Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 15, 2020, 01:35:34 PM(and, honestly, the less words you use the better; just to prove how silly this particular rule is thus giving us more of a reason to scrap the rule).
This seems like broosking to me...
Does the Interior Ministry notify prospectives of this requirement? If not, it should be no surprise that it is never met until the last minute, because immigrants do not know to be thinking about it.
You seem to have a very, very different definition of broosking than the rest of us then. No political party recruitment happening or implied in anything I suggested above.
And, no, the Ministry hasn't actually notified any prospectives of this. If you could point me to the clause in the Witt is not Talossa Act or anywhere else in Lex.E where that requirement is placed on the Ministry then I'll be sure to change policy. I've always seen the requirements of that Act as falling more on the Chancery's side of immigration than on Interior's. Also, I don't see why the onus should be on the incoming applicant to seek a non-Witt conversation though. Plenty of existing citizens who could do something about it...
Take it round the back of the barn...
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 15, 2020, 05:02:17 PM
You seem to have a very, very different definition of broosking than the rest of us then. No political party recruitment happening or implied in anything I suggested above.
To quote directly from the wiki page about it:
Quote
To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, is considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon.
To speak to a prospective citizen in a way that would make them tend to support a bill that is explicitly mentioned in a coalition agreement that favors the party involved clearly meets this criterion.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 20, 2020, 11:42:06 AM
To quote directly from the wiki page about it:
Just because it's on the wiki doesn't make it real or accurate. In fact, that particular definition was written precisely by the members of one political party, if you'll check it out - it was certainly never a pre-National Schism idea. KR1 used to make up words for things to port his own personal prejudices/political vendettas into Talossan culture; this is a modern version.
Of course prospectives should not be
recruited to political parties while they're still in, or fresh out of, the immigration pipeline; but it's "false advertising" to shield them from our politics. Imagine if there were a law that it was illegal to discuss US politics with new immigrants to that country.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 20, 2020, 11:42:06 AM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 15, 2020, 05:02:17 PM
You seem to have a very, very different definition of broosking than the rest of us then. No political party recruitment happening or implied in anything I suggested above.
To quote directly from the wiki page about it:
Quote
To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, is considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon.
To speak to a prospective citizen in a way that would make them tend to support a bill that is explicitly mentioned in a coalition agreement that favors the party involved clearly meets this criterion.
Yeah. That particular definition was made up by a RUMP member one time, and the rest of the party bought it because it suited their agenda. Just because the same member that came up with that definition then wrote it into the Wiki doesn't actually make it so.
I'm completely fine with talking politics with prospectives, including sharing my opinion on particular Bills.
Broosking is the active recruiting of prospectives by political parties. Nothing more.
Fair enough, but it can't be that I'm the only one with who has based their understanding of broosking on that article. It's been around for years, it's public knowledge that it is there, and no one had complained before now that the definition there is partisan.
The existing definition has always been how I thought it was commonly understood. The basic idea was that it was wrong to recruit potential immigrants into a political party, either by discussion of party platforms or outright promotion. If the biggest political party decides that only the latter is wrong to do, then the norm is defined down accordingly. It's not like anyone can stop them. That's the thing about norms... they're not laws. A lot of people have thought it was important to keep political influence as far away from the immigration process as possible, but we have freedom of speech, so no one could ever make it illegal. If someone wants to chat with prospectives about a referendum on the monarchy or a Real Cosa possibility, then no one can stop them, really, even if that sort of thing starts to influence the immigration process.
It's actually kind of fascinating how fragile the stuff is. I mean, this conversation is probably basically it on the matter... the whole event. One politician suggests to another that they are coming close to violating a norm, the other politician replies that they have a different definition, and that's that. Sometimes in other circumstances, the politician will declare that they have no choice because everyone was going to do it anyway or that the other person's reaction is forcing them into it. In the United States, it's happened a lot in the Senate, particularly, over the last 40 years.
Specifically, I was thinking about the Supreme Court nomination process. There used to be a norm that the Senate would not reject a nominee on the basis of their ideology, but when Robert Bork was nominated, Democrats in the Senate rejected him for what were thought to be ideological reasons. And then more recently, the current Republican majority in the Senate outright refused to hold hearings for a nominee by President Obama, observing that the letter of the law didn't require them to do so. The whole thing is fascinating.
sorry for contributing to the derail, by the way, but watching stuff like this happen close up is one of the most interesting things about Talossa for me
This discussion was distracting from the thread's stated purpose so I moved it.
Thanks,
Dr. Nordselva
In any case, this affirms my belief that the incoming Government should get many more people contributing to the Wiki, because it's too easy to be "gamed" by one or more determined editors with an axe to grind.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on August 20, 2020, 06:18:46 PM
This discussion was distracting from the thread's stated purpose so I moved it.
Thanks,
Dr. Nordselva
Out of curiosity, what statute or rule gives you this ability, by the way? Not trying to be combative, but just surprised.
