Wittenberg

If I may, I'd like to begin by quoting the recent joint statement.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 25, 2025, 04:48:23 PMThis statement has been approved by the leaders of both the ¡Avant! Coalition and the Progressive Alliance.

When antisocial behaviour is tolerated, the victims of antisocial behavior are effectively excluded. If our patriotic goal is a large and vibrant Talossa, behaviour which drives other people out of participation (or out of citizenship) is unpatriotic. This goes for all forms of harassment, sexually-tinged or otherwise.

Creating a hostile environment in Talossa, where not only the target of the behaviour but others watching it feel icky and alienated, must be sanctioned. The threshold for criminal harassment (El Lexhatx A.7.1.2) is high and should remain high. However, there must be a ladder of escalation. There should be informal, or social, sanctions for such behaviour before it escalates to the criminal level. This is a call for serious enforcement of Wittiquette rule 8: "Don't be a troll or otherwise post in a way that is intended solely to annoy people or infuriate them." (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0)

In previous years, effective moderation of Wittenberg was hampered when the targets of moderation made a claim to either "free speech" or "political bias". In a country like Talossa, where more than half the active population are political figures, it is far too easy to politicise basic requests for human decency. This is why a cross-party political agreement of forces representing a supermajority of Talossans is necessary so that this does not happen again.

Therefore:

1) we support strong moderation of Wittenberg to enforce Wittiquette Rule 8 when it comes to sexual harassment, even when it doesn't rise to a criminal level; we have confidence in the Chancery and its appointed agents to do so fairly, and we will back their decisions.

2) we pledge non-cooperation with and informal boycotts of serial harassers whose behaviour does not (yet) rise to the level of criminal activity; to end when such offenders convincingly change their ways.

3) we will likewise support similar measures following such behaviour on the part of any signatories of this declaration, or any members of their parties or their allies.

4) we will open a broader debate on how to deal with trolling, cruelty, and creating a toxic environment in Talossa.

I have asked for the creation of this board to begin the broader debate on trolling, cruelty, and creating a toxic environment in Talossa.  This is an important issue, since it exists at the intersection of free speech and the safety of the public commons.

Talossa is a mostly online experience, these days, although hopefully that won't always be true.  Accordingly, it is uniquely vulnerable to government intrusion on free speech.  Some of you may know that I am a political activist in my other country, as well, and we run frequent protests, stand-ins, and other activities (especially lately).  It would be impossible to engage in these physical forms of protest in Talossa, since speech is so central to our experience.

But we also cannot allow trolling and toxic behavior to drive away potential immigrants or target current citizens, since both of these groups -- and our public commons -- deserve protection.

D:na Seneschal, do you have an agenda in mind?

@Sir Lüc , would you make the two respective party leaders that are both involved in this into moderators of the board, please?

Done!

Side note: the person whose behavior prompted this whole discussion asked what exactly he did wrong. Obviously, he was aware, but it did give opportunity to write out exactly the kind of thing we're talking about. I'll quote it here to begin with, while @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC considers how she might like to proceed.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2025, 11:03:27 PMOn October 17th, you told another citizen he was cute, along with saying that he was interpreting an unrelated action in a wrong way.  When told that you were being rude, you reiterated that you thought he was cute.  Several people again told you that was inappropriate, and you took it further, saying you thought he was handsome and you'd tell anyone who asked.  You said you'd keep saying whatever you wanted.

Some weeks later, you followed it up by saying that you thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  You repeated it again when asked to stop.  And you loudly proclaimed you would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that your target was deeply uncomfortable with your attentions.

You have presented the following excuses:

• Your target didn't ask you to stop, so you thought it was fine to keep hitting on him.  You were specifically told you your target had said in private it was making him uncomfortable.
• You spoke this way to others.  After you were called out, you complimented several other people rapidly.  Even if it had been the same consistent attention, picking multiple new targets wouldn't make it better.
• There have been other people in Talossa who did worse.  Yes, and why would that be company you're happy about?
• It's fine to talk like this to others, even if it makes them uncomfortable.  No, it's not.

You have been acting like a predator, and you have said that you will not stop.  It is clear that Talossa needs a way to deal with this sort of thing.

Separately: this subforum is a joint project between two political parties to discuss an issue of national importance. Anyone from those parties may participate in any way. Everyone else should please act in a way that minimizes disruption.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2025, 09:46:44 AMTalossa is a mostly online experience, these days, although hopefully that won't always be true.  Accordingly, it is uniquely vulnerable to government intrusion on free speech. Some of you may know that I am a political activist in my other country, as well, and we run frequent protests, stand-ins, and other activities (especially lately).  It would be impossible to engage in these physical forms of protest in Talossa, since speech is so central to our experience.

But we also cannot allow trolling and toxic behavior to drive away potential immigrants or target current citizens, since both of these groups -- and our public commons -- deserve protection.

As I see it, the Baron is coming from "political first principles", based on analogies with how things work with other countries. But a material approach to actual Talossan history would ask - has government action ever been the main threat to freedom of speech in Talossa? An honest answer would say no. It has always been informal, personal harassment which has driven people out of public life.

We know that the archetypal bully in Talossa was King Robert I. But in my experience - with very few exceptions - the terrible things he did to people were never part of his function as King or any other Government minister. He never got posts taken off Wittenberg, never dragged people through the Cort, never pronounced civil disabilities on them. It was all informal, "political" attacks. He would just declare loudly and repeatedly that you were the worst scum in Talossan history, made up lies and distortions about you, declared that any decent Talossan would shun you, and harassed anyone who wouldn't shun you.

