and procedure outlined in this Article shall supersede the necessity for a Trial in the MHA court. There are three severities of crimes (Minor, Major and High Crime), and three types of crimes (either In-Game, Anti-Hitchhiker, or External crimes). These rules are applicable to all members of the alliance, regardless of position.

Emily was not a member when she spied on us.

Thanks.

[WorkingClassRuler]

So has the head judge already sissued a summary judgement and sentenced her to ZI?

Technically, non-members also get a trial, as evidenced by Article III, Part Q of the Mostly Harmless Revolution. It's the part dealing with EXTERNAL crimes. Specifically mentions outside entities first strike nuking, non-members spying in game on MHA nations, etc etc. Seems to indicate pretty well that it would be a trial situation. I don't believe the trium has the authority to sentence anyone, only the head judge, even if it's merely a summary judgment of the facts.

I'm sure she's guilty and probably warrants the decision, just pointing out for all the people claiming she doesn't get a trial, that they are wrong. There is at least the pretense of a trial and the head judge has to sign off on the situation.

A valid question To which I refer to Part R:

Part R: The Act of Committing a High External Crime shall incur instant hostile action taken against the offenders, classification as an official enemy of the MHA; sentencing to Perma ZI (as described above); and any other punishment deemed necessary by the MHA Government and Court. All due care will be taken if the offender of a High External Crime is from another alliance, but due to the crime, offenders will be pursued with deadly force. Alliances willingly harboring an enemy of the MHA shall be treated as a hostile alliance.

If we were to issue a permanent Court order against her such as PZI, permanent banning from the alliance, classification as "Treacherous Scum", and anything any other similar punishment (NONE of which has currently occurred), then the Court will indeed need to decide on that matter. At the moment, she is currently only under the instant hostile action to ZI order by the MHA Government.

Edit: The boys are still correct that a trial isn't required, though I think Part R is more explanatory than Part A.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Working_Class_Ruler

[emily]

A valid question To which I refer to Part R:

If we were to issue a permanent Court order against her such as PZI, permanent banning from the alliance, classification as "Treacherous Scum", and anything any other similar punishment (NONE of which has currently occurred), then the Court will indeed need to decide on that matter. At the moment, she is currently only under the instant hostile action to ZI order by the MHA Government.

Awww...so I'm not permanently banned from joining MHA? That's all I really wanted to know!

[caligula]

Awww...so I'm not permanently banned from joining MHA? That's all I really wanted to know!

haha. he's got jokes. maybe ONE DAY. far...far away.

Edited June 29, 2009 by caligula

[emily]

haha. he's got jokes. maybe ONE DAY. far...far away.

Myth - I love you.

[WorkingClassRuler]

When I'm stone cold in the ground and my grandchildren are running the joint... by which point Global Radiation will have killed off all viable braincells and the decision to let you back in might actually be seen as a good idea.

[jerdge]

I was just wondering. Is someone from MHA gonna let me know when I get my fair trial? (or indeed any trial at all).

I don't want to air dirty laundry on the OWF, but would really appreciate the chance to put my side to the court. Thus far this has been denied me.

Answer by PM is fine!

So has the head judge already sissued a summary judgement and sentenced her to ZI?

Technically, non-members also get a trial, as evidenced by Article III, Part Q of the Mostly Harmless Revolution. It's the part dealing with EXTERNAL crimes. Specifically mentions outside entities first strike nuking, non-members spying in game on MHA nations, etc etc. Seems to indicate pretty well that it would be a trial situation. I don't believe the trium has the authority to sentence anyone, only the head judge, even if it's merely a summary judgment of the facts.

I'm sure she's guilty and probably warrants the decision, just pointing out for all the people claiming she doesn't get a trial, that they are wrong. There is at least the pretense of a trial and the head judge has to sign off on the situation.

There was no formal trial for this case. In fact Article III, Part Q of the Third Revolution is included in the so called "Court and Precedent Guide" that does not ordinarily require a trial. The government collected the evidence and directly contacted the Ministry of Destructor Fleets to apply the punishment set by mentioned TR.III.Q. This has been for a long time the ordinary procedure for these and similar cases (e.g. the dealing with rogues attacking MHA members) and the MHA Court - that I hereby represent - fully confirms the legitimacy of this behaviour. It's a common procedure for extra-judiciary sentencing.

Non-members can indeed get a trial provided at least that they actually ask for one.

Emily never contacted the Chief Judge (read: me) and never presented her case. I wonder how she can claim that the trial had been "denied" to her.

(I apologize for not having answered earlier to this thread but I was simply completely unaware of its existence. I didn't read and I won't read the 15 pages of it.)

[janax]

The jusge has to still apply the order, a summary judgement is still a trial. I'm pretty sure I presided over 2 former member gone rogue summary judgments during my time. It was the policy.

