The almost finished (for now) Charter and site policies below for feedback. If you feel anything is missing please add your comments and anything that will make the site more secure for posters and a good experience for them will be incorporated in the final thing. It will be up here for a week or two, maybe more and will provisionally serve as the rules of the site meanwhile.

This has been a collaborative effort between the Editorial team and others (thanks Zhou) but without question 80%+ of that effort has been due to cactus flower so bualadh bos.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to Machine Nation from the Editorial Team

Introduction
Machine Nation is a community of members with curiosity about the processes going on in politics, in technology, in ecological systems and in human social systems. The Machine Nation forum is open for discussion, debate and sharing information.

Knowledge can be very powerful and effective in confronting the world and that's where fora and the ‘real’ world can dovetail. Members have and express differing opinions. MN posters share and develop knowledge through argument or dialogue in a collective spirit of problem-solving. Fun and play can lead to learning and understanding and are part of life in Machine Nation.

Machine Nation is a Nation of sorts, and we are all citizens, which means we all have a duty to make it a place worth living. Members are all asked take part in developing, improving and maintaining the Site. Members need to remember that they are responsible for what they write on the site, whether under their own name or an assumed one. Members are required to respect the rights of others.

Posters are encouraged to behave with manners and to treat their fellow posters and third parties as they would wish to be treated themselves. Please only post as fact what is true and back it up with your sources through links and quotes. Remember everyone has a right to their good reputation unless proven to the contrary.

Site Moderation
• All members are asked to adhere to site policy, to moderate themselves and to advise the Moderators by pressing the complaint button or by private message if they are concerned about any post.
• Moderators aim to be as consistent, fair and unrestrictive as they can.
• Moderation aims to allow difference to co-exist and ideas be thrashed out without anyone being made to feel small: they do not take sides in a debate.
• Mods may advise on tidy links, lists, video embeds and so on if requested by private message.
• Disruptive behavior or provocation for provocation’s sake is discouraged and if continued may lead to banning.
• Moderators may take any action which they deem appropriate (at their absolute discretion) to preserve the ethos of the site or to avoid any possible legal action. In the event of dispute, the decision of the Editorial Team is final.

Rules:
• Members may only have one account/identity.
• Differences in opinion are not to be used as reason to inflict insult or belittle other members. Bullying or threatening other posters is not allowed.
• Stating or repeating anything which may be defamatory is not allowed.
• Threatening anybody with legal action, directly or indirectly, is a banning offence
• Incitement to hatred or discrimination based on factors such as gender, politics, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. is not allowed.
• Do not post images or text that is exploitative, crude or sexual in nature.
• Publication of members’ identities or personal information without their permission or threatening to do so is a banning offence.
• Impersonating another real individual or using another poster's identity is a banning offence.
• If you post text, photos, or other media, you must make sure it isn’t protected by copyright. For written posts, a short quote, stating where it is from, and a link to the source is best.
• Do not give legal, business or other professional advice as this may possibly expose you or the site and the site to legal action.
• Posters are prohibited by law and by the forum rules from publishing tips, warnings or recommendations on share prices.
• Do not discuss current legal cases on the site
• Members must not place advertisements on the site.
• Members agree to take full responsibility for their own comments and to hold Machine Nation and all other individuals connected with Machine Nation harmless against any loss, liability, costs or expenses arising from any such comments. Members post all comments at their sole risk to the fullest extent possible at law.

Good posting
• Before posting a new thread - check carefully if there is already a thread on the subject.
• When you start a new thread, give it a brief heading that says what it is about.
• Back up your argument with facts: add links to back- up data.
• If posting on someone else's thread, read back over the posts and stick to the original point.
• Use the clearest wording you can
• Avoid name calling, as it undermines debate
• If in doubt, count to at least 30 and think again before you post.
• If you want to post in Irish, please post in the Irish forum for modding or alert an Irish mod.
• If you post in any other language you must post an accurate translation in English.
• Please do not quote previous posts unnecessarily in the interests of readability.
• Please don’t use animated avatars as they are a visual distraction in threads.