And you know what? If you tried to stop him doing this he would yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH! CENSORSHIP! GOVERNMENT INTRUSION!" This is of course what is happening in the Big Neighbour right now, where "opposing Government censorship" is the slogan used by the current administration to destroy all attempts at fact checking, at distinguishing right from wrong, from preventing pile-ons of verbal abuse that lead to real-world harms.

Moreover, IMHO, the "online nature of Talossa" makes possible Government crackdowns on speech less dangerous. Or, to put it another way - what people can do "informally" through abuse and harassment is much worse than anything the Kingdom could do, via legislation, via lawsuit or via government action. Again, in the late 90s, King Robert I tried to push through a law making it illegal for any Talossan citizen to talk to me, or to any of my political allies. This failed. But what succeeded was the atmosphere of intimidation. He couldn't do jack legally (especially not under the First Covenant) but the threatening atmosphere accomplished his goals informally. Quite like what the current administration in the Big Neighbour does.

Speaking of the "unitary executive theory", let us also stand firmly against confusion about what we mean when we say "the Government". Is the Chancery part of the Government? The Chancery is part of the Kingdom, but is not responsible to the elected Government except in an indirect, checks-and-balances kind of way. It is a very slippery slope to say "government intrusion on free speech" when this could mean either "the Chancery gives someone a week ban for asking someone else if they sleep in the nude" or "the Seneschal just gave you TWELVE WEEKS DUNGEON for asking why she spent the entire Treasury on pie".

In these terms, a worry about "government intrusion" in freedom of speech is much like worry about government intrusion in food safety. Of course abuses are possible, but only when politicised. Some things should be considered technical, rather than political, based on objective fact rather than points in political struggle; and "maintaining public order" (in the sense of a healthy discourse environment) is one of the few explicit exceptions to freedom of expression contained in the First Covenant.

You may remember that when King Robert tried to return in 2019, he admitted that he'd done (in Blade Runner) terms "questionable things", but it was all to defend Talossa. As I said: "it is far too easy to politicise basic requests for human decency". My argument is that the Chancery should be empowered to promote a healthy discourse environment on Wittenberg, that there should never be any (inOrganic) censorship for content except in terms of actual defamation, but moderation for tone is necessary for this to ever be a country where I'd want my children to participate,.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2025, 09:46:44 AMD:na Seneschal, do you have an agenda in mind?

Well, after I got the previous essay off my chest, I think we're into what I think should be the first part of the agenda, re: defining the terms of debate. And I think we're close to doing so: balancing freedom of speech, expression and political debate with maintaining "public order" in the sense of a healthy discourse environment, as allowed under the First Covenant. I assume we're all agreed that this means in whole or in part establishing norms of discourse that will be enforced by Chancery moderation on Wittenberg - is there anything else?

I have also asked two recent victims of harassment, @Sir Lüc and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN to give formal statements.

I believe King Robert I was a figure hard to compare to anyone else.  For much of his reign, Talossa was not a nation of laws.  It was a popularist dictatorship, where many forms of democracy were reproduced... but more when he considered it fun and convenient.  It seems unlikely that anyone will be able to achieve that level of influence.  And if they did, then laws wouldn't really constrain them, just as they never really constrained King Robert.

It is incorrect, in my opinion, to suggest that government regulation of speech is a technical, objective matter.  It is a highly subjective enterprise, except in rare circumstances that aren't in contention.  We already practice most objective forms of regulation, such as a ban on the use of racial slurs, which are discrete and well-known words that can be finitely banned.

But we're talking about the more contentious, less obvious form.  I mean, Breneir has been mildly trolling this summit since we started.  He knows we're discussing his misbehavior, and he knows he was creepy, but he's loudly and repeatedly trying to pretend otherwise.  At what point does he cross into "suspend from Wittenberg" territory?  It's not clear, and I do worry a little bit that anyone could think that this is as easy as setting rules about food safety.  There's a whole spectrum of questionable behavior, and it's just not obvious where to draw lines.

But I don't think it would be productive, all-in-all, to stress about agreeing on these broad points of rhetoric.  Let's start with definitions, and others should feel free to jump in.

Sounds good. I just wanted to make one other thing crystal clear to all watching. Point 2 of the joint statement:

Quotewe pledge non-cooperation with and informal boycotts of serial harassers whose behaviour does not (yet) rise to the level of criminal activity; to end when such offenders convincingly change their ways.

is already being enacted both by the Government as a whole and by the political forces making up the Government. Though we don't always stick to it rigidly, we have a norm of refraining from engaging directly with Breneir. I'm not sure whether he's noticed that we only talk to him when we're legally obliged to, eg. in Terpelaziuns, but if we're laying out the situation for a wider audience, probably best to make that crystal clear. Amazingly enough, the term "cordon sanitaire" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(politics)) is already in the Talossan dictionary!

The first covenant notwithstanding, it is my personal opinion that we should not need to bend over backwards to protect free speech when trying to set minimum standards of behavior.

In other countries, several conditions attain that make protection of free speech absolutely critical, including;
-Governments are extremely keen to censor speech
-The consequences of the inability to spread true information are vast
-It is difficult even to know who or what is being censored
-Governments are much more powerful than their people and it is difficult to escape their influence

In these regards, the Kingdom of Talossa is much more similar to a bowling league than other countries.