First off it was an immigration thread and second the SoS is the administrator of Witt. You all were burying the immigration portion with your ceaseless fighting.
I don't doubt it all that you thought it should be moved, I'm just asking for the rule or statute that gives you the power to do that. I had not thought we set things up so that the Secretary of State would be proctoring discussions like that. If you do indeed have that arbitrary power, then I'm going to contact my representatives to ask them to change that.
Do whatever makes you happy Sir AD. I'm on a phone at the moment so I can't look things up. It's also possible I erred in my understanding but I think we can all agree someone needed to get that thread back in track. So many complain about the slow pace of immigration and I felt the immigrant deserved to be heard just in case an actual petition was made for him.
I'm not talking specific to this thread, since I agree that it's good for the discussion to have been moved here. And there's no rush, either, if you're on your phone. But this is kind of a big deal and a surprise. I know that your predecessor had this power on the last forum, but I also thought we specifically set things up otherwise on this one. I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking. Please let me know whenever you get a chance.
Based on my reading from El Lex J, I believe I do have the authority to maintain things in a proper fashion based on my judgement.
QuoteThe Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary. This behavior is not defined in specifics, but shall include generally treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community. (53RZ17)
I'd be happy to engage in a substantive discussion on the interpretation of acceptable behavior but in my judgement I believed that it was not acceptable behavior to derail a thread on immigration with a long argument over what constituted broosking. I also feel moving the discussion helped respect Talossa and treating our potential new citizen with respect.
Based on my reading of that, you must be requested to take action by whoever is in charge of that particular board. That would seem to be the meaning of the second clause. that would also be in keeping of my understanding, which is that each board is generally governed by whatever the local authorities would be. They would set the rules and expectations, and if someone was breaking them and ignoring warnings, then they would request for you to take action. So, for example, the Ziu might make rules about who is allowed to speak in their chambers and when, and a person who violated those rules might have their posts removed by you after the Mencei or whoever requested it.
Like I said, I could have erred. I am new to the job after all.
I mean, these rules were written when the biggest concern of a lot of people, including our illustrious leader, was that the king was going to abuse his power in some way by arbitrarily policing discussions based on whatever he thought was appropriate. There was a lot of hullabaloo over that, as you might remember. So this scheme was intended to find a balance between the practical constraints of moderating a message board and the need for some minor check on the extremely expansive power that gives someone. After all, if you're free to shuffle individual posts or people out of a discussion, you can really control that discussion very effectively, which can be pretty dangerous to a democracy.
Just to further emphasize that I'm not disputing anything about this particular thread or discussion, since as I already said I thought it was a derail, but this is a pretty big deal in abstract terms.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this without seeing it as some sort of personal attack, by the way. It's not intended that way. We're just talking about a huge amount of power.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/032/676/Unlimited_Power_Banner.jpg)
Just joking of course.
Interestingly, the law doesn't cover what should happen when a sub-forum official is involved in the posts that need enforcement. In this particular case, the immigration official (myself) was part of the discussion that the Chancery saw as problematic. We shouldn't actually be debating about limiting the Chancery powers here, rather we should be adding to the law to strengthen its powers. The Chancery's actions here were entirely correct, while the immigration official was at fault. We should amend the law to reflect the exact actions that just took place.
Something like, "Whenever an official or moderator of a sub-forum is part of a breach of forum etiquette and fails to moderate said breach and fails to report said breach to the Chancery, then the Chancery may step in to moderate and enforce as necessary'.
And, thanks to the Chancery for stepping in and nipping it in the bud. It was likely that we would have went round in circles and made that immigration thread toxic without intervention. Thank you.
The attempts to undermine the new SoS something like two weeks into his term are repulsive. But that's always been AD's style, I suppose - if you're annoyed, find someone to accuse of improper use of power/corruption just to put them on the defensive. I say, bring back the Thunderdome.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Wittenberg is owned and operated by the Chancery and the SoS is the boss of the Chancery. The SoS thus has the same kind of authority over Wittenberg as I have in my cabinet roles: except in the special situation of the Ziu boards, he is the boss and any moderators under him act with delegated authority. AD's suggestion would mean that there was a kind of "federal system" when moderators of sub-boards became the boss (appointed by whom?) Of course, an unregulated and unregulateable Witt if your preference is to be able to "filibuster", derail threads at your whim to prevent free discussion and state functions, etc.
If you don't like it, start up your own private Talossan DG, with blackjack, and hookers. Talossa is not Wittenberg, right?
Honestly, as that particular line of law that the SoS has quoted is a bit unclear in the middle, where
Quotewhen such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary
is stated, honestly with how it reads and how the start of the relevant section states
QuoteThe Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior
It is not unreasonable to assume that the SoS does have the power to act without the individual in charge of that boards say so. The unclear part is whether the action is only able to be taken by someones requesting it first, or if the SoS can also act when they, in their judgement, is able to act without such request. And due to the unclear, and awkward phrasing here, i find it difficult to tell, as it does feel that the part referecing a request needs to be re written to become clearer. But due to the way the law is structured, i would argue that the SoS does have the power to act in this matter. And acknowlege this section should probably be amended to be clearer in its intentions.
