View Full Version : The Nuian Code of Law

09-24-2014, 06:49 AM
Note: This thread is not meant in any way for RP purposes and attempts to alter the server structure fundamentally

Greetings, fellow citizens of Nuia!
After recent conversation by some of our judicially oriented citizens, a decision was made to establish a common code of law for the Nuian alliance. After all, it is us, the citizens that know best what the problems and people facing our contemporary system are. As such, instead of leaving the punishments and trials to the whims of individual jurors, concerned and ambitious citizens such as myself wish to make an attempt to use the court system and the existent guilds to enforce a new code of law. One made and enforced by the players themselves.

How a law is made:
Any citizen of the Nuian alliance on the Kyprosa server may outline a new bill by posting on this thread. They will then get the possibility to promote or defend this bill for 7 days after initially posting (time may vary if this is either too long or short). After these 7 days, a vote is called by the thread manager (initially myself, or any other elected representative) which the players are allowed to vote on with an "Aye" (agree) or "Nay" (disagree). If the bill is rejected, nothing further will be done. If the bill is approved, a discussion may then commence as to how this could best be enacted. After this an attempt will be made to proclaim the new law over the land and guilds are requested to assist in the adherence of this. This way we may claim the power of the people for Nuia and elect a fair set of laws and regulations.


Bills under discussion:

Bills approved:

Bills enacted:

09-24-2014, 07:16 AM

09-24-2014, 07:27 AM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7c90dbd732c1d56da6a32bc246f10fea9031ed95ae5a0be9c1 c3064475281a7a.jpg

09-24-2014, 07:37 AM
This is not an RP server....

09-24-2014, 07:41 AM
Yeah go on Dahuta if you want RP. Anyway still good luck, maybe we got some RPers aswell

09-24-2014, 07:44 AM
Well, the idea is not an RP one, even though it seems like that. It's meant to be very practical and hopefully work on our server. After all, trials already have an unwritten "maximum punishment for uprooters" policy. What I and some others would like to do is extend that and do something hardly anyone in an MMO has managed to pull off: Establish a more full, unwritten player control. And while I can certainly see how you would judge this along the lines of RP (it seems to get rather close) there have been enough people enthusiastic about it for it to potentially have a lasting effect on our server as has now been clarified at the top.

09-24-2014, 08:16 AM
While I fundamentally support juridical discretion in each individual case, I believe it would be extremely advantageous to have a framework for jury members to refer to in the sentencing of criminals. This should lead to consistent and equitable applications of punishment to widespread ills evident in Nuia. Currently the system is extremely inconsistent, and the difference between that of an innocent verdict and a guilty one (resulting in a lengthy prison sentence) can rest on the ideology and disposition of the jury members that day.

While consistency and equity is the virtue we strive for, we should not shackle juries to the extent that they cannot apply reasonable judgement in marginal cases. As such, we should still feature boundaries for reasonable juridical discretion in cases. Furthermore, any legislation generated here will inevitably be interpreted by the jury. As such, consideration for various interpretation should be held when discussing possible legislation.

Furthermore, the systemic regulation of crimes can ensure that relatively “good” behaviour be rewarded consistently as well. Merely gathering fruit off “illegal” farms, as opposed to uprooting, should be encouraged as it allows the farmer to maintain profit and produce from his farm, yet still generates inherent risk of loss of revenue when farming “illegally”. Such actions rarely go acknowledged within our current legal system and its zero tolerance attitude. This would provide constructive change in how we perceive and regulate certain crimes.

Thus, from this perspective, here is my vision for a variety of laws and definition that could prove useful to conscientious jurors…


The unjustified killing of another person [with an intention to kill]

Legal knowledge

“Murder is when any man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth [within any county of the realm] any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the person wounded or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt etc. [within a year and a day after the same]”
- Whitefolly, Institutes III.7.50 (attributed to Coke 3 Inst 47 in real life)

The elements of murder:

Actus Reus ("guilty act") =

I. Unlawful Killing:

• By act or omission

• Unlawful: without legal justification – thus not done in reasonable self defence etc.

