/tg/Station 13

12: If you are in possession of confidential administrative information and refuse to cooperate with the investigation, you may be punished as if the leaker themselves.

This violates the right to remain silent.
It doesn't actually matter if this will get enforced in that way, with this exact phrasing, inaction can be punished.
This is oddly orwellian and looks like something a wannabe tyrant would write.

If you have nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear.

inb4 someone writes "private discord, we can do whatever we want"

Ah yes the right to remain silent the most crucial of all internet rights

nemvar wrote:
inb4 someone writes "private discord, we can do whatever we want"

Shaps-cloud wrote:Ah yes the right to remain silent the most crucial of all internet rights

got 'em

That only works if they refute the point before it's made

Oh yes. Le epic 'This is a private space' meme.
Fam, being a private space has nothing to do with having a good system of rules or not. And a good qualifier for that would be that the right to remain silent is intact otherwise you can not have a fair system.

this is similar to the 18+ servers which have rules that amount to "no kids allowed, and if you _knowingly_ allow kids to be here without telling us so we can eject them we'll fucking yeet you too for being a pedo"

likewise if you get into a side-discord that sets about harassing other players and pulling internet detective bullshit, don't be surprised if you get the boot even if you didn't personally participate in the harassment itself

if you're worried about collective punishment for being in a shady metagang stirring up drama, maybe reconsider whether you should be participating in a shady metagang that stirs up drama

Half the admins in the team are from Europe

Do you really expect sensitive rules from people that live without basic human rights?

No it's really not. There is no explanation for why this is needed. This is orwellian, you can't argue that it isn't.
Just punish people for actually spreading leaks instead of having a badly formulated rule like this. Your example is already covered under rule 1 and you could also write an explicit rule like:

Spreading confidential administrative information will lead to a permaban.

It would cover your hypothetical so I don't get why we have to go full China and implement a stupid rule like the current one. All it does it stir up the community as rule like this will be perceived as unjust.

The /tg/ discord is not some small group of people. It's a big and varied community. It's not unreasonable to demand a fair system of rules.

I for one welcome this new age of hongkongstation where the community interests are represented fairly in the mandates passed down by the administration, and enforcement of them is completely fair and unbiased. No drama has occurred ever since that fateful October in 2019.

I imagine this rule shouldn’t even exist, the times we actually need it would be covered by other rules. If say x person knows about y person threatening to dox someone but doesn’t share that info, they’d be banned with or without this rule. Anything actually important would be covered by other rules, or just common sense.

Not to mention the horrible wording of this rule. Garbage sentence structure aside, what the fuck is confidential administrative information? If you don’t know it yet its not administrative information its just information (that could help with an administrative investigation). And why is it for discord only? If someone does this you’ll only ban them from our discord and leave it there, changing absolutely nothing and encouraging them to continue to withhold information.

All in all this rule reeks of thoughtlessness and haste. Administrative side rules wouldn’t really make sense to poll the community about, but if you guys are gonna grind out rules as terrible as this maybe we should. I’m just wondering how far up the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower this decision was made, we clearly need to get more voices in there.

Why the fuck was INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower changed to internal discussions

This absolutely BASED and REDPILLED rule is a result of an attempt by the headmins to coerce me into fingering one of the other admins as a leaker under threat of a server and forum permaban. It's there to punish anyone who tries to post things they don't want getting out there, even if they're not the originator of the leaks and got them off of, say, the /vg/ rumor thread or another ss13 discord.

I'm not sure if they're going to make it a server rule, but I've never been a member of the /tg/station discord so this type of thinking has been used as leverage outside the discord environment.

deedubya wrote:I for one welcome this new age of hongkongstation where the community interests are represented fairly in the mandates passed down by the administration, and enforcement of them is completely fair and unbiased. No drama has occurred ever since that fateful October in 2019.

did you make this image yourself

I have a feeling this will be used for lots of petty bullshit rather than stuff that actually should be confidential (in a fucking video game community, btw).