Also i would point out something that i feel should be pointed out, whilst i do agree this power is a much needed power, i do think it might be prudent that all such actions, for sake of record keeping, incase of any possible action over any possble actions from the SoS, in order to safeguard the SoS, and those involved, be recorded and kept in records for a set time (tbd) (not public, and only accessed by request if it is needed) of the state of a thread both before and after any actions taken and the SoS's justification for the change. Unless such a requirement is already in place? (which im not sure there is) It would involve a bit more work for the SoS, however it does seem like a prudent requirement in such situations.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 23, 2020, 01:13:23 PM
Interestingly, the law doesn't cover what should happen when a sub-forum official is involved in the posts that need enforcement. In this particular case, the immigration official (myself) was part of the discussion that the Chancery saw as problematic. We shouldn't actually be debating about limiting the Chancery powers here, rather we should be adding to the law to strengthen its powers. The Chancery's actions here were entirely correct, while the immigration official was at fault. We should amend the law to reflect the exact actions that just took place.
Something like, "Whenever an official or moderator of a sub-forum is part of a breach of forum etiquette and fails to moderate said breach and fails to report said breach to the Chancery, then the Chancery may step in to moderate and enforce as necessary'.
I thought of that originally, but the problem is that this makes the Chancery incredibly powerful, because it gives them veto authority over the speech and behavior of everyone in every institution. In this instance, for example, maybe you could have thought that it was appropriate to expose a citizen to some real-life heated discussion -- or at least, maybe you could have thought it was wrong for the Chancery to decide you weren't allowed to say those things. The institution of the Chancery isn't set up for that level of power, which would put the office on the level of the Seneschal. Indeed, arguably it would make the Secretary even more powerful than the Seneschal, since even the Seneschal needs co-signing from the king to pass a law. The Secretary would unilaterally be able to arbitrate everyone's speech everywhere on Witt. There are very deep concerns there, as one of our current CpI justices has pointed out.
The issue is a balance between practical necessity (there has to be moderation and it might need to be timely) and freedom of speech (no one should be able to decide who gets to say what). We definitely shouldn't be giving even more power to the Chancery.
To illustrate: just imagine someone you really dislike were the Secretary of State. How much power should they have to decide what you get to say and when?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 23, 2020, 02:39:36 PM
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Wittenberg is owned and operated by the Chancery and the SoS is the boss of the Chancery. The SoS thus has the same kind of authority over Wittenberg as I have in my cabinet roles: except in the special situation of the Ziu boards, he is the boss and any moderators under him act with delegated authority.
We are a nation of laws, and so we don't look to you to decide this. We look to what the law says.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 23, 2020, 02:39:36 PMAD's suggestion would mean that there was a kind of "federal system" when moderators of sub-boards became the boss (appointed by whom?)
You realize you explicitly voted for this and commented approvingly on this system when we laid it out, right?
But again, how would you feel if I were Secretary of State and got to decide which of your posts were acceptable and which were off-topic? Think in those terms. Would you be happy if I got to move or remove or edit your speech based exclusively on my whims? If this power is only safe in the hands of your buddies, then it's not a fit power for anyone.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on August 23, 2020, 03:06:13 PM
It is not unreasonable to assume that the SoS does have the power to act without the individual in charge of that boards say so. The unclear part is whether the action is only able to be taken by someones requesting it first, or if the SoS can also act when they, in their judgement, is able to act without such request. And due to the unclear, and awkward phrasing here, i find it difficult to tell, as it does feel that the part referecing a request needs to be re written to become clearer. But due to the way the law is structured, i would argue that the SoS does have the power to act in this matter. And acknowlege this section should probably be amended to be clearer in its intentions.
I disagree, since if the Secretary of State can censor speech at whim, then there's no conceivable way to interpret the second clause of the law. There is a specific condition placed on the exercise of the power: "when such action is requested," with the further condition that "in their judgment" intervention is warranted. What's the point of "when... requested" if it can be done when not requested, too? Legal language should be interpreted in the way that's most obvious. I will cede that it is ambiguous and should be clarified, though.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on August 23, 2020, 03:06:13 PM
Also i would point out something that i feel should be pointed out, whilst i do agree this power is a much needed power, i do think it might be prudent that all such actions, for sake of record keeping, incase of any possible action over any possble actions from the SoS, in order to safeguard the SoS, and those involved, be recorded and kept in records for a set time (tbd) (not public, and only accessed by request if it is needed) of the state of a thread both before and after any actions taken and the SoS's justification for the change. Unless such a requirement is already in place? (which im not sure there is) It would involve a bit more work for the SoS, however it does seem like a prudent requirement in such situations.