Voluntary associations, in order to accomplish their goals, need to have requirements for participation beyond merely the criminal law. I for one am much more concerned about having a good time around here than I am about perfectly preserving free speech (which, by the way, is pretty well opposite what I would say if this topic came up in the context of the United States).

Take that for what it's worth.

I don't think it's a choice between perfectly preserving free speech and preserving our community.  Instead, it's a balancing act: where do we want to strike the balance?  We currently ban some minimal speech, police others with social norms, and otherwise let people say whatever they want.  That's not sufficient, these days, with the way at least one person is acting.  But just like "perfect free speech" isn't a good point on the spectrum, neither is "no free speech."  We don't want to say that the Secretary of State must approve all posts or something.  We're looking for the right balance, instead.

I presume that we're not talking about criminal penalties, right?  Here, we'd mostly be talking about the terms under which someone would be temporarily suspended from Wittenberg or other Kingdom sites (like our Facebook page) if they've transgressed enough?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2025, 09:20:52 PMI presume that we're not talking about criminal penalties, right?  Here, we'd mostly be talking about the terms under which someone would be temporarily suspended from Wittenberg or other Kingdom sites (like our Facebook page) if they've transgressed enough?

I would think that's a good description of what I had in mind. Think of it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, in a way.

I have to draw the Summit's attention once again to the fact that we already have criminal sanctions for harassment.

Quote from: El Lexhatx A.7.1.2"Harassment" shall mean engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which harass, intimidate or distress a person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

Quote from: El Lexhatx A.7.3.2Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour.

So whatever we're talking about here - Wittenberg moderation and other informal sanctions, has to kick in at a level lower than the definition given in A.7.1.2. We are seriously talking about "giving someone a timeout for being a jerk".

BTW, as a late but enthusiastic signatory to the Joint Statement, we should really formally invite @Munditenens Tresplet to participate here.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 28, 2025, 04:05:21 PMBTW, as a late but enthusiastic signatory to the Joint Statement, we should really formally invite @Munditenens Tresplet to participate here.

I agree.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 28, 2025, 04:03:50 PMWe are seriously talking about "giving someone a timeout for being a jerk".

Great way to think about it. It would also be very funny to see it legislated this way.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2025, 04:47:17 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 28, 2025, 04:03:50 PMWe are seriously talking about "giving someone a timeout for being a jerk".

Great way to think about it. It would also be very funny to see it legislated this way.

I think on several occasions I've tried to suggest a "Being A Jerk, Minus A Million Points (https://comb.io/YcJNZG)" Act

That would be a great name for it. I'm not sure I would have agreed on the necessity of it before, but sometimes people just don't learn from their mistakes.

The devil is obviously going to be in the details. What are the parameters for behavior, and who gets to do the deciding, and so on.

Obviously, we're not going to want to make this an actual crime, because then it will be such a high-stakes thing that it will never really be enforced. We want something that's less dramatic, since then it might actually be used.

I think as a government owned forum, it would be appropriate to codify some informal Wittenberg policy. Thereafter, make a strong sense of the Ziu that outlines the Ziu's policy objectives and enforcement priorities keeping the Covenant in mind; this could even be a statement of how the policy should be interpreted.

I think that it would also be possible to write in due process provisions, such that the alleged offending party who is immediately restricted from posting may have access to challenge the determination; this could be post access to the Cort only, or even by sending filings to the Clerk to be posted via email off-Witt.

I think that our public statement of how the policy should be interpreted could also denote when actions rise to the level or continue after Witt restrictions to a level of criminal harassment that is already codified. Such as "will refer to AG" or "may refer to AG".

There are further intricacies to consider: what if the alleged victim is the moderator? Or what if the alleged offending party is an elected member of the Ziu? But maybe this is a place to start, and if it's not enough or some of this already exists (we do see a very lax provision in Lex.J.2), just ignore me.

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on April 29, 2025, 04:57:54 PMI think as a government owned forum, it would be appropriate to codify some informal Wittenberg policy.

Well, we already have Wittiquette (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0). IMHO it would be pretty much enough if the Government were to back up Witt moderators to enforce it.

QuoteI think that it would also be possible to write in due process provisions, such that the alleged offending party who is immediately restricted from posting may have access to challenge the determination

Rules for appealing moderation are a good idea. One caveat is that - and @Sir Lüc can correct me if I'm wrong - if a post is deleted it disappears forever, which might be an issue if a moderation decision is overruled.

QuoteI think that our public statement of how the policy should be interpreted could also denote when actions rise to the level or continue after Witt restrictions to a level of criminal harassment that is already codified. Such as "will refer to AG" or "may refer to AG".

Good!

QuoteThere are further intricacies to consider: what if the alleged victim is the moderator?

Let's face it, the case that brought all this to a head is one where the victim is the Secretary of State. I don't think a moderator needs to do anything different if they are targeted, but they should be aware that a heightened standard of scrutiny may apply. Moderators are responsible to the Secretary of State for doing their job properly; the Secretary of State is responsible to the Seneschal and the Ziu.

QuoteOr what if the alleged offending party is an elected member of the Ziu?

My reading of Organic Law and El Lexhatx Section J is that it would be impermissible to ban citizens from the parts of Wittenberg which are necessary to participate as a citizen, eg. having recourse to the Courts, or (if an MZ) access to the Ziu boards. However, the Courts can moderate their own boards, and the Túischac'h and Mençéi can moderate the Ziu boards, which can at least involved *temporary* bans.