II. Causes Death:

• Factual causation – i.e. directly caused death

III. A reasonable creature in rerum natura (i.e. a human being):

• Encompasses any creature shown to hold citizenship of Nuia and reasonable cognitive function;

• Any statutory restrictions on victimhood may be subverted by the Court following reasonable justification and implementation

Mens Rea ("guilty mind") =

Malice Aforethought = an intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm (Cravendash)

Three kinds of intentions;

Express: intention to kill;

Implied: intention to seriously injure (not necessary to show Defendant intended or contemplated possibility of death);

Imputed: oblique intention (the “ruthless risk-taker”) – no intention to kill but realises death will inevitably occur as a result of his acts;

Punishment: Discretion of the jury, but should err on the heavy side of punishment.

Voluntary Manslaughter

A killing with some degree of justification, or with extenuating circumstances: a lesser form of murder. Can’t be charged with this.

Legal knowledge
This is Murder and Partial Defence:

You will not be charged with this crime: this is simply the raising of a successful partial defence against murder

• A killing which satisfies the definition of murder: a killing where the Defendant had "malice aforethought"; i.e. that he intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm;

• Classified as manslaughter due to the existence of an extenuating circumstance - i.e. Defendants culpability is reduced due to a mitigating factor, such as e.g. fact that Defendant suffers from mental impairment, or fact Defendant had lost self-control as a result of fear or anger
Partial Defences include: Loss of Control; Diminished Responsibility; Temporary Drunken Insanity; Suicide Pact; Infanticide (these lower murder to manslaughter)

Where the defendant successfully pleads one of these defences, he will be convicted of manslaughter, notwithstanding that he killed with the mens rea of murder (i.e. the malice aforethought: see the crime of MURDER for clarification)

Sentencing: Discretion of the court, as it is very contextual. Should always result in some form of prison sentence, however, outside of the most marginal of cases.

Theft (or Larceny)

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”

As such, within this definition there is room to argue that sustainable usage of “illegal” farms may not result in a criminal offence. I believe this should be the case for the following policy reasons:
While I would, in another context, argue that this could be amended by the following:

“A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if… he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it..”

Currently this is not feasible due to the current misnomer of “illegal” farms. The current land restrictions mean that many who would otherwise be civil, honest citizens are forced to utilize unintended land to farm their crops, simply due to unavailable land. As such, this definition of dishonesty is not adequate, but I believe it could serve a valuable role in the future.

Thus, our current definition of dishonest should be:
“A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if… it appears reasonable to the jury that such appropriation of property is justifiable and was warranted according to the standards of a reasonable person with the disposition of the defendant”

Thus, in summing up, the elements of theft consist of the following strands:
• Defendant must have been dishonest

• Defendant must appropriate property

• The property must belong to another

• Defendant must have an intention of permanently depriving

This could be interpreted in various ways, and could allow those that merely farm the produce of plants and materials (rather than uproot the entire enterprise) to be given respite in court, as they did not intend to permanently deprive the victim of their farming materials.

Alternatively, however, it could be argued that the “items” gained by farming the materials rightfully belong to the planter of the produce, and that the defendant has permanently deprived the victim of this iteration of yield. As such, it could be up to the jury to decide and contest this issue on a case-by-case basis, until a reasonable and strong precedent is set.

Punishment should be the purview of each jury, depending on how satisfied they are that the defendant has fulfilled these criteria, and the extent of his crimes.

Criminal Damage

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence”

May not apply to possessions or items of negligible value, at the discretion of the court.


• Damage / Destroy – depends on the contextual property as to the degree

• Property – must be tangible. Real or personal, including money and animals (tamed / kept in capitivity or reduced to possession – any livestock, mount or otherwise.

• Belonging to another – property is treated as belonging to any person having custody or control of it, having a proprietary right or interest in it, or having a charge on it.

• Without lawful excuse – at the discretion of the court

Punishment should be the purview of each jury, depending on how satisfied they are that the defendant has fulfilled these criteria, and the extent of his crimes.

And for fun, how about…


“If the lowest can touch the highest, then a dangerous precedent of equality amongst social class is set.”

This may include;
• Murder of member of nobility
• Criminal disloyalty to the government
• Attempting to overthrow the government
• Imagining the death of the King or Queen
• Slaying a member of government, or a member of the judiciary within a reasonable time of serving in court
• Hindering or depriving any person who shall be next in succession to the crown from succeeding after the decease of the King
• Spying on the military, its diplomats or secret services for a hostile or foreign power
• Failure to obey explicit commands of the King
• Publishing that the sovereign is a heretic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the Crown
• Rebelliously withholding from the sovereign his fortresses, ships, army, treasury etc.
• Counterfeiting currency

Punishment should be the strictest amount of prison time possible (and then permanent ganking? :P)


• Any blasphemy towards Nuia, including but not limited to defaming those in religious orders in private or in public or otherwise belitting the Faith.

Maximum prison time!

With these crimes, we’ll need some general defences for defendants.

One that will be highly sought after, I’m sure, is “reasonable self-defence”.

Reasonable Self-Defence

“Defendant can use reasonable force to prevent any crime, whether violent or non-violent, or a crime against a person”

Defendant acts to prevent one of the following public or private interests:

• To prevent the commission of a crime

• To effect a lawful arrest

• To prevent or terminate a breach of the peace

• To defend himself or another against an actual or imminent attack

• To prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or another, or an actual or imminent trespass

Defendants response must be proportionate to the threat:

Defendant can use reasonable force. – Whether this is the case is at the discretion of the court, with reference to the circumstances as the Defendant believed them to be.

When deciding whether the force was reasonable, remember:
• Defendant may not have been able to weigh up the situation exactly

• Ask did Defendant honestly and instinctively do what he thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose?

This defence only covers the prevention of an actual crime: if the defendant mistakenly thought a crime was being committed, he cannot rely on this defence.

I believe there could be room for a caveat that “you may not kill in defence of property – only in defence of persons if the situation warrants” in the future, but I would consider this contentious and so leave it to the floor as to its validity. Alternatively, defending property could lower a sentence of murder to one of “voluntary manslaughter”, thus resulting in a more lenient prison sentence.

The Romeo Defence

• An agreed plan between two or more individuals to commit suicide;
• Plan to die together or separately and closely timed
• Motivated by non-ideological reasons
• Partial defence to murder – this should lower the overall prison time, but should still result in a prison sentence.

09-24-2014, 01:48 PM
I like the idea behind it, however who will watch the watchers - or rather - who will ensure that the jury follows these laws?

09-24-2014, 02:34 PM
I like the idea behind it, however who will watch the watchers - or rather - who will ensure that the jury follows these laws?
I think we mostly have to rely on the social implementation and usage of peer pressure to keep the jury accountable. One can already notice trials are often decided by a few active players in trial chat who either encourage or discourage the verdict on a specific person. What we've noticed today is that, after having declared on the server unanimously that uprooting was not just a crime, but one punishable with the highest possible sentence, it was already seen that the idea was quickly implemented, not only by people who participated in the trial chat, but also those that shared the sentiment and had read the discussion. In this same way can we make use of trial chat to voice our approval or disappointment on certain verdicts, can we redirect people to our established code of laws and can the "laws" be openly discussed in trial chat in order to create a common agreement.

Of course, this won't work as well for more complicated laws which require enforcement, but for those matters we can either make use of dedicated players to enforce these (and with the possibility to PVP without retribution this should be an interesting arrangement) or potential agreements can be made with influential individuals (think guild leaders) to share the ideas among their userbase if they are indeed in agreement. We cannot be ensured initially, but it has happened before that, if a local (in this case server-) culture is present, this will undoubtedly be shared to newer players who will then grow accustomed to the ideals laid out here and by the sometimes highly ambitious people in trial chat. After all, it's a game we're meant to enjoy, so why not take even greater agency in it and share the sentiment with the playerbase? ;)