It is insane to me that anyone thinks it's a good idea to give the Chancery censorial power at whim over all of Wittenberg, so it shouldn't even come to this, I'd hope.
Kind of astonished at how this conversation has taken a turn. There are people who actually advocate that the law basically read like this:
"The Secretary of State shall administer Wittenberg. They will have unilateral and unchecked authority to determine what speech is acceptable in any given instance, and move, edit, or remove speech as they deem necessary."
That's insane!
QuoteBut again, how would you feel if I were Secretary of State and got to decide which of your posts were acceptable and which were off-topic
Why, I would have no problem with that at all. I may not be your best friend but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't declare posts off-topic and move them to random places out of partisan spite. You might
delete them on some bogus reason, but moving them from one forum to another is pretty weak-sauce oppression.
The Chancery runs Wittenberg; the SoS runs the Chancery; thus, the SoS runs Wittenberg. There is a
very important reason why Witt is run by a non-political civil servant, rather than by the Government or by private enterprise. If the SoS were to start being a jerk, the King and the Government can hold him to account. I consider this a fine system without flaws.
The kernel of truth in this manure pile of attention-seeking is that it would probably behoove the incoming SoS to promulgate a new system of
Wittiquette so that everyone knows the rules. That said, he has other things to do right now, so I trust his judgement up until then. As to the crack about "my buddies", you will notice that I had exactly the same opinion of the previous SoS, who was no political ally of mine.
If you don't like it, I remind you that
Talossa is not Wittenberg. Like those American Rightists convinced that Twitter is out to get them, who move to Gab or Parler. There were "alternative" Talossan DGs in the early years of Witt, except KR1 shut them down.
QuoteWe are a nation of laws, and so we don't look to you to decide this. We look to what the law says.
Which is the job of the CpI to determine. Looking forward to you getting a prosecution in before you get elevated to the Bench!
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 23, 2020, 04:50:33 PM
QuoteBut again, how would you feel if I were Secretary of State and got to decide which of your posts were acceptable and which were off-topic
Why, I would have no problem with that at all. I may not be your best friend but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't declare posts off-topic and move them to random places out of partisan spite. You might delete them on some bogus reason, but moving them from one forum to another is pretty weak-sauce oppression.
The Chancery runs Wittenberg; the SoS runs the Chancery; thus, the SoS runs Wittenberg. There is a very important reason why Witt is run by a non-political civil servant, rather than by the Government or by private enterprise. If the SoS were to start being a jerk, the King and the Government can hold him to account. I consider this a fine system without flaws.
The kernel of truth in this manure pile of attention-seeking is that it would probably behoove the incoming SoS to promulgate a new system of Wittiquette so that everyone knows the rules. That said, he has other things to do right now, so I trust his judgement up until then. As to the crack about "my buddies", you will notice that I had exactly the same opinion of the previous SoS, who was no political ally of mine.
If you don't like it, I remind you that Talossa is not Wittenberg. Like those American Rightists convinced that Twitter is out to get them, who move to Gab or Parler. There were "alternative" Talossan DGs in the early years of Witt, except KR1 shut them down.
QuoteWe are a nation of laws, and so we don't look to you to decide this. We look to what the law says.
Which is the job of the CpI to determine. Looking forward to you getting a prosecution in before you get elevated to the Bench!
It rather goes right to my point that you had to think about and estimate my character and whether or not I would abuse this incredibly huge power or not! No one should be in that position.
Government officials shouldn't try to get away with whatever they can until they get sued. They should read the law and follow it. Lawsuits should only seldom be necessary to try to force our elected and appointed officials to follow the law.
Notice how Txec and I were actually chatting like human beings about this, until a little bit ago? He is making a good faith effort to try to follow the law, not saying that he'll do what he thinks best unless he's sued.
Again, I just have a hard time believing this... D:na Miestra, you are the opinion of the Chancery should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg? You thought about it, considered possible problems that might result, and decided that this was the best and safest thing for our country?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 23, 2020, 05:47:43 PM
you are the opinion of the Chancery should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg?
Not on the Ziu boards, where the Túischac'h and Mençéi must have final say. But yes, in general. There must be moderation on Wittenberg; and that moderation should not be in the hands of the Government, the King or a private individual, but in the hands of a non-political civil servant, and the SoS does the job. If the SoS does the job badly, the SoS may be called to account or even sacked by the Government and the King. Power combined with responsibility combined with checks and balances.
Talossa is not Wittenberg. If you don't like the SoS's calls and you can't get support for your proposed alternatives, get your Beaver legislators to change the law, which the Free Democrats will oppose. Or start your own DG with Freeze Peach.