When I was Secretary of State I set it up that no post that is deleted disappears, but goes into a recycle bin only admin can see. Any recycle bin post can easily be restored. This was done after a lawsuit was filed because of deleted posts

-Txec R

I would suggest that a good procedure would be setting up a Bureau of Public Safety in the Chancery.  The Secretary of State can either appoint someone to the office, if they wish, or perform it themselves.  The decision of the Public Safety Officer could be appealed to the Secretary of State or His Majesty the king.  I think that the king is a perfect person for this role, since he's insulated from politics and he's personally very even-tempered.  Anyone who is inappropriate or cruel enough to upset both the Chancery and the throne probably deserves their fate.

I also agree entirely that anyone barred from Witt generally would still need to be able to access the Ziu boards, if they are a member of that body.  They do not need to access the Cort boards, since they can file a petition by email and the Cort can then order their presence (this is established in past precedent).

Of course, we still need to discuss suggested guidelines and penalties (what should be sanctioned, what the sanctions should be, etc), but how would people feel about that procedure?

By the way: I hereby formally invite His Majesty to participate in these discussions.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2025, 07:34:30 AMBy the way: I hereby formally invite His Majesty to participate in these discussions.

Thank you Baron,

As I told the Seneschal, if I had anything constructive to add I would do so, but only after deep consideration.

-Txec R

I like the idea of a Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety) Bureau of Public Safety

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/gIqusaeYxgSiY/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952xwjs9xs5h5rqxdelklavinko6u6q0pwhlu46tl06&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 30, 2025, 04:28:55 PMI like the idea of a Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety) Bureau of Public Safety

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/gIqusaeYxgSiY/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952xwjs9xs5h5rqxdelklavinko6u6q0pwhlu46tl06&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-30-2017/yBPnk2.gif)

Yes, that is a better name! Let's call it the Committee of Public Safety instead. I like the ironic touch.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 27, 2025, 04:51:56 PMI have also asked two recent victims of harassment, @Sir Lüc and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN to give formal statements.

The health of Talossa depends on our ability to attract and retain new citizens. We cannot afford to let one person repeatedly disrupt our environment with impunity.
Talossa is a community. And no community can survive, much less grow, if its environment is toxic or discouraging.

Persistent antagonism and manipulative behavior from one individual have made our public spaces tense and unpleasant in the past. Protecting this behavior for the sake of avoiding precedent sends a louder message than any action would. The real precedent we should fear is allowing this to continue unchecked.
This is the problem we are facing. The good news is: at least now we're facing it together. Talossa needs tools to remove disruptive individuals from public spaces; not out of spite, but to protect the integrity of the community. So yeah, we also support the CPS.

I know policy may not solve everything, but ignoring the problem ensures it will grow. If we care about welcoming new citizens, then giving ourselves better tools to maintain a healthy civic environment is not only responsible, it's necessary.

The Kingdom of Talossa is not just an old fantasy or experiment; it's a story that works because we agree to treat each other as co-authors and perhaps now is the moment to consider what kind of tone we want our story to carry.

Thanks for that, Bråneu. What happened to you was IMHO one of the big tragedies in Talossan political history, and I'm glad you were able to come back from it.

Now to make sure it happens to no-one else.

Thank you. Bran.

So, folks, any thoughts on my proposal about the procedure: a designated officer from the Chancery, and appeal to the Secretary of State or the king? If we agree on that, we can move to standards of behavior and recommended sanctions.

I want some kind of path to judicial review eventually. I am fine with an initial appeal to the SoS from a decision of a first level Chancery official.

I am fine with immediate restrictions pending appeal. I think the restrictions should be no greater than an initial period of 30 days for a first level enforcer, with the SoS being able to extend or restrict indefinitely.

I think the King (or another party) should serve in the place of the SoS only if the SoS is a party to the harassment.

Well, if it was an administrative decision, anyone could still sue. Just because there's no specific assigned role for the judiciary doesn't mean that citizens wouldn't still have the usual recourse of a lawsuit.

What would you suggest the legal basis of judicial review of - let's take a hypothetical - a moderator's decision to remove a post for harassment be, Dien?

As far as I can see, Title J of El Lexhatx and the First Covenant of Rights and Freedoms are already adequate for our purposes.

I disagree that just anyone could sue. This isn't only our public forum, but it is government owned. In theory, the government could simply make a case that as a government owned board, they can do whatever they want outside of review. (Making a case similar to government speech on license plates, for example.) In other words, in the absence of express text otherwise, who knows whether the Cort wouldn't just toss out the suit without reaching the merits?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with one line in the law that says "Appeals of the decisions of the SoS may be taken to the Cort, who will conduct a de novo review of the case and/or determine whether the SoS' actions were an appropriate exercise of discretion, and properly weighed the restricted citizen's right to free speech versus the victim's right to be free of harassment."

I mean, is there a Talossan Administrative Procedure Act?

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 02, 2025, 05:03:39 PMI disagree that just anyone could sue. This isn't only our public forum, but it is government owned. In theory, the government could simply make a case that as a government owned board, they can do whatever they want outside of review.

It's precisely because it is a government-run forum (under Title J) that moderators have to provide free speech protections under the First Covenant. If Witt were a private forum no-one could tell the moderators to do anything they didn't want to.

