Bravo Fleet
It has been quite some time since the last JAG Report, as judicial changes don’t come up all that often. I am writing today, however, to outline an amendment to the Judicial Code (the text of which can be found here) that is likely the most foundational shake up to the Judicial code and process that has been put into place for at least half a decade. This change impacts the Letter of Reprimand, and is looking to solve two problems that I have seen with JAG during my tenure (and before) in one fell swoop. I first outlined the broad strokes of this proposed change to the entirety of Bravo Fleet Command during the discussion period leading up to the re-confirmation vote for the 2025 Bravo Fleet JAG term.
The first of the two problems had been my growing concern regarding how the Letter of Reprimand functioned within the Bravo Fleet Judicial space. It is a carry over from the initial JAG revamp that I was a part of about 15 years ago, and it was designed to serve as a black mark against one’s dossier. That black mark, however, has turned into something that is more like a scarlet letter than anything else, with all the issues that come along with that. Even with a method now existing to remove them, the need for a member to reengage with what is likely to be their most negative experience with the fleet in order to do so is a sub-optimal outcome. JAG records for trials are published in the JAG archive, so in 2025 it probably isn’t actually required to marr a member’s dossier directly. The Letter of Reprimand as it existed was justified in it’s creation to serve as a “warning” to others about a member’s prior conduct, but in actuality was more a relic of a time where JAG focused more on punitive action that rehabilitation.
The second issue that has faced the JAG system in Bravo Fleet is that we basically have one tool in our toolbox to use in cases where violations have happened and that is the JAG Trial. It is a major imposition on the member in question, it requires that public trial to be announced and then posted publicly in perpetuity, and the penalties are often times severe. The public nature of the JAG Trial does also have the appearance of a public flogging, even though that public nature is meant to act as a check on the JAG process and created accountability. If the JAG was allowed to impose punishments such as demotions, long term activity bans or probation, or even outright bans all behind closed doors outside of the view of the membership? That is a road back to how the fleet’s JAG office used to operate as an unaccountable body meeting out star chamber justice to persecute those the BFCO didn’t like. JAG having to publish the results of trials while explaining exactly what happened and why punishments have been awarded isn’t about shaming the member in question, but instead about ensuring that the process isn’t being weaponized against the membership. Doing things out in the open is the only way to create some level of accountability. That was, however, the only thing that JAG could do in order to address issues where members have violated the rules. The rise of violations related to AI content, however, has highlighted a problem that has always existed but only gotten worse of late: the only way to remove any “ill gotten gains” from a member was to put them through the spectacle of a JAG trial. In many of these cases, usage of things that violated the rules might not have been malicious, but it also might not have been detected prior to credit for that content being award in the form of ribbons, academy course credit, medals, or even low level promotions. Additionally, there are probably cases where a member’s personal conduct probably should be reviewed by JAG in a measured, reasoned capacity that doesn’t warrant a JAG trial either.
With these two issues in mind, I brought forth a proposed change to the Fleet staff to remake the Letter of Reprimand into something more akin to what it exists as in the real world: a formal document and official warning that’s typically part of a progressive discipline process. This would serve as something in between the current executive penalties that can be imposed (activity bans, chat bans, etc) and full JAG trials. If a JAG investigation shows that some corrective action is warranted but that action does not rise to the level of requiring punitive penalties that a trial would imposed, the JAG office may instead issue a Letter of Reprimand to the member in question. This would be a letter that would outline the conduct in question, and offer an official warning that it should not continue. The only penalties beyond the letter itself that can be imposed are removal of any benefit earned as a direct result of the offense itself. If a member submits an biography that contains generative AI sourced content to an academy course, then the member could be issued a letter of reprimand and have that course credit removed from their dossier. That member could not, however, have any additional punishments imposed beyond that such as probation, demotion, etc. Importantly, this reprimand would be issued to the member via the sitting JAG while not being a publicly posted action. The record of the reprimand would be contained within the JAG files and could factor in to future JAG proceedings if the member commits related offenses again, but it would not be posted for general member or staff review. Given that the penalties that can be issued along with the reprimand are exceedingly limited, it was decided in these cases that the member’s right to not be publicly called out for these actions outweighed the need for strict transparency.
In closing, I do want to stress that the goal of this policy is not to find a new way to punish the membership as I feel that creating new paths to find offenses just leads to the JAG “finding” more offenders. The goal here is to allow JAG a far more measured response to certain issues (the most common of which is AI usage) that does not force our hand to publicly shame the membership to correct credit or reward that should not have been earned. Additionally, we also wanted to ensure that we aren’t hanging a scarlet letter on members for time likely measured in years if not forever. JAG isn’t a puritan body, and the membership should not be treated as Hester Prynne. As the prior version of the Letter of Reprimand has been made null and void by this change, additionally all prior issued Letters of Reprimand that have resulted from the JAG process have been removed from the dossiers of those issued with them, and the JAG record has been updated that said penalties are voided per vote BFC-0079.
