You ignored me saying "if it's sufficiently egregious". Someone is welcome to file an Ostrakon for someone posting off topic just as we in the Curia are welcome to laugh them out of here for the frivolity of the Ostrakon. I don't think a single off topic post would be sufficiently egregious and unless it was accompanied by other evidence I can't see myself allowing that Ostrakon to go forward. But that's irrelevant to the fact that you absolutely can file an Ostrakon against someone for ToS violations.You can't. You can Ostrakon someone because "citizens should not repeatedly break the ToS / should not get suspended from the site" but you cannot Ostrakon someone for a specific ToS violation, that's what curia suspensions are for. On paper it looks like it's the same thing but it's not. If we go down the you can be ostrakoned for a ToS violation path we risk sliding into "he posted off-topic so imma gonna ostra him" territory in time.
Under the "multiple sovereigns" principle someone can absolutely be charged for the same underlying offense in two different courts. TheThe claim 'you can' is the sad part here and embodies what is currently happening in the curia - because technically it's correct: there is no definition of what is permitted in the constitution only that it has to be 'egregious'. And what defines the already subjective 'egregious' is solely dependent on the consul's definition of the equally subjective 'merit' the constitution makes mandatory to have the ostrakon proceed. I suppose seeking to punish someone again for the same offense (double jeopardy) is egregious enough to find merit? I mean the member was stripped of his citizenship once already for the ToS violation on top of the regular penalty - so why not strip him again? Hey, maybe do the same ostrakon again in six months and strip his citizenship a third time for the same offense? After all the consul just said that seeking multiple punishments for the same offense have merit and hence are permitted.
...double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the multiple sovereignties doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. The federal and state governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in individual states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.So as you can see, there's no issue here. These are sovereignties with different rules and you are bound to both of them (so long as you're a Citizen). If we followed your logic someone punished by the Curia for an action would be unable to be punished by the ToS for the same offense.The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.
You are not "stripped of your Citizenship" for getting an infraction - your Citizenship is suspended until it expires.
You are ignoring that per the Constitution the Consul has to agree that the activity was sufficiently egregious to justify an Ostrakon. I can't see any future Consul allowing someone to file an Ostrakon against someone three times for the same activity. If they did I would probably consider that an abuse of power worthy of a VonC.
I'll say it once again for you,I got a response on the last bit, but the standard 'claim without backup' is not something I would even remotely call 'valid explanation'.
1)The Constitution does not have jurisdiction outside of TWC, any amendment that tries to regulate off site activity is inherently invalid.
2)Similar but more extensive language is now already found in the ToS, which would make the proposed amendment redundant and invalid.
@Anthonius
First of all, I think you misunderstood Belisarius' responses to you.
Secondly, give this a read.
https://wiki.twcenter.net/index.php?...of_Information