This rule is so obviously ridiculously specific I didn't know what it was referring to but it was clear to me it was made to punish a specific person

This rule seems very targeted and short-sighted.
You're just going to end up like Citadel station where people are banned for refusing to cooperate in leaks they never received.

worded badly imo, i understand the concept but its just poorly said and should at the very least be rewritten to actually be coherent

remember playing the game

If there's anything I've learned in this life, it's that very specific rules with poor wording only makes an everyone's job more complicated. At the very least it's in need of a rewrite.

Jimmius wrote:did you make this image yourself

If only I was that talented

nemvar wrote:Oh yes. Le epic 'This is a private space' meme.
Fam, being a private space has nothing to do with having a good system of rules or not. And a good qualifier for that would be that the right to remain silent is intact otherwise you can not have a fair system.

Isn't this more similar to "contempt of court"? There's an investigation, you're not a suspect but admins know you know important shit, but you refuse to cooperate -> you're punished until you decide to cooperate. The right to remain silent only comes into play if disclosing what you know would lead to self-incrimination, e.g. you took an active part in the leaks.

Grazyn wrote:

nemvar wrote:Oh yes. Le epic 'This is a private space' meme.
Fam, being a private space has nothing to do with having a good system of rules or not. And a good qualifier for that would be that the right to remain silent is intact otherwise you can not have a fair system.

Isn't this more similar to "contempt of court"? There's an investigation, you're not a suspect but admins know you know important shit, but you refuse to cooperate -> you're punished until you decide to cooperate. The right to remain silent only comes into play if disclosing what you know would lead to self-incrimination, e.g. you took an active part in the leaks.

Contempt of court as far as I'm aware is disrupting the proceedings of the court case itself or otherwise disrespecting the authority of the court while it is in session. The term you're probably looking for is perjury, which also doesn't apply. The right to remain silent is exactly what it says on the tin. To clarify, you're under an obligation to not provide dishonest, false, or misleading testimony. But you're not under any obligation to provide any information at all. Saying nothing is not equivalent to providing false information.

Honestly terribly phrased, and seems like a bad rule but it's hard to tell under the ambiguous wording

deedubya wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

nemvar wrote:Oh yes. Le epic 'This is a private space' meme.
Fam, being a private space has nothing to do with having a good system of rules or not. And a good qualifier for that would be that the right to remain silent is intact otherwise you can not have a fair system.

Isn't this more similar to "contempt of court"? There's an investigation, you're not a suspect but admins know you know important shit, but you refuse to cooperate -> you're punished until you decide to cooperate. The right to remain silent only comes into play if disclosing what you know would lead to self-incrimination, e.g. you took an active part in the leaks.

Contempt of court as far as I'm aware is disrupting the proceedings of the court case itself or otherwise disrespecting the authority of the court while it is in session. The term you're probably looking for is perjury, which also doesn't apply. The right to remain silent is exactly what it says on the tin. To clarify, you're under an obligation to not provide dishonest, false, or misleading testimony. But you're not under any obligation to provide any information at all. Saying nothing is not equivalent to providing false information.

No. If you're called as a witness, you can't refuse to testify. Contempt of court applies if you don't.

https://www.shouselaw.com/what-happens- ... to-testify

Oh right. The US doesn't have the right to remain silent per se. Instead they have 'the right against self-incrimination' which is functionally identical in a lot of cases and certainly seems applicable.

in this case you are already incriminated, by some other evidence indicating you know about a leak, and the person who made it

oranges wrote:in this case you are already incriminated, by some other evidence indicating you know about a leak, and the person who made it

Isn't this thread about whether knowing about a leak should be a crime at all?

Grazyn wrote:No. If you're called as a witness, you can't refuse to testify. Contempt of court applies if you don't.

https://www.shouselaw.com/what-happens- ... to-testify

this is so fucking retarded, thank God I'm not american
even in my backwards third world country your only obligation as a witness is going to court when called and not saying lies

Grazyn wrote: No. If you're called as a witness, you can't refuse to testify. Contempt of court applies if you don't.

https://www.shouselaw.com/what-happens- ... to-testify

your own link notes:

there are legal reasons to refuse to testify. The reasons should be presented to the court at the time of refusing. They might include:

the right against self-incrimination,
privilege (marital, clergy, news reporter),
questions are not material.