Again, I'd have to ask you what you would envisage the legal substance of "appeals" to the judiciary as being.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 02, 2025, 05:09:15 PM

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 02, 2025, 05:03:39 PMI disagree that just anyone could sue. This isn't only our public forum, but it is government owned. In theory, the government could simply make a case that as a government owned board, they can do whatever they want outside of review.

It's precisely because it is a government-run forum (under Title J) that moderators have to provide free speech protections under the First Covenant. If Witt were a private forum no-one could tell the moderators to do anything they didn't want to.

The government could make the case that any text written on its government owned board could be detrimental to the government by attributing the speech to it. Therefore they have the ability to restrict or remove anything, without ensuring First Covenant protections, because otherwise it would be the government's right to speech that is infringed.

This is why we see governments being allowed to restrict custom license plates like "FART123" or the like.

I think we're getting off track here, because - as far as I understand @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu - he's not actually talking about changing the law, but about setting new Wittenberg administration policy within existing law? Are you saying you also want amendments of some kind to Title J of El Lexhatx?

Even to set appeals to the SoS, we'd need some change to existing law.

I think we need to codify the rules of Witt within law if we're going to exercise any government enforcement powers. Why couldn't Witt rules just be changed later at the whim of one person otherwise? This may never have been done before because Witt was hosted privately; but this is no longer the case.

I circle back to my original thoughts. We can use Sense of the Ziu to express our priority desires, but we still need to update our existing law.

Codify Witt rules
Codify appeal procedures
Sense of the Ziu expressing enforcement priorities

Because without law change, strong, clear, no room for gray area law change, I'm not sure I really understand the point of the summit is. I thought the point was to strengthen our position and use law to actually prevent future harassment.

What we're talking about here is kind of the equivalent of being temporarily removed from a public space for being drunk and disorderly, a public nuisance, or engaging in other behaviors that make it impossible for other people to be in that public space. Anyone who feels like the penalty was unfairly applied, and whose appeal to the King was denied, would have extremely clear grounds to sue based on their rights to free assembly and free speech, which can only be abridged on the grounds of public order.

In my opinion, we don't want to make the judiciary part of the general appeals process because it's honestly not even fair to anyone who might be sanctioned. The judiciary is famously the slowest part of our government. That's not a knock on them, since they're chosen for wisdom and probity, but it would be better to have the appeal go to someone who is also level-headed but much more present.

Legally, I think it's also very clear that no one can be permanently banned at all. If we want that to be an option, we're going to have to invent a new crime and make an amendment about it. I'm not in favor. For me, we're just talking about temporary suspensions.

I do think we are probably going to have to codify this into law, by the way, but it won't be a crime. It will be specific definitions of public order, and administrative procedures by which people can be temporarily restricted from the public square in order to preserve that public order.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 02, 2025, 05:59:42 PMLegally, I think it's also very clear that no one can be permanently banned at all. If we want that to be an option, we're going to have to invent a new crime and make an amendment about it. I'm not in favor. For me, we're just talking about temporary suspensions.

Temporary suspensions from Wittenberg for 1 year maximum are already authorised for serious misdemeanors (El Lexhatx A.4.1.7), and harassment under the law is a serious misdemeanour. So what we're looking for is stuff *under* that threshold.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 02, 2025, 06:00:59 PMI do think we are probably going to have to codify this into law, by the way, but it won't be a crime. It will be specific definitions of public order, and administrative procedures by which people can be temporarily restricted from the public square in order to preserve that public order.

I'm going to have to ask this again.

- Is there any problem with the rules set under Wittiquette (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0) as it stands?
- Is there any question about the right of Chancery staff under Title J of El Lexhatx to enforce Wittiquette as it is currently written?

QuoteI'm going to have to ask this again.

- Is there any problem with the rules set under Wittiquette (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0) as it stands?
- Is there any question about the right of Chancery staff under Title J of El Lexhatx to enforce Wittiquette as it is currently written?

Yes, it's that clearly the Chancery doesn't feel comfortable doing that.  This doesn't seem like a mystery to me.  The actual existing infrastructure exists already, but making it a process that spells things out formally and with an inherent appeal might help create the permission structure needed.  You seem to think that saying, "We'll back you up" is all that's needed, but clearly it's not.

We need the permission structure.  If we didn't, then you -- the Seneschal for a long time now! -- would be directed your Avocat-Xheneral to prosecute Breneir for harassment.  Or if it wasn't at that level, but still bad enough to have a whole big meeting about, then the Chancery would have suspended him.

Luc probably doesn't want to make this into a giant production, since Breneir has every incentive to be as obnoxious as possible, and it's probably pretty annoying to think about getting started on.  He's not only balancing the protection of the public square against the disruption caused, he's also adding on his own self-interest since it's going to make his Talossa time even more unpleasant.

If it can be someone's job -- it can be someone generally chill but active, like Munditenens -- and they also are backed-up by the Secretary of State, and they also know that there's an appeal that won't take a long time either.  We need this not to be a giant gross nightmarish headache for the person who's supposed to protect the public square, since otherwise they're not going to want to do it unless it gets really bad.

If you're right and the existing laws and Wittiquette are enough, then they'd already be enough.  They're not, so we need to put down some procedures and guidelines so the whole thing isn't going to be mud-wrestling a pig.

What we need is a Sheriff or a Bailiff. Someone whose job is to enforce Wittiquette with the proverbial drunk tank until a hearing or some other process takes place.