This is a summary of Machine Nation site policy and rules: you are advised to read and refer to the full version here:- (add link)

Enjoy posting !

Ed Thurs. 22/4/08.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is very clearly set out - better than some other sites I could mention but won't

Just one question - with regard to discussing current legal cases, do you mean that it is completely banned? What if there are reports in the national press about an ongoing case, could we not discuss/speculate? What about legal challenges to proposed legislation such as we saw for the Strategic Infrastructure Bill? And, dare I mention them, tribunals?

Aragon wrote:

This is very clearly set out - better than some other sites I could mention but won't

Just one question - with regard to discussing current legal cases, do you mean that it is completely banned? What if there are reports in the national press about an ongoing case, could we not discuss/speculate? What about legal challenges to proposed legislation such as we saw for the Strategic Infrastructure Bill? And, dare I mention them, tribunals?

Good questions: anyone got the answers? We don't want to suppress discussion, just to avoid doing anything improper that might prejudice a fair hearing, I suppose. A website has to operate on the same rules as a newspaper, pretty much.

Well done to all of you.

typo in - "Do not give legal, business or other professional advice as this may possibly expose you or the site and the site to legal action." My fault I think.

I think people could comment on current cases as long as they were cautioned not to engage in baseless conjecture about the facts of the case. The administration of justie must be done in public so it can be scrutinised. It would be a shame not to do so. Also, discussion of the legal principles which may be at play in a case can be very enlightening.

Thanks very much for your input Zhou.

All looks Good there Auditor - well done mate.

Is today the 24th or the 22nd?

24th.

Edo wrote:

All looks Good there Auditor - well done mate.

Is today the 24th or the 22nd?

I'd love to take credit for all that and I will if you mean for posting the work of others up there. Again, well done cactus, Kate and all who helped - the half-constructed death star may be visible at the side of the posts but it should be the green flag of Macao.

Lots of thanks are due, Zhou, Hermes, the Ard-Taoiseach,Riadach, Johnfás, the Ed Team and everyone who contributed to the "Towards a Charter " thread and other discussions on the site.(Bows all round)

Well done folks, tis looking excellent. It's a credit to ye.

Regarding cases that are currently in court: it's okay to discuss them to your heart's content, even down to the probability as to whether someone is guilty (as distasteful as that is).

The one main exception to this is discussing material that is Sub Judice. I.e. something that the court has decreed as not being for publication (even the jury don't get to witness this material). But we're reasonably safe from this, as to publish Sub Judice material, one would have had to have been present in the courtroom to witness the material itself. There is, I suppose, a possibility of one of our members being told something by the friend of a friend who was at the sitting etc., that might pose a threat to us. A good indication of Sub Judice material might say something like: "In the absence of the jury, the Judge heard the witness say that the defendent was in another country at the time of the crime." Printing material like this could land us in deep water. The major clue pointing out that this is Sub Judice is "in the absense of the jury..."

I'm possibly making the possibility of this occurring sound a lot more probable than it is.

I think a good guidline on this would be: it's okay to discuss material already in the public domain. If you are submitting a court report based on what you've witnessed in the court, ensure that it is not Sub Judice material.

I'm talking about trials involving juries above, sitting on criminal cases.

No talking about ongoing: rape cases, child custody cases etc. If it's not already in print or if it hasn't been broadcast already, keep it to yourself until it is.

Thanks for that Hermes - it is good to know we won't have to bite our tongues without need.

I think we need some sort of Site Legal Advisor. Someone with a Law degree or something similar, Hermes seems the right sort, so as to inform the Editorial Team and Site Administration about the legal complexities and difficulties faced by any discussion forum debating and conversing on these sorts of topics.

Appointing someone now can lead us to avoid the legal imbroglios faced by P.ie and Boards.ie.

Is boards facing a fan full of s&*% with some pinstriper with his finger on the button now too?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is boards facing a fan full of s&*% with some pinstriper with his finger on the button now too?

Is it? I hope so. I hope that disgraceful pustule is lanced with all prejudice intended. Death to Boards.ie!