Grazyn wrote:

oranges wrote:in this case you are already incriminated, by some other evidence indicating you know about a leak, and the person who made it

Isn't this thread about whether knowing about a leak should be a crime at all?

Yep. And by the way, the thing they threatened me over was getting a leak third-hand from a gossip convo on an off-site discord.

SpaceManiac wrote:

Grazyn wrote: No. If you're called as a witness, you can't refuse to testify. Contempt of court applies if you don't.

https://www.shouselaw.com/what-happens- ... to-testify

your own link notes:

there are legal reasons to refuse to testify. The reasons should be presented to the court at the time of refusing. They might include:

the right against self-incrimination,
privilege (marital, clergy, news reporter),
questions are not material.

Yes that's what I already said.

Grazyn wrote: Isn't this more similar to "contempt of court"? There's an investigation, you're not a suspect but admins know you know important shit, but you refuse to cooperate -> you're punished until you decide to cooperate. The right to remain silent only comes into play if disclosing what you know would lead to self-incrimination, e.g. you took an active part in the leaks.

The point is:
Knowing about a leak is a crime in itself->right to remain silent applies, because disclosing what you know would be self-incriminating
OR
knowing isn't a crime->you can't withold information that can help admins catch the leaker, if you refuse you're punished just like it happens IRL with contempt, your rights aren't being violated.

The rule as it is worded seems closer to the second option.

you're not going to get in trouble for someone else leaking stuff to you, unless you then refuse to provide the information about who leaked it to you to the admins when they have a reason to believe you know (probably because you opened your mouth and blabbed).

Leaks themselves may be disclosed under self-incriminating circumstances or in conversations that too are private or confidential.

Thanks to oranges for contributing nothing to the conversation. "Phh, not like this rule will ever be invoked in a way I don't want.", said like a good useful idiot.

Do we really want to ban people just because they don't want to rat out their friends or family?

imagine using discord in 2019 and talking about privacy

I completely disagree with the current state of this rule. Besides the good points already made here against it, it seems to me it can and will be used maliciously.

Imagine the implications if false information starts being spread about someone knowing about something, when in reality they don't know anything. It can be potentially used amidst confusion to get rid or punish members of the community that haven't done anything to deserve it, and for personal reasons.

Where does the line get drawn if more than one person are falsely accussing someone else and they can't defend themselves nor prove they have nothing to do with it?

Don't know if I explained myself correctly but I believe this rule will only bring trouble in the future and will enable people to witch hunt for their convenience. Huge no no

nemvar wrote:Leaks themselves may be disclosed under self-incriminating circumstances or in conversations that too are private or confidential.

Thanks to oranges for contributing nothing to the conversation. "Phh, not like this rule will ever be invoked in a way I don't want.", said like a good useful idiot.

Do we really want to ban people just because they don't want to rat out their friends or family?

if you choose to hang around with a leaker and protect them from us, you're not welcome here on this server.

so, choose your friends and family wisely, because you may be required to go to the wall for them.

oranges wrote: if you choose to hang around with a leaker and protect them from us, you're not welcome here on this server.

t. man who was deadminned for leaking adminbus :^)

Kangtut wrote:

oranges wrote: if you choose to hang around with a leaker and protect them from us, you're not welcome here on this server.

t. man who was deadminned for leaking adminbus :^)

How quickly the turn tables

Kangtut wrote:

oranges wrote: if you choose to hang around with a leaker and protect them from us, you're not welcome here on this server.

t. man who was deadminned for leaking adminbus :^)

yes, that is kind of the point

Can't get banned for thought crimes on Discord if you just never use the Discord.

TempleTappingMeme.jpg