-Txec R

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 02, 2025, 09:21:33 PM

QuoteI'm going to have to ask this again.

- Is there any problem with the rules set under Wittiquette (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0) as it stands?
- Is there any question about the right of Chancery staff under Title J of El Lexhatx to enforce Wittiquette as it is currently written?

Yes, it's that clearly the Chancery doesn't feel comfortable doing that.  This doesn't seem like a mystery to me.  The actual existing infrastructure exists already, but making it a process that spells things out formally and with an inherent appeal might help create the permission structure needed.  You seem to think that saying, "We'll back you up" is all that's needed, but clearly it's not.

We need the permission structure.  If we didn't, then you -- the Seneschal for a long time now! -- would be directed your Avocat-Xheneral to prosecute Breneir for harassment.

Okay, a few points:

1) If either Bråneu or Lüc had asked the Government to lead a case under El Lexhatx A.7.1.2/7.3.2, you'd better believe we would have treated that request with seriousness. Anything of this nature has to be victim-led otherwise it does look like a political vendetta. But the funny thing is that when we set this Summit up, it was precisely the Lüc case which we had a consensus on - whereby the Government would have considered what happened to Bråneu to resemble the description of El Lexhatx A.7.1.2 more.

2) I would like very much to hear more "horse's mouth" reports from @Sir Lüc as SoS, and from his predecessor in that role, @King Txec, on their real experience of why they have not felt capable of enforcing Wittiquette in the past, and what kind of legislative, political or moral support they would need to do so. My impression is that they just felt that attempting to moderate discussion would make them targets for personal abuse and/or lawsuits, and having the backup of a supermajority of Talossan opinion would be all they needed to be able to do their job. But now it seems that that supermajority might not be coming unless there are additional restrictions on their on-paper right to moderate?

I don't object to changing Title J of Wittenberg if that's necessary, but let's hear expert opinion on what's necessary.

1. I have no doubt you would have treated it with seriousness. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. But in my experience, people are much more likely to want to just move past the whole thing, rather than have to participate in some big production with an unlikely outcome (i.e a prosecution).

2. My impression is also that they just felt that attempting to moderate discussion would make them targets for personal abuse and/or lawsuits. But I also think they probably are hesitant to intervene on someone's right to free speech unless they have a rock-solid reason. I also don't want to make them feel like they need to be on the defensive for not doing anything about these situations. I sympathize a lot with their position. If we ask them to testify, can we make it clear that it's for information and not really criticism?

I don't know if I am allowed to comment here or not, if not please disregard and delete my comment.

I had a private conversation with the Baron about this issue and Miestra Schiva just made a point much more succintly than I did.

I worry that this could easily become a tool for political adversaries. I also worry about the idea of someone making a statement to a third party in private that they were offended or uncomfortable and then that being used to prosecute the offender. I fully agree that any prosecution has to be victim led and more public. It cannot be something like me saying something to the Baron in private that I was offended by something Miestra said to me and then the Baron prosecuting Miestra. I'm sorry I'm not more eloquent in my speechifying LOL

I think we're thinking about prosecutions too much. I think it starts with civil violations and civil procedures (codifying the Witt rules doesn't mean they become criminal violations of law, we would preserve existing Title A, nor would creating a sound review process); and the Sense of the Ziu outlines when violations MUST be referred to the A-G for possible criminal charges.

Because the A-G already has both the authority to bring charges whenever, and the discretion not to. This still preserves any decisions for criminal prosecutions with the government, relieving the Chancery, and allowing the government to remain out of most disputes, keeping violations politically neutral.

And again, a Sense of the Ziu can reflect our intent behind this isn't to refer every case or even borderline cases, but (in my opinion) only for either egregious cases or those where civil remedies failed/weren't enough.

If a Sense of the Ziu that says "we will back you if you start to enforce Wittiquette" will do it, then I guess it's fine with me?  I don't think it will make any real difference, but it's not like we can't just do this again if necessary.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 02, 2025, 10:52:47 PM2) I would like very much to hear more "horse's mouth" reports from @Sir Lüc as SoS, and from his predecessor in that role, @King Txec, on their real experience of why they have not felt capable of enforcing Wittiquette in the past, and what kind of legislative, political or moral support they would need to do so. My impression is that they just felt that attempting to moderate discussion would make them targets for personal abuse and/or lawsuits, and having the backup of a supermajority of Talossan opinion would be all they needed to be able to do their job. But now it seems that that supermajority might not be coming unless there are additional restrictions on their on-paper right to moderate?

I spent four years as the Secretary of State, and in that time I only really had to use the powers of the office in enforcing Wittiquette a handful of times. Most of the time, it was a general warning to the offending party that his or her "speech" was inflammatory. I did enforce a temporary ban against one now former citizen for a week when he went nuclear. Most of the time, administrating Witt was adjusting forum permissions, adding or deleting boards, renaming them, etc. I was once famously sued by a member of my own party when a moderator on a sub-board deleted his posts. That was annoying especially since there wasn't a thing I could do about the deletion. Fortunately, I found a solution for future deletions and the Cort essentially sniffed at the case and things moved on.

When S:reu Tzaracomprada made his infamous posts about Sir Luc, I commented that it was could be seen as rude and offensive, which in most situations would have been the end of it. I honestly felt (and still feel) that if someone had told me that a post I made came across as rude, even if my intention was not, I would have apologized and moved on. S:reu Tzaracomprada essentially buckled down instead and continued with the behavior. The question arose, why didn't I, as Secretary of State and Administrator of Wittenberg act? Allow me, for a second, to take you through my thought process.