What's your view on having a full Legal Advisor on hand here on this site? I think in these increasingly litigious times that such an individual would be an extraordinary asset to the ongoing well-being of the Machine Nation.

AT wrote:

I think we need some sort of Site Legal Advisor. Someone with a Law
degree or something similar, Hermes seems the right sort, so as to
inform the Editorial Team and Site Administration about the legal
complexities and difficulties faced by any discussion forum debating
and conversing on these sorts of topics.

Appointing someone now can lead us to avoid the legal imbroglios faced by P.ie and Boards.ie.

I'm very flattered that I'm considered to be an expert. I have no degree. Any qualification I have is by experience, via fighting with the legal system. I'm in court most weeks, acting as a McKenzie Friend for lay litigants. So I know my rights and indeed my obligations, and am familar with the law so far as I've experienced it. But in truth, only a solicitor, under law, can give legal advice. I can but offer my opinion and will do so any time it's asked for. Damn it, I'll even offer it unsolicited

That's the spirit - DIY Law. Anyone is allowed to represent themselves aren't they?

You've been very light-shedding already Hermes - the Law is something some of us find impenetrable but of course it should boil down to simple and obvious and logical points in the end, shouldn't it?

A nice thought, but if Ard-Taoiseach had finished reading the draft Policy with his usual meticulous care he would have noticed that giving Legal Advice on-line would potentially open the site and the legal advisor to Action.

Auditor #9 wrote:

That's the spirit - DIY Law. Anyone is allowed to represent themselves aren't they?

You've
been very light-shedding already Hermes - the Law is something some of
us find impenetrable but of course it should boil down to simple and
obvious and logical points in the end, shouldn't it?

Yup anyone is allowed to represent themselves. There's one main exception. If a lay litigant were to bring a private prosecution and the charge itself required an indictment, it would be the DPP's duty to take over the prosecution. (interesting little nugget, if one really wanted to have a go at sorting out examples of Garda corruption )

No problems with regrard to shedding some light, twas a pleasure that I benefit from too. I agree with regard to legal points boiling down to logic. However, as I always tell folks: To go into Court with a logically unbreakable argument, but to not account for the red tape, is to wander into court with suicidal intent.

cactus flower wrote:

A nice thought, but if Ard-Taoiseach had finished reading the draft Policy with his usual meticulous care he would have noticed that giving Legal Advice on-line would potentially open the site and the legal advisor to Action.

I've reviewed that rule, but I was thinking that we could skirt around it by having an Advisor that communicates advice through PMs and could preface their public adive with phrases like, "A legal expert would say..." or, "If I was an expert, I'd probably think that..." or, "I would imagine a legal expert's opinion would be...".

In this way, we can keep our hands clean. Perfect!

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

A nice thought, but if Ard-Taoiseach had finished reading the draft Policy with his usual meticulous care he would have noticed that giving Legal Advice on-line would potentially open the site and the legal advisor to Action.

I've reviewed that rule, but I was thinking that we could skirt around it by having an Advisor that communicates advice through PMs and could preface their public adive with phrases like, "A legal expert would say..." or, "If I was an expert, I'd probably think that..." or, "I would imagine a legal expert's opinion would be...".

In this way, we can keep our hands clean. Perfect!

Indeed. We have members of this Site with great expertise who would be very good at offering us thoughts and comments that were not advice.

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

A nice thought, but if Ard-Taoiseach had finished reading the draft Policy with his usual meticulous care he would have noticed that giving Legal Advice on-line would potentially open the site and the legal advisor to Action.

I've reviewed that rule, but I was thinking that we could skirt around it by having an Advisor that communicates advice through PMs and could preface their public adive with phrases like, "A legal expert would say..." or, "If I was an expert, I'd probably think that..." or, "I would imagine a legal expert's opinion would be...".

In this way, we can keep our hands clean. Perfect!

Indeed. We have members of this Site with great expertise who would be very good at offering us thoughts and comments that were not advice.

Yes, we don't have to classify it as advice and, hey presto, we're in the clear!

We're the only users online btw!