The former HRC Code of Conduct
How the 2025 Hampshire Roleplay Community conduct framework is treated under the present constitutional settlement.
It was a community conduct framework covering general, Discord and Roblox conduct and was administered through HRC community-management, moderation, safeguarding, activity and justice-labelled bodies. It is preserved as historical evidence and extraction material, not as predecessor state legislation or case law.
How the earlier arrangements developed
2016 to 2019 — centralised community administration
Hampshire Administration and the Senior Leadership Team were the principal decision-making arrangements. A limited elected County Council was attempted, but it was not a stable legislative institution and was vacant for much of the period.
2019 to 2020 — Hampshire County Council management arrangement
A restructuring moved some responsibilities to a body called Hampshire County Council, while the Senior Leadership Team continued to make executive decisions. Contemporary historical reconstruction describes that HCC as closer to a management board or an emerging community-government arrangement than a real local authority or legislature.
2024 — moderation and appeals consolidation
The Department for Appeals & Complaints and Department for Community Moderation were genuinely merged into the Department for Community Justice. The Discord Moderation Authority enforced the Code in the main HRC Discord server, while the Community Appeals Office provided an appeals function. That was an administrative moderation and review system, not a court system.
2025 — later governmentalisation
Later overhaul material used increasingly formal Cabinet, Assembly, parliamentary and justice terminology, including an Assembly leadership model. That material records an important phase of attempted governmentalisation, but terminology alone does not establish that the present House of Commons, House of Lords or independent Judiciary were already operating.
September 2025 — transition announced
The Foundations Statement described a future separation of powers and said that United Hampshire Parliament would eventually debate, pass or block laws and scrutinise Ministers. The present Parliament and Judiciary therefore rest on the later United Hampshire constitutional settlement, not on retrospective reclassification of HRC management bodies.
Functional classification
The old Code combined matters that now belong to different legal and administrative systems. The classification below records the proper destination of the principal provision families; it does not revive the old wording or penalties.
| Former provision family | Actual function | Present treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Code scope and HRC enforcement structure | Historic community administration | Archive as evidence of HRC practice. It does not confer current legislative, judicial, policing or ministerial authority. |
| General expectations of respect and courtesy | Conduct, safeguarding and professional standards | Use the relevant safeguarding, equality, employment, public-service or participation route. Do not create a general criminal prohibition merely because the Code required courteous behaviour. |
| Harassment and threatening or abusive conduct | Law where legal elements are met; safeguarding otherwise | Use the applicable criminal or public-order law and justice route where legal elements are met. Protective and safeguarding action remains distinct from criminal liability. |
| False reports or false information given to moderators | Administrative conduct; law only where a legal offence exists | The former moderator-specific rule is not retained as a general offence. False reports to police, courts or public authorities are dealt with under the law and procedure applicable to that act. |
| Slander and defamation | Civil law, with separate criminal-law questions where other conduct is involved | Defamation is not converted into a generic violation. Harassment, threats or malicious communications are assessed under their own legal tests. |
| The former catch-all public nuisance rule | Do not retain as a catch-all | Any present public nuisance liability must come from applicable law with defined elements and safeguards, not from a broad community-behaviour clause. |
| Discord-only conduct rules | Platform participation and safeguarding | Ordinary channel, media, spam, discussion and participation controls belong in platform participation conditions or local administrative rules. Unlawful conduct remains governed by law. |
| Roblox shift, scenario and realism rules | Recreation and activity administration | Shift conduct, scenario rules and roleplay realism belong to the competent recreation or activity service and its operating rules, not the statute book. |
| Blacklists, citizenship suspension, entry restrictions and permanent bans | Membership, immigration and public law | A current restriction affecting membership, entry, residence, exclusion or a comparable public status requires the proper legal authority, reasons and review route. The old Code cannot itself authorise it. |
| Sabotage of HRC assets or documents | Law, information governance, civil remedies or staff discipline according to the act | Interference with systems, records or public assets is classified according to the actual conduct and applicable law. Staff misconduct is dealt with through the appropriate professional or disciplinary route. |
| Senior Team authority and Senior Team conduct | Historic management; current public-service standards where relevant | The former hierarchy is archived. Current Ministers, civil servants, office-holders and public employees derive authority from their office and are governed by the standards and disciplinary arrangements applicable to that office. |
| Moderator instructions to delete messages, apologise or comply | Platform or activity administration; lawful official directions only where separately authorised | A moderator instruction is not converted into a general legal command. Current public authorities may issue compulsory directions only where law gives them that power. |
| HRC chain of command and support-ticket routing | Historic administration | Replace with the actual current institutional structure, departmental responsibilities, public-service contacts and complaints routes. |
| Personal and sensitive information provisions | Data protection, privacy, records and safeguarding | Privacy and personal-data handling are governed by the applicable information law and institutional procedures. Safeguarding concerns use the safeguarding route. |
| Complaints about Senior Team members | Complaints, standards, ombudsman, tribunal or court route according to the decision | The former generic complaint route is not a court. Current challenge routes depend on the office, decision and legal framework involved. |
| References to other HRC codes, regulations and policies | No automatic carry-over | Each former instrument is assessed on its own function and current authority. A cross-reference in the 2025 Code does not make the underlying instrument current law. |
Retirement rule
A former provision can be retired from active reliance only when any necessary current law, procedure, participation condition, safeguarding arrangement, professional standard or review route is in place. Matters that no longer require regulation are archived rather than re-enacted.
What this means for Parliament
Only provisions requiring legal force enter the legislative process, and then only in the correct subject-matter legislation. Parliament does not convert etiquette, platform rules, shift administration or old HRC management hierarchy into Acts merely because they appeared in a document called a Code.