Title 8 — Escalation Logic

Escalation is the mechanism by which repeated behavior, evasion, or aggravating conduct shifts an offense into a higher severity tier or triggers alliance-level scrutiny.
This Title defines when escalation is considered, who interprets it, and how patterns are handled, but does not prescribe penalties.
Specific statutes must define which triggers apply to each offense.

---

Definitions Table

Term	Definition
Escalation	Movement of an offense to a higher tier or referral for broader review due to patterns or aggravating behavior.
Pattern	Multiple related incidents by the same offender or alliance within a defined time window.
Automatic Escalation	Escalation required by a statute when defined conditions occur.
Discretionary Escalation	Escalation that may be initiated by the Council based on context or aggravation.
Alliance-Level Review	A Council examination of whether leadership or structure contributed to repeated or systemic violations.
Evasion	Actions intended to avoid penalties, accountability, or classification (e.g., alliance hopping).
Tampering	Manipulation, destruction, or falsification of evidence.
Failure to Enforce	When an alliance's leadership refuses or fails to ensure compliance with a penalty or order.

---

Article I — Escalation Framework

Section 1 — Purpose

Escalation ensures consistency by treating repeat or aggravated behavior more severely than isolated conduct.
It provides structural guidance for statutes and Council decisions.

Section 2 — Types of Escalation

Escalation may take one of the following forms:

1. Tier Escalation
   A case moves from Minor → Moderate → Severe based on conditions defined by statute or pattern.

2. Supermajority Review
   The case is elevated for heightened scrutiny by a 7-vote threshold (e.g., for severe misconduct, evasion, or tampering).

3. Alliance-Level Review
   The Council examines systemic issues within an alliance’s leadership or culture.

Section 3 — Relationship to Statutes

This Title does not define which offenses escalate.
It defines the logic that statutes will reference.

---

Article II — Escalation Triggers

note

The table below describes structural triggers.
They do not carry inherent penalties unless a statute maps them to one.

Structural Trigger	Escalation Path	Interpretation
Pattern of repeated lower-tier offenses	Tier Escalation	Indicates neglect, carelessness, or refusal to adjust behavior.
Short-window recurrence (e.g., within 14–30 days)	Tier Escalation	Time window defined by statute.
Evasion of penalties (ban dodging, alliance hopping)	Supermajority Review	Suggests intent to avoid accountability.
Evidence tampering or falsification	Supermajority Review	Undermines system integrity; treated with maximum scrutiny.
Refusal to engage in required diplomacy	Tier Escalation or Review	Applies to offenders or alliance leaders.
Violating conditions of probation or compliance orders	Automatic Tier Escalation	When specified by statute.
Harboring a penalized or blacklisted player	Alliance-Level Review	Evaluates leadership responsibility.
Leadership refusal to enforce penalties	Alliance-Level Review	May indicate systemic failure.
Multi-player coordinated behavior	Alliance-Level Review	Suggests organized misconduct.

---

Article III — Pattern and Recurrence

Section 1 — Recognition of Patterns

A pattern may be established by:

• repeated offenses by the same individual
• repeated offenses by members of the same alliance
• recurrence of similar behavior across time windows
• failure to comply with corrective guidance

Patterns increase scrutiny and may raise the appropriate tier.

Section 2 — Time Windows

Time windows for recognizing patterns (e.g., 14-day window, 30-day window) must be defined by statute or set by the Council for the specific case.

Section 3 — Aggregation

Separate incidents may be aggregated into a single escalated case if:

• they concern the same offender or alliance
• they demonstrate a consistent behavioral trend
• aggregation provides a clearer view of systemic issues

---

Article IV — Evasion and Tampering

Section 1 — Evasion

Actions taken to avoid accountability—such as switching alliances, changing tags, deleting accounts, or misrepresenting activity—may trigger:

• Supermajority Review
• Tier escalation
• Alliance-level review for the new or sheltering alliance

Evasion behavior is treated as aggravation independent of the underlying offense.

Section 2 — Evidence Tampering

Tampering undermines the integrity of the entire system and triggers:

• immediate referral to Supermajority Review
• potential elevation of any related offense to the highest applicable tier

Statutes may further define classifications and consequences for tampering.

---

Article V — Alliance-Level Review

Section 1 — Purpose

Alliance-level review determines whether misconduct results from:

• individual behavior
• systemic cultural issues within an alliance
• leadership negligence or refusal to enforce penalties

Section 2 — Triggers

Alliance-level review is considered when:

• multiple offenders from the same alliance appear in repeated cases
• leadership ignores, denies, or refuses enforcement
• an alliance shelters penalized or blacklisted individuals
• repeated escalation traces to the same organization

Section 3 — Council Authority

The Council may:

• request leadership statements
• request compliance logs
• request internal action plans
• suspend certain alliance privileges pending resolution (statute-defined)

Alliance-level review does not presume guilt; it assesses structural responsibility.

---

Article VI — Procedural Responsibilities

Section 1 — Alliance Responsibilities

Alliances must:

• enforce Council rulings promptly
• provide proof of compliance when requested
• monitor members for recurring behavior
• cooperate with Clerks and procedural checks

Section 2 — Clerk Responsibilities

Clerks must:

• track recurrence across cases
• note aggravating or mitigating patterns
• notify Council when escalation conditions appear to be met
• refer cases for escalation when required by statute

Clerks never determine escalation outcomes; they identify triggers.

Section 3 — Council Responsibilities

The Council:

• determines whether escalation is warranted
• classifies the appropriate tier
• initiates Supermajority Review when necessary
• initiates alliance-level review when patterns justify it

---

Last amended by Council vote [not amended].