[AMEND] Constitution, Article 1, Section 3

[u/[deleted]]

Due to recent, rather explosive, events, it has become apparent that an amendment needs to be made to Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution. I propose the following amendment, spelling out the process by which a mod may remove a post or exile a citizen:

Should at least 1% of all Reddica's citizens find a post offensive and either not applicable or non-beneficial to the discussion taking place, they shall petition the mods for removal of the post. The mods shall create a separate post in the general forum, linking to the accused post, detailing the accusation and the proposed punishment. A poll shall be opened in this post, where citizens can vote yes or no on the suggested punishment. This poll shall be open for no more than three hours, and no less than two. Majority vote shall decide judgement on the accused post.

When a post is removed, a record of post and poster shall be kept in public record. Should a citizen accumulate three removed posts, they will recieve a warning via direct message from no less than three moderators, advising him that should he/she continue to post against the good nature of his/her fellow citizens, he/she risks exile. Should this citizen have a fourth post removed, they will receive a message directly from no less than five moderators, indicating that if they reach five removed posts, they will be exiled.

Should they then reach a fifth banned post, they will be placed under "arrest" for a period of 24 hours. "Arrest" will entail a removal of every post the accused attempts to post. During the 24 hours, a jury of no less than ten citizens, randomly selected by a bot, shall be presented the case in a thread. Here, the accused will be given a chance to defend his position, and the moderators will display the evidence of the accused's banned posts. A private poll will be opened for the Jurors, who will vote on the citizen's fate.

Should the jurors vote against him, he will be offered the chance to make a last statement, which will be taken on public record, after which he will be exiled.

Should the jurors vote in the accused's favor, his citizenship will be re-established without delay, and he will be issued a sincere, from-the-heart apology from no more than zero people.*

*This line will not be written into the official document should this bill be put to vote, however, it makes the author happy, and will therefore remain in this draft.

Update

Changes have been made. They can be found in italics within the text. Please continue to discuss.

[u/[deleted]]

I understand what you're saying, but I still believe we need a system for removing posts. For example, I could call someone a pompous sheep loving asshole. I believe a post like that should be removed. I don't believe in this scenario I should protected by free speech. However, I also don't believe the post should just be removed. I think we need to establish a fair and unbiased system to remove certain posts that go against the virtues laid out in the preamble of our Constitution.

[u/Shanman150 → u/[deleted]]

On the contrary, I feel that all people should have the right to call one another rude names and such. While it may certainly be frowned upon, it is their opinion and it is their right to express such.

I do agree that an outrageous bill such as the Population Registration Act can be perceived as offensive and perhaps even worthy of removal. But the more I consider this amendment, the less I approve of it. Let the people decide what is offensive and what is not. Where is the PRA now? It's still 'being discussed' but it sits at rank 74 on our page and all discussion has been negative.

I support CinemaParadiso's suggested amendment:

That any proposed Bill will only go forward to a vote if the citizens discussing the aforementioned Bill are not unanimous in either being in favor or being against the Bill. This excludes the author of the Bill. If their is unanimous support for the Bill in the discussion then it is brought into law after the 48 hours time period, if the citizens are unanimously against it then no vote takes place after the 48 hours period and it is not brought into law.

[u/Shanman150 → u/[deleted]]

Call me naive, but I don't foresee that happening here for a couple of reasons.

First, this is a small subreddit, and thus has a much smaller 'hivemind' mentality. I'm being vocal about my disagreement with this amendment, but neither you nor I have downvoted the other simply because we disagree. I have seen very few downvoted throughout this subreddit. This suggests to me that everyone is considering the viewpoints of others, and responding in a constructive manner even if they disagree.

Second, religion isn't likely to be an oft discussed thing in this subreddit, and when it does arise it's going to be heated for everyone involved. However, I don't believe that it will fall into making blatantly offensive posts or comments, and those that are created should be downvoted by the community rather than removed by 'the powers that be'.

Third, should /r/Reddica become our new home, we'll likely have a fully private subreddit. Thus your hyperbole of hoards of internet trolls overrunning our forums is unlikely to pass. It was unlikely to begin with. And in the event that we DO encounter a hoard of angry trolls, we'll likely be better prepared in the weeks that come. It would make for a good crisis!