Quote from: Glüc on February 18, 2020, 04:23:37 PM
Well, I think(?) libel is illegal in Talossa as well, so it should probably be a rule regardless. Proving it is obviously quite difficult.

That's an interesting question. Theoretically Talossa inherited Anglo-American libelslander common law, but as I mentioned, the definitions of the two are very different between American and British traditions, and no successful prosecution for libelslander has ever taken place in Talossa. In fact, most of the contents of the official history of our first 25 years as a nation are pure defamation by most people's definition.

Let's put it this way. Would either of the following two events be, in your opinion, libel/slander which could and should be punished in Talossan Cort?

1) A Cabinet minister argues against a Talossan citizen receiving a state grant. Even though the citizen receives that grant, the citizen accuses the Cabinet minister of "corruption and illegitimate bias" for having argued against the grant at all.
2) One Talossan rises to say: "I have no evidence for this, but I'm pretty sure X citizen sent a poison-pen letter to Y citizen's employer, then claimed falsely to have received such a poison-pen letter him/herself, to cover his/her tracks."

Quote"-Libel/slander ONLY when it concerns unsubstantiated claims that potentially have a major effect on someones reputation outside Wittenberg (e.g. such and such is a pedophile or similar). In other cases, wait for the courts first (admins are not fact-checkers)" and no insta-ban, but a potential ban after a warning in these extreme cases (or if court orders are being violated).

The problem with this, as I've indicated, is that the Corts have been historically extremely lax about what you're allowed to say about another Talossan as long as it stays "inside Talossa". Therefore this would, in practice, mean absolutely nothing.

QuoteMaking claims/allegations about Talossans that could be considered libel/slander...
Do not use abusive language. This may include swearing, wishing harm upon or threatening to harm other users...
Don't be a troll or otherwise post in a way that is intended solely to annoy people or infuriate them.

If these rules are actually enforced, New Witt will be 10 times as restrictive as old Witt and people will have to change their ways significantly!

To take them one by one:
- "Libelslander": you know for a fact that much of Talossan political discourse has degenerated into allegations of corruption or other criminal malfeasance on one hand and allegations of severe personality disorders on the other hand. Talossan tradition has taken a very relaxed view to this, acting more in the American tradition than the British Commonwealth tradition - in the US, "public figures" have few protections against libelslander unless you can prove actual malice, which is very hard. No-one has ever been successfully prosecuted for libelslander in Talossa. Are you saying that NewWittiquette will be much stricter than current legal standards?
- "Swearing": we had the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet using the C*** word in the Shoutbox just yesterday, which is considered beyond the pale in most countries which aren't Scotland or Australia (even such rough-and-ready places such as New York or New Zealand would only take it out of the box in extreme necessity). I would prefer my own personal rule, that profane language (anything from bastard on upwards) should be tolerated only when in the Talossan language.
- "Don't be a troll": Actually I entirely approve of this as a standard, but it won't work as a rule without stopping certain citizens from posting altogether. The problem is that good trolling is always plausibly deniable - there is at least one Talossan citizen who has perfected the act of nasty trolling (basically slanderous accusations/nasty personal attacks couched in unobjectionable-seeming language) and then professing innocence ("what did I say?") when people get upset. Another part of the problem is that many of us don't speak English as our first language and might miss some of the subtleties of language which enable really nasty trolling.

This draft Wittiquette is a combination of too strict and too subjective.

Quote from: Glüc on February 15, 2020, 11:01:50 AM
I think we should avoid any of the following:

- Anything that results in citizens joining thinking that they might one day become King.
- Anyone campaigning to become King.
- Anyone taking up civil service duties because it might make them King someday.
- Any parties campaigning to make their members King.

Agreed.

Quote- Electing anyone we are not sure will be around for a long time (I can honestly think of very few Talossans who have been as consistently present for such a long time as King John). The best way to ensure this also means not...
- Electing anyone who hasn't already been around for a long time.

John had been a Talossan for 2-3 years before he became King. This was one of the main reasons why the Republic were aghast to find out that he was being proposed for the Slightly Battered Throne, despite his obvious qualities, considering he was a newcomer compared to the people who founded the Republic.

Quote
- A method that results in someone being elected based on the hype of the day rather than long term appreciation (remember this is supposed to be an appointment for life.)

See above. Many of the things you're complaining about are how the incumbent got there.

The simplistic answer would be: the Ziu on a one-individual-one-vote basis.

A more complex answer would be the Ziu + provincial delegates, on a one-individual-one-vote basis.

Final decision would have to be approved by the nation by 2/3 in referendum.

Well, I'm totally opposed to giving "the Knighthood" any extra votes. That just gives the King the ability to choose his own electorate.

Quote from: Lüc on February 06, 2020, 09:13:39 AM
4*: Although the post-Reunision normal is that Cosa votes on partisan bills are mostly decided, so in effect the Senate is the only true arbiter of a Government bill, such as a nomination that is made as a result of a Coalition agreement.

Was this not the case pre-Reunision? I.e. did the permanent RUMP majority not whip its own proposals?

BUMP

Is there anyone around with the time and enthusiasm to get started on this? We need it before the Provisional Rules can be useful to average people who just have the 2.1 or 3.0 materials and want to write "New Reunision Talossan".

That's a principled position, but you might not be so mad by the time of the next election  ;)

Good work! Maybe you can ask the King to give you the ZPT seats which will be vacated next month. I agree that we need a vigorous Opposition in this Cosa.

Fritz, maybe unwillingness, became the leader of a political movement within the Kingdom of Talossa which led to the end of KR1's tyranny. Without him the Kingdom of Talossa would have degenerated further into an abusive personality cult, and the National Schism might have become permanent.

May Allah grant him jannat-ul-firdos and his family patience.

This one seems pretty egregious, but I am sure there are several others:

Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:51:32 PM
the newest justice doesn't believe in precedent
...
you got to discuss and make arguments in private to a justice
...

This is what happens when "enthusiastic amateurs" go up against real lawyers - they tend to be Shocked and Appalled to find out that real jurisprudence does not match their simplistic assumptions.

Talossa is based on Anglo-American law; the State of New York is as well; therefore, NY's flexible attitude to stare decisis is a possible model for us, and one shown by the UC (I think correctly) in the Proclamation Crisis cases. This is why it's good to have a Real Lawyer about the place, and IMHO on the Cort - as long as we continue to work within an Anglo-American common law system, of course. A fully indigenous Talossan civil system is still worth considering and then we can make up whatever rules we want.

On a more serious note, if I really thought "precedent didn't matter", I wouldn't have such an allergic reaction to the Cort's oddball definition of "name" in the S. Panache case.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.