Let the record show that you're soiling your britches about
a general political debate being moved out of an immigration thread into our main public debate thread, something that no sensible person could oppose on its merits. Probably because you realised how badly you'd been owned (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ET-u6epWkAAJM08.jpg) re: the History Project and you wanted to start a fight somewhere else. :D
Also, I know how you work, AD - you pour your poison in people's ears, and when you get called out you say something like we were just chatting!!!. It's transparent, like when my daughter hides under a blanket and yells YOU CAN'T SEE ME.
Long story short I believe I acted appropriately. I carefully considered the action and consulted the law as currently written and based on my own understanding as a Justice Emeritus. I am nearly always polite and thoughtful but it should be noted that I will always act in good faith and based on the law. If my interpretation of the law is wrong I'm open to discussion and if needs be legal interpretation.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 23, 2020, 06:12:47 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 23, 2020, 05:47:43 PM
you are the opinion of the Chancery should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg?
Not on the Ziu boards, where the Túischac'h and Mençéi must have final say. But yes, in general. There must be moderation on Wittenberg; and that moderation should not be in the hands of the Government, the King or a private individual, but in the hands of a non-political civil servant, and the SoS does the job. If the SoS does the job badly, the SoS may be called to account or even sacked by the Government and the King. Power combined with responsibility combined with checks and balances.
So the SoS wouldn't get to overrule the Ziu, but they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments), the board for the College of Arms (rather than the King/Queen of Arms), the College (not the president there), and so on? Can you point to anything in the law that actually says this power exists in this way?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 23, 2020, 06:12:47 PM
Let the record show that you're soiling your britches about a general political debate being moved out of an immigration thread into our main public debate thread, something that no sensible person could oppose on its merits.
I have repeatedly and emphatically said that this has nothing to do with this particular incident, but rather the very surprising fact that the SoS was asserting this power. It's better to sort these things out at first light, rather than establish a precedent that the SoS may censor at will.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 23, 2020, 06:16:12 PM
Also, I know how you work, AD - you pour your poison in people's ears, and when you get called out you say something like we were just chatting!!!. It's transparent, like when my daughter hides under a blanket and yells YOU CAN'T SEE ME.
I couldn't figure out why you were so eager to be gratuitously insulting, either here or in the dispute over my writing, until I realized that you'd simply prefer not to talk about the actual merits of the discussion at hand. As the saying goes, "pound the table." Your very example here was what helped me. Thank you.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on August 23, 2020, 06:32:37 PM
Long story short I believe I acted appropriately. I carefully considered the action and consulted the law as currently written and based on my own understanding as a Justice Emeritus. I am nearly always polite and thoughtful but it should be noted that I will always act in good faith and based on the law. If my interpretation of the law is wrong I'm open to discussion and if needs be legal interpretation.
Thank you! Once again, I appreciate the fact that you're so aware of your responsibilities here. From when I first brought this up, you have been thoughtful and polite in discussing it.
As I pointed out, this power is said to be exercised "when requested." Can you explain your reasoning here when it comes to that clause's operation as a conditional statement? To me, it suggests that the Chancery can act only when the person in charge of a board requests it, since otherwise it doesn't make any sense to me simply in terms of parsing as English.
AD I don't have time right now to delve into my thinking here but please don't mistake my politeness with agreeing with your legal interpretation. I acted appropriately based on my understanding. You believe the power could be a danger. Others chimed in. We had a nice conversation. I propose that if you don't like this authority then change the law or get a legal ruling if necessary. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening .
Thanks
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on August 23, 2020, 08:47:36 PM
AD I don't have time right now to delve into my thinking here but please don't mistake my politeness with agreeing with your legal interpretation. I acted appropriately based on my understanding. You believe the power could be a danger. Others chimed in. We had a nice conversation. I propose that if you don't like this authority then change the law or get a legal ruling if necessary. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening .
Thanks
I was hoping to actually hear your explanation of your thinking, because maybe you're right and I'm wrong. It looks to me like the plain letter of the law, but at least one reasonable person in this discussion has already agreed with you, so I might just be mistaken. But you seem to be saying you refuse to explain yourself further, and my only recourse is to sue you or something? You're claiming the power to move or censor any post unilaterally on the official state message board... that's rather a big claim to authority.
I hope maybe tomorrow you will be willing to engage further and explain a bit more to me about your thinking? There's no emergency about this, so I definitely wasn't insisting on further discussion right this second or anything, if you somehow got that impression.
Nope it is because it is Sunday night and I have to teach tomorrow but then I really also frankly need to refocus on more important stuff right now.
Read into what I've said or whatever else you like.
Thanks
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 23, 2020, 04:48:43 PM
Kind of astonished at how this conversation has taken a turn. There are people who actually advocate that the law basically read like this:
"The Secretary of State shall administer Wittenberg. They will have unilateral and unchecked authority to determine what speech is acceptable in any given instance, and move, edit, or remove speech as they deem necessary."
That's insane!
...
QuoteThat's insane!
In your opinion.
What say the alternative? I mean, somebody needs to have this power, right?