Like I said, what is done is what should happen. I am merely saying, by previous precedent and as indicated by the different crimes listed under the court section (not trium section) this would be a head judge matter and would require applying the judcial rules.

[janax]

Double Post for the loss.

Edited June 29, 2009 by janax

[Freelancer]

There was no formal trial for this case. In fact Article III, Part Q of the Third Revolution is included in the so called "Court and Precedent Guide" that does not ordinarily require a trial. The government collected the evidence and directly contacted the Ministry of Destructor Fleets to apply the punishment set by mentioned TR.III.Q. This has been for a long time the ordinary procedure for these and similar cases (e.g. the dealing with rogues attacking MHA members) and the MHA Court - that I hereby represent - fully confirms the legitimacy of this behaviour. It's a common procedure for extra-judiciary sentencing.

Non-members can indeed get a trial provided at least that they actually ask for one.

Emily never contacted the Chief Judge (read: me) and never presented her case. I wonder how she can claim that the trial had been "denied" to her.

(I apologize for not having answered earlier to this thread but I was simply completely unaware of its existence. I didn't read and I won't read the 15 pages of it.)

Been waiting for you, however I am disappointed, it lacks your normal substance of special colors and italitized text

Edited June 29, 2009 by Freelancer

[Kowalski]

lol - Kowalski knew for months! you found out because myth directed you to look for it!!!!!

One more time... how did kowalski know?

Hmmm, as much as I would like to avoid slinging mud I'd like to point out an inaccuracy here and answer the question regarding myself. I knew months ago that emily was nation-sitting for the account holder in question in-game but not that she was accessing their forum account (if she was back then). I don't know when the in-game nation-sitting ended but there was a noticeable change in the forum behaviour of the individual in question around that time, from posting spam and send me PM's a few times a week to not posting and reading my PM's but not responding. I put it down to being busy in real life with exams, with no reason not to believe it. I got the impression that emily and the person in question were quite friendly and due to the concern that such an eager member of my team had dropped off the face of the earth I asked emily a few times after then whether she was still nation-sitting or logging on as the individual on the forums, and always got no for an answer. I had no reason not to believe her. Emily and I talked the morning before this blew up and again she said that she wasn't nation-sitting, although I don't think I asked about forum access. I raised concerns about the account's inactivity and emily said she would check how the individual was as they were in contact.

Later that day Myth raised concerns about a conversation he had with emily after she and I had talked in which she said she had seen screenshots of a thread in the Members-only area of the MHA forums, and concluded that either there was a spy in MHA that had shown emily screenshots or emily had a way of getting screenshots and was trying to wind Myth up about there being a spy. It was confirmed that emily's account did not have access to the thread, at which point the 'ol lightbulb popped up above my head and I thought to check the compromised account in question. It confirmed that an innocent spam post was made (I believe the thread was 'Count to a Million', one of the old favourites) by this account from the same IP address as many that had been made by emily's account and that was the same IP address that was registered to emily's IRC account. Therefore it was deduced that emily had accessed the MHA forums using an account that was not her own, an account that was entitled to view things that she was not. It has since been confirmed that this was not the first time (or even first day) that emily's IP address had logged into the account. It also occurred to me that emily had posted using the account just hours after I had raised concerns about the account's activity to her, which may or not be relevant.

There were other topics of conversation relevant to this thread but I don't see the point in bringing them up, unless there is another inaccuracy attributed to my name that needs clearing up.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Kowalski

[WorkingClassRuler]

The jusge has to still apply the order, a summary judgement is still a trial. I'm pretty sure I presided over 2 former member gone rogue summary judgments during my time. It was the policy.

Like I said, what is done is what should happen. I am merely saying, by previous precedent and as indicated by the different crimes listed under the court section (not trium section) this would be a head judge matter and would require applying the judcial rules.

Edit: Hmm.

As the article states, the order to initiate immediate action against the target can be given by the Court or the MHA Government. If you like to call that a summary judgement then okay, the summary judgement was ordered by the MHA Government - which the article allows. When we need immediate or instant action, it is helpful to be able to make the decision quickly to prevent the target from escaping or hiding in another alliance.

Different articles in the Court section do not apply to this situation. Only Part Q and R really apply, as they deal with this crime - a High External Crime, which Emily committed. And under those Parts, the Gov can approve the immediate action that was taken, not necessarily the Court. The point of this is to forgo a Full Trial and ensure the target is hit, which is what happened here. The Court has also supported the action taken.

if further punishment or judicial procedure was required, then it would definitely be under the Court's jurisdiction, but it would be a matter for MHA to figure out internally.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Working_Class_Ruler

[jerdge]

Been waiting for you, however I am disappointed, it lacks your normal substance of special colors and italitized text

I am sorry !!!