The first thing I did was to thoroughly re-read the rules of Wittiquette. Did S:reu Tzaracomprada's comments violate any portion? Was it abusive language? Not really. To me, abusive language is calling someone a name or making a threat. Was it being a troll? Not at first, no. It was icky, but not trollish. What his post DID violate, to me, wasn't Wittiquette per se, but the rules of general decency. He called Sir Luc cute (or something like that). He was called out for it, and he did not relent. His behavior then did become a bit trollish.

Now, I had another problem. S:reu Tzaracomprada had spent the better part of two years hassling me for a decision I had made early on in my tenure as SoS. Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial. I felt intimidated by the constancy of the "discussion" to the point where I felt I could not engage with S:reu Tzaracomprada effectively without giving up my level-headedness. It was at that point that I appointed a Deputy Secretary of State to assist in administering Witt. Naturally, this went off like a bomb and further complaints of bias were leveled against me. So what was the outcome? I gave up any attempt at moderating the offensive speech.

During this entire time, a paradox was underway. While S:reu Tzaracomprada was behaving thusly, he was also advocating for my elevation to the throne. While he claimed I was partisan, he also claimed I was the right guy for the job. It was also during this time that the Queen was diagnosed with cancer, a fact I did not reveal to the nation due to the private nature of the diagnosis. Nevertheless, I kept doing the job of Secretary of State and eventually, as King. I struggled with the fact that I felt attacked and flattered while also grieving and depressed. The Queen and I will never have children as a result of her illness and that will never be something we get over.

I have often bemoaned both privately how disconnected we are sometimes as Talossans. We forget sometimes that we are real people behind our keyboards. Other prominent Talossans have endured similar issues, and I am not at liberty to discuss it, but they know who they are. We need to stop the insanity before we drive away people who can't see past it.

I am sure I will be attacked for this post. It is possible I have not remembered every detail exactly correct, and I apologize in advance if that be the case.

-Txec R

Big thanks to His Maj for engaging with this summit, and doing so so honestly. I hope the Queen is doing well.

Quote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 12:08:19 PMThe first thing I did was to thoroughly re-read the rules of Wittiquette. Did S:reu Tzaracomprada's comments violate any portion? Was it abusive language? Not really. To me, abusive language is calling someone a name or making a threat. Was it being a troll? Not at first, no. It was icky, but not trollish. What his post DID violate, to me, wasn't Wittiquette per se, but the rules of general decency. He called Sir Luc cute (or something like that). He was called out for it, and he did not relent. His behavior then did become a bit trollish.

In that case, do you think changes in Wittiquette would be appropriate to give more space for moderators to step in?

QuoteNow, I had another problem. S:reu Tzaracomprada had spent the better part of two years hassling me for a decision I had made early on in my tenure as SoS. Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial. I felt intimidated by the constancy of the "discussion" to the point where I felt I could not engage with S:reu Tzaracomprada effectively without giving up my level-headedness. It was at that point that I appointed a Deputy Secretary of State to assist in administering Witt. Naturally, this went off like a bomb and further complaints of bias were leveled against me. So what was the outcome? I gave up any attempt at moderating the offensive speech.

Yes. This is what I've been trying to tell people here - that working the refs (political and personal attacks on moderators to the point where they no longer want to engage or feel that they will be punished for moderating) is the biggest problem at the moment. Again, any ideas on what can be done?

QuoteDuring this entire time, a paradox was underway. While S:reu Tzaracomprada was behaving thusly, he was also advocating for my elevation to the throne.

Typical sociopath tactics. Negging combined with conditional praise.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 05, 2025, 03:46:24 PMBig thanks to His Maj for engaging with this summit, and doing so so honestly. I hope the Queen is doing well.

The Queen is well and on the mend. Thank you.

QuoteIn that case, do you think changes in Wittiquette would be appropriate to give more space for moderators to step in?

One thing I regret from my time as SoS was not codifying Wittiquette into El. Lex. As it is now, Wittiquette is just a set of rules that can easily be changed. If they were written into El. Lex as a set of rules/guidelines they would be more difficult to change.

Also, they should be accompanied by a list of penalties such as (examples only):

• First offense: A written warning / post may be locked or removed
• Second offense: Account locked from posting for 24 hours
• Third offense: Account locked from posting for seven days
• Fourth offense: Account permanently locked from posting except for X boards.

QuoteYes. This is what I've been trying to tell people here - that working the refs (political and personal attacks on moderators to the point where they no longer want to engage or feel that they will be punished for moderating) is the biggest problem at the moment. Again, any ideas on what can be done?

Public personages are unfortunately subject (and often easy targets) to public attack/scorn/harassment/etc. Sometimes the "attacker" feels justified, and I'm not addressing that. It's not ideal but it is the reality when there is a public square like Wittenberg. The moment that language crosses into libel or trolling, then there are remedies (see above for trolling) and the Corts for libel.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 04:34:49 PMOne thing I regret from my time as SoS was not codifying Wittiquette into El. Lex. As it is now, Wittiquette is just a set of rules that can easily be changed. If they were written into El. Lex as a set of rules/guidelines they would be more difficult to change.