Cool, so you think it's insane that the Chancery has that power. Even though you were totally cool with John Woolley (King John, but in his private capacity as a private person) having that same power? Whatever...
If not the SoS, who is subject to (wait for it, it's one of your favourites) checks and balances, then who?
If not the SoS, who can be replaced for malfeasance (unlike the private owner of the previous Wittenberg), then who?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 23, 2020, 05:47:43 PM
Again, I just have a hard time believing this... D:na Miestra, you are the opinion of the Chancery should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg? You thought about it, considered possible problems that might result, and decided that this was the best and safest thing for our country?
Let's rewind a couple of years.
Sir AD, you were the opinion that the King, in his private capacity, should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg? You thought about it, considered possible problems that might result, and decided that this was the best and safest thing for our country?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 23, 2020, 08:26:24 PM
So the SoS wouldn't get to overrule the Ziu, but they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments), the board for the College of Arms (rather than the King/Queen of Arms), the College (not the president there), and so on? Can you point to anything in the law that actually says this power exists in this way?
I can point that out, I think.
First, lets's look at what the law of this nation of laws actually says. The law actually says that NewWitt should only be hosting provincial sub-forums for the "provinces that so request" (Lex.J.1). I won't bother going into the nitty-gritty on this, seeing as exactly zero provinces have ever officially made such a request, therefore Wittenberg should not actually be currently hosting any provincial sub-forum at all (but if you really want this nation of laws to follow the law down to the last comma then you know how to file a suit (not sure who you would sue though, since the guy that created all the NewWitt provincial sub-forums isn't a citizen any more, but
(expletive removed) rock on, law dude).
Anyway, the very fact that El Lex has that phrase ("provinces that so request") indicates that it is not mandatory for provinces to even have a sub-board on NewWitt. So, to what you assert ("they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments")... Yes. If a province is supposed to legally request the Chancery host a forum board for them, then yes, the province should yield any say in how that sub-forum operates. If the province doesn't like that, then the province is free to
not make a request for a forum to be hosted on Witt and can go set up it's own methods of communication. Further, if something as important as a province gets this level of treatment then you can be sure that something like the College of Arms can be treated in law in the same way. Don't agree? Court.
Quote
I have repeatedly and emphatically said that this has nothing to do with this particular incident, but rather the very surprising fact that the SoS was asserting this power. It's better to sort these things out at first light, rather than establish a precedent that the SoS may censor at will.
Your entire argument against the Chancery, here, is the exact opposite of what you have argued in the past while in defence of King John as a private individual having the exact same powers over OldWitt on Proboards. You once argued that it was 100% legit and cool for John to moderate Witt and enforce Wittiquette as he saw fit without oversight from anybody. Now that we are in a position where the SoS has Witt control, while the SoS is subject to impeachment and removal from office and is subject to scrutiny and oversight, you're crying blue bloody murder?
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU ARE CONSTANTLY ACCUSED OF ARGUING IN BAD FAITH.
You know what.
(expletive removed) the government's code of conduct.
Apologies to my (possibly ex) cabinet colleagues.
I'm willing to take the chop for this.
AD, You don't even realise that the only reason we have pandered to your
(expletive removed) nonsense for this long is only because we feel the need to keep highlighting your
(expletive removed) to new citizens, visitors and those yet to learn all about you for what you actually are; that you're nothing more than just a narcissistic and vainglorious
(expletive removed) determined to "win at Talossa" by arguing that black is white just because the other side said the other. How many arguments have you started in the past week? The past month? You're
(expletive removed) relentless. You start some
(expletive removed) somewhere and as soon as you are called out on it you scream that you're the victim, when in reality you are nothing but a troll that got the result you set out to get: attention.
Unequivocally, Just
(expletive removed) off, you absolute weapon.
I am so sick and tired of coming online to do some Talossa stuff only to be distracted by your
(expletive removed) (expletive removed). Are you not tired of it? Would you not rather just
(expletive removed) off to your own little corner and work on your own little bit of something to contribute to what we are all trying to achieve here? Over and over and over, when you could be just working on your history book or whatever project you intended on getting into when you 'politically retired' or just away pulling on your todger, you keep coming back, every five
(expletive removed) minutes to pick ... No,
(expletive removed) it. I'm done. I'm not doing this again and again. I really hope you enjoy being king of the ashes., because that's where it's headed.
(expletive removed) bellend.
And all this only touches on your most recent behaviour. I've not even went near (oh, but I'm
(expletive removed) about to) your bullshit with V that skirted round the edges of homophobia (not to mention how you frequently 'innocently and unintentionally' drop transphobic and mentally-challenged buzzwords buried within walls of seemingly innocuous text). But, all that doesn't really explain my own personal problem with you. I mean, yeah, I ignored all that stuff. I'll live with that guilt. But for the benefit of anyone wondering when I, personally, switched against you? Well, it started at some point around 2016. It wasn't a boolean on/off thing; that's just roughly when I started to see patterns. Patterns in how you would manipulate your own party members. Hey, I don't even know if you did it to all party members, but you did it with me. How you would feed me
(expletive removed) sandwiches. But, that's cool, that's just management, right? How about when you would try playing my emotions by using my past against me? When you would play the role of my greatest recovery cheerleader then play the role of a disappointed father figure to manipulate my feelings to guide my actions? When you would try filling my head with self-doubt about my own abilities? You are nothing but a total piece of
(expletive removed).