More seriously, I forgot to add the following: emily

(I wish you good luck no matter what you did - you will need it, by the way! )

[emily]

I am sorry !!!

More seriously, I forgot to add the following: emily

(I wish you good luck no matter what you did - you will need it, by the way! )

Why is that - Because ebil MHA bears a grudge against people WCR doesn't like?

[majorddf]

I think perhaps it is time to call it a day guys, all parties have made thier points and counterpoints. The ZI order obviously stands.

Emily, you wanted your trial, I think perhaps you just had it.

Anything said after this point would just be retreading points already made. Whatever the truth of the matter, the punishment stems from you illegal access to the MHA forums. Everything after that point is moot. If as a military person I gained access to the Private Files of my superior, and then took some of those files to another superior to say "hey look at these files, they show misconduct" I would still be tried for espionage under the Official Secrets Act.

I can respect your motive, but do nto condone your actions. At best, this could be deemed a crime of passion.

Good Luck and Farewell, may our paths not cross again.

[Azrael Alexander]

You mean this?

[17:04] <gov #1[MHA]> but i think you should post a why i left thread

[17:04] <gov #1[MHA]> to appease WCR

01[17:04] <emily> I can't

[17:04] <gov #1[MHA]> y?

01[17:04] <emily> no access

01[17:04] <emily> plus I'm not sure what he wants me to write

01[17:05] <emily> there is no drama on the forums - I checked smile.gif

[17:05] <gov #1[MHA]> hehe

That does not show that 'Gov 1' knew you had access to someone else's account. Even without your primary access, there are other ways to 'check' which I would assume were the case in his position – talking to friends who were still members being the most obvious.

They also demonstrate that I did not leave in bad faith.

Emily you showing logs of me forgetting to demask you as I had exams does not prove that you did not leave in bad faith. The fact that you would not post in the resignation forums infers that there wer other reasons (of which the label bad faith comes in). And i really did not pick on the subtle hint that you still had access as I had more important things to worry about. But the fact that I was trying to help you get into TOP and just recently learning the full truth. I'm disappointed and I personally would be a lot more lenient but the ZI is reasonable.

I would delete a thread like that instantly unless the person the thread was about was ok with it. That's how most alliances work, we don't bash former members unless we're ZIing them.

If was an entirely reactionary threads and quickly led to discussion onto how we should deal with them. The was nothing malicious or OOC in there at all.

If Myth is involved, he is clearly to be blamed

So much truth in this

[the rebel]

From what ive read on here, the "sensitive information" was never passed on to any alliance or the OWF, she may of been spying, she may deserve ZI. She doesnt think so and claims no bad deeds and MHA are over reacting.

Thinking about it if she was a true spy/traitor etcetera, to my understanding she was goverment and had access to tons of sensitive information and would of screen shot it all and passed it on like candy.

So if she isnt a true spy and has records of all this sensitive information she had access too and feels wronged being sentanced to ZI.

Then there is nothing for her to lose by posting everything in OWF that she has about MHA cause she is being ZI'ed anyway

[David Merton]

Well, that would be a separate crime. As it is now, once Emily has been ZI'd she is free to go on her way and build her nation up as much as she wants.

[the rebel]

Well, that would be a separate crime. As it is now, once Emily has been ZI'd she is free to go on her way and build her nation up as much as she wants.

only saying that when she is put to ZI and loses the will to play because of it and held a grudge she would do more harm to MHA than MHA could do to her from posting any information she may or may not have, she could just forgive and forget. But thats the gamble you will have to take with putting an ex-MHA gov to ZI

[David Merton]

You're assuming she will loose the will to play from being ZI'd? The MHA does not PZI.

[the rebel]

You're assuming she will loose the will to play from being ZI'd? The MHA does not PZI.

I cannot say because my crystal ball seems to be broken

[Ada069]

You're assuming she will loose the will to play from being ZI'd? The MHA does not PZI.

i don't think it will.

Another Question.

one that i think, hasnt been thought of. if it has i apologise.

Is Emily's ZI'ing, Being brought about just about her spying, or is it because of Many events in the past..3 Months.. that have all contributed to her ZI, and not to mention. Blinded a few MHA's who already had some sort of Vendetta in there hearts..

If this Answer is Yes.

Shouldn't the people in charge of signing off on the ZI order be impartial to there feelings towards the player in question, a??

If the Answer is No.

So you have no doubt in your mind that, noone in MHA whatsoever was having a Vendetta against Emily when the ZI was sentenced??

--

Meanwhile im gonna go look up the meaning of Vendetta in a dictionary cause i have no idea if thats the word i mean xD and maybe grab some coffee.

Ada.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Ada069