Also, they should be accompanied by a list of penalties such as (examples only):

• First offense: A written warning / post may be locked or removed
• Second offense: Account locked from posting for 24 hours
• Third offense: Account locked from posting for seven days
• Fourth offense: Account permanently locked from posting except for X boards.

Well, there we have it: a proposal for amending Wittenberg Title J. Anyone want to make a first draft?

QuotePublic personages are unfortunately subject (and often easy targets) to public attack/scorn/harassment/etc. Sometimes the "attacker" feels justified, and I'm not addressing that. It's not ideal but it is the reality when there is a public square like Wittenberg. The moment that language crosses into libel or trolling, then there are remedies (see above for trolling) and the Corts for libel.

If the rules/the law can't be enforced because the enforcers are being bullied out of it, then that needs to be dealt with somehow.

I am going to write a draft of my proposal and put it on its own topic. Call it the independent proposal, but this way it is more clear where I'm coming from with my ideas.

It would be nice to see several different drafts of proposals so we can pick and choose what we like from each.

Quote from: King Txec on May 02, 2025, 10:12:40 PMWhat we need is a Sheriff or a Bailiff. Someone whose job is to enforce Wittiquette with the proverbial drunk tank until a hearing or some other process takes place.

Basically, a sort of security officer within the Chancery who enforces public order?

Quote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 04:34:49 PMAlso, they should be accompanied by a list of penalties such as (examples only):

• First offense: A written warning / post may be locked or removed
• Second offense: Account locked from posting for 24 hours
• Third offense: Account locked from posting for seven days
• Fourth offense: Account permanently locked from posting except for X boards.

Would we want to consider these as "first/second/etc. offense within X amount of time"? In other words, if behavior improves over time, you back down from facing harsher penalties to facing lighter ones again should you reoffend some time in the future.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 07, 2025, 04:21:56 PMBasically, a sort of security officer within the Chancery who enforces public order?

Yes.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 07, 2025, 04:21:56 PMWould we want to consider these as "first/second/etc. offense within X amount of time"? In other words, if behavior improves over time, you back down from facing harsher penalties to facing lighter ones again should you reoffend some time in the future.

Yes, like any progressive discipline, it would have time limits or statutes of limitations or whatever we would want to call it.

-Txec R

So have we more or less reached a consensus?

I'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 10, 2025, 08:06:29 AMI'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

You know what the problem here is, though? That "the Green Party" will undoubtedly vote *for* any such resolution, unless it names their leader explicitly

So let's do that, then. We can even specify the specific misbehavior and make it clear that those in support are explicitly condemning that behavior. Play stupid games and wins stupid prizes, I guess?

Happy to see a draft!

Sure thing. I already wrote up a lot of what he did and we have the other stuff from earlier in the thread, so it should be pretty easy to put together. I have a lot going on today and tomorrow (d&d game for my daughters, softball for my daughters, and then my d&d game), but shouldn't be a big problem to get it done in short order.

Here's a first draft.  It was tempting to make it vague, but I think that would harm our specific efforts to "name and shame."  The Chancery -- and everyone -- has to see that we're not afraid to take sides against harassment.



WHEREAS on October 17th, Breneir Tzaracomprada told another citizen he was cute amidst an aggressive policy dispute.  This made the other citizen uncomfortable, but when told that he was being rude, he reiterated that he thought the target of his affections was cute.  Several people again reminded him that was inappropriate behavior, but S:reu Tzaracomprada took it further, saying he thought his target was handsome and that he'd tell anyone who asked.  He said he'd keep saying whatever he wanted.

Some weeks later, S:reu Tzaracomprada followed up these incidents by saying that he thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  He repeated it again when asked to stop.  And he loudly proclaimed that he would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that his target was deeply unhappy with his attentions, and

WHEREAS this treatment of another Talossan was unacceptable.  Behavior must be considered in context: there's nothing wrong with the word "cute" in many other situations, nor is it unreasonable to compliment someone's physical beauty at times.  However, this behavior was situationally inappropriate: (a) the "compliments" were combined with antagonism, (b) they were directed by an older person to a much younger person with no real existing relationship, and (c) S:reu Tzaracomprada was made aware that his target was very uncomfortable with the behavior.  It is clear in context, then, that S:reu Tzaracomprada was engaging in sexual harassment and

WHEREAS S:reu Tzaracomprada has made it clear that he does not regret his behavior, suggesting that it might happen again, and

WHEREAS it is awkward for the administrators of Wittenberg to act to limit this sexual harassment, considering S:reu Tzaracomprada is the sole vocal legislator for a political party, and this hesitance is understandable but not sustainable, and

WHEREAS it materially harms the Kingdom of Talossa to permit it to become a place where one citizen can sexually harass another with impunity,

THEREFORE be it known that it is the sense of the Ziu that any further misbehavior by S:reu Tzaracomprada must not be tolerated by the administrators of Wittenberg and the Chancery.

Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.

No one deserves to be treated this way.

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 23, 2025, 11:26:02 AMAs written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

-Txec R

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2025, 11:02:33 AMHere's a first draft.  It was tempting to make it vague, but I think that would harm our specific efforts to "name and shame."  The Chancery -- and everyone -- has to see that we're not afraid to take sides against harassment.



WHEREAS on October 17th, Breneir Tzaracomprada told another citizen he was cute amidst an aggressive policy dispute.  This made the other citizen uncomfortable, but when told that he was being rude, he reiterated that he thought the target of his affections was cute.  Several people again reminded him that was inappropriate behavior, but S:reu Tzaracomprada took