LOL, and then that time you (and Cresti, btw) convinced us all to follow the party lead in defending that other piece of
(expletive removed), BenArd, during his impeachment for being a raging hard-on of a bigot while in office. Wow! You actually got me to vote against my conscience on that one (52RZ6).
How many ex-Rumpers have opened their eyes to you now? Myself, Nordselva, Tim, Viteu... ?
The RUMP party has completely collapsed.
You are now running around without any
(expletive removed) allies.
And you still won't change the record.
??????
What the
(expletive removed) is actually wrong with you?
Is this just how it looks when a control freak loses control?
Explain it.
Know what.
Doesn't even matter.
You won't even see what I am saying here as legit.
You won't even recognise any of this as valid.
You'll somehow still manage to play the sweet wordsmith and colour me the bully.
I don't even care.
Just,
(expletive removed) you, Alex.
Just,
(expletive removed) you and
(expletive removed) off.
I'll happily take my Witt suspension now, S:r SoS (if Alex allows it). It was
(expletive removed) worth it.
Edit...
Expletives removed. I've calmed down and it's not fair on visitors to be forced to read that kind of language. Content and substance stands unedited.
Is this discussion even about broosking anymore?
You guys have managed to derail a derailed conversation. Meta!
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 23, 2020, 04:48:43 PM
Kind of astonished at how this conversation has taken a turn. There are people who actually advocate that the law basically read like this:
"The Secretary of State shall administer Wittenberg. They will have unilateral and unchecked authority to determine what speech is acceptable in any given instance, and move, edit, or remove speech as they deem necessary."
That's insane!
What say the alternative? I mean, somebody needs to have this power, right?
Cool, so you think it's insane that the Chancery has that power. Even though you were totally cool with John Woolley (King John, but in his private capacity as a private person) having that same power? Whatever...
If not the SoS, who is subject to (wait for it, it's one of your favourites) checks and balances, then who?
If not the SoS, who can be replaced for malfeasance (unlike the private owner of the previous Wittenberg), then who?
...what the law says? That the SoS acts upon request from whoever is in charge of that particular board? For example, the Chancery shouldn't be policing debate in the Senats. The Mencei should request action from them. That's what the law says, as best I can tell.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 06:53:40 AM
Sir AD, you were the opinion that the King, in his private capacity, should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg? You thought about it, considered possible problems that might result, and decided that this was the best and safest thing for our country?
...no? I wasn't okay with it. That's why I wrote the law that created Telecomuna, so our Wittenberg would be administered by elected and appointed officials.
For years, I was of the opinion that the king was doing a fine job and it would be illegal to just seize Witt, but that we should have a setup that had more legitimacy. Not everyone in the RUMP agreed with it, but I thought it was the best thing. Here's the law: http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Decoupling_the_Public_and_Private_Witts_Act
I also wrote the extension to try to make it work later when the Chancery needed more time to get things set up:
http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Trying_Again_on_Telecomuna_Act
You voted for these bills.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 06:54:09 AM
The law actually says that NewWitt should only be hosting provincial sub-forums for the "provinces that so request" (Lex.J.1). I won't bother going into the nitty-gritty on this, seeing as exactly zero provinces have ever officially made such a request, therefore Wittenberg should not actually be currently hosting any provincial sub-forum at all (but if you really want this nation of laws to follow the law down to the last comma then you know how to file a suit (not sure who you would sue though, since the guy that created all the NewWitt provincial sub-forums isn't a citizen any more, but fucking rock on, law dude).
You accidentally clipped out the next sentence: "The Secretary of State shall have ultimate discretion in the question of infrastructure, although they are highly advised to take the wishes of officials into account in their decision-making." That was done specifically so that the SoS could set things up as seemed best to them, law dude.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 06:54:09 AMAnyway, the very fact that El Lex has that phrase ("provinces that so request") indicates that it is not mandatory for provinces to even have a sub-board on NewWitt. So, to what you assert ("they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments")... Yes. If a province is supposed to legally request the Chancery host a forum board for them, then yes, the province should yield any say in how that sub-forum operates. If the province doesn't like that, then the province is free to not make a request for a forum to be hosted on Witt and can go set up it's own methods of communication. Further, if something as important as a province gets this level of treatment then you can be sure that something like the College of Arms can be treated in law in the same way.
If I understand your reasoning, you're saying that because the provinces request a service, then therefore that must make them subordinate within that service to the provider. And because the College of Arms is less "important," it must be the same for them. I don't think this reasoning holds. I had to request an email account -- does Google get to say what mail I'm allowed to send? No, of course not.
Plus, the law seems to say otherwise, since it says that, "The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards
when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary." That is different than "The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary." We can't just go with your gut feeling on who is more important.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 06:54:09 AM
Your entire argument against the Chancery, here, is the exact opposite of what you have argued in the past in defence of King John as a private individual having the exact same powers over OldWitt on Proboards. You once argued that it was 100% legit and cool for John to moderate Witt and enforce Wittiquette as he saw fit without oversight from anybody. Now that we are in a position where the SoS has Witt control, where the SoS is subject to impeachment and removal from office and is subject to scrutiny and oversight, you're crying blue bloody murder?
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU ARE CONSTANTLY ACCUSED OF ARGUING IN BAD FAITH.
This whole screed seems a little silly now, doesn't it? I pushed for us to be moved to an official forum starting about seven years ago or so, as I recall, since I was uncomfortable with the status quo.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 06:54:09 AM
You know what.
Fuck the government's code of conduct.
Apologies to my (possibly ex) cabinet colleagues.
I'm willing to take the chop for this.
lol I don't think you need to worry. Only challenging the people in power is against the code of conduct around here, it seems. Also, I think you honestly might be confusing me with someone else in some of your account of misbehavior.
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on August 24, 2020, 06:54:59 AM
Is this discussion even about broosking anymore?
No, I derailed it when I asked when the Secretary of State obtained the power to move or censor posts. I wasn't going to bring up broosking again, because it seems to me that there's a new norm, and there's nothing that can be done about that.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on August 24, 2020, 07:34:24 AM
You guys have managed to derail a derailed conversation. Meta!
The whole thing is weird and tedious at this point. Basically I just wish I'd ignored it and let the Secretary of State wield the new power without anyone noticing. Does it even matter these days?
QuoteOnly challenging the people in power is against the code of conduct around here, it seems.
Except V was dropped from the Cabinet last term for losing the rag with you. So, no. You're talking
(expletive removed) again.
QuoteAlso, I think you honestly might be confusing me with someone else in some of your account of misbehavior.
Turn yer gaslight off. I've got a saved document with all your posts, PMs and emails that show the pattern of behaviour if I ever need it, mate.
Let's just do each other the favour and both got off this train right now. You
(expletive removed) off from me and I'll
(expletive removed) off from you. If you need any information from or have questions for any of my offices just you get in touch with your elected rep and get them to raise a Terp on your behalf. Anything other than that will just get blanked. Deal?
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 08:00:15 AM
QuoteOnly challenging the people in power is against the code of conduct around here, it seems.
Except V was dropped from the Cabinet last term for losing the rag with you. So, no. You're talking shite again.
Luc and Ian P are no longer in the Government.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 24, 2020, 08:00:15 AM
QuoteAlso, I think you honestly might be confusing me with someone else in some of your account of misbehavior.
Turn yer gaslight off. I've got a saved document with all your posts, PMs and emails that show the pattern of behaviour if I ever need it, mate.
Let's just do each other the favour and both got off this train right now. You fuck off from me and I'll fuck off from you. If you need any information from or have questions for any of my offices just you get in touch with your elected rep and get them to raise a Terp on your behalf. Anything other than that will just get blanked. Deal?
I've posted thousands of times, and I know I've said some wrong things in public over the years. The world has changed and so have I since 2006. But as far as I can tell from a quick search based on the two email addresses I have for you, we've only ever exchanged emails outside of public forums a small number of times -- mostly about anodyne stuff, like party platforms or the advertisement you ran in
Beric'ht Talossan. And we've exchanged 25 PMs, also, about similar matters. I mostly say in private the same thing I say in public, as you know. I knew I'd been consistent on the administration of Wittenberg because I've been saying the same things about it for a very long time. (Not to say that I haven't changed views on some things, but this isn't one of them).
C'est la vie -- we've known each other more than a decade and I've posted thousands of times. But it's been quite a while since I started a conversation of any kind with you or addressed you directly out of the blue, and I don't expect that will change. There isn't much point, after all. Still weird to me how the mind works -- I know how you feel, since you're very forceful about it, but I just can't stop thinking of you as a friend. I've thought of you that way just too long as so much stuff has happened in both of our lives, I guess. If you want to formalize your arrangement, this forum has a block function. I am certainly happy to end this conversation.
Well I'm sure I'm going to piss some people off, but this conversation has gotten completely out of hand and in my capacity as Administrator of Witt as the Secretary of State, I am going to enforce a cooling off period by closing this thread for one week. If anyone has any issues with this, they can file a suit with the Uppermost Cort.
Minister Grischun, let this stand as formal warning as per the rules of Wittiquette that abusive language is not to be accepted.
Thanks,
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State