...

Article 14: The Rights of Citizens
Section 1: The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or restricting the freedom of speech of the press or the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, protest, or petition the government for a redress of grievances. Imgflip TOS still applies.
Section 2: No user shall be issued any sort of punishment (ban, mod removal, etc.) prior to being found guilty of stated charges though either trial (impeachment or otherwise), or ruled guilty by owner(s).
Section 3: In a trial, any and all users are entitled to a lawyer to represent them, whether or not they can afford one.
Section 4: All users (besides those that are banned) are permitted to hold polls, and petition/bring a bill to congress and the senate. It is up to the HOC and HOS to see that it is voted on.
Section 5: All users (besides those that are banned) are permitted to found their own news blog, political party, and business, only as long as it does not directly go against the site TOS or stream rules.

Last I checked, no trial was held. Also, there was no opportunity for reconciliation. He just slammed the band hammer and expected everybody to agree.

*ban, damn autocorrect

Envoy checked the mod logs and it looks like Scar didn't ban anyone this week. Double check with him (step dad of the year.)
But: "or ruled guilty by owner/s" is the key phrase here. If an owner bans someone for bad behavior they can do so based upon their own determination of guilt.

I think that's the thing, then. I care about due process, and if Captain_Scar is going to keep banning people, then there has to at least be a trial.

Agree strongly

And a chance of appeal

You checked the mod logs?

Just to clear things up, yes I banned IG

That's fine. No one will miss him.

Read the entire constitution please.

Refer to Article 14 Section 2

Guilty by trial or owner ruling are the 2 methods wherein a ban can be issued

Yes, but there is also a chance of appeal. And again, the primary focus should be reconciliation, not just slamming the ban hammer.

The appeal applies to trials
I agree, and I've tried that. He's been having the same issue longer than you've been on this stream. All he wants to do is impeach and ban people, and that's not the point of the game.

Then that's the issue. People banning each other without justification. Perhaps we should have a rule, or maybe even constitutional amendment, that whenever a moderator bans someone, they have to justify why they did it.

That's not a bad idea.
To be honest, I probably should've made an announcement up front stating my reasoning and all. So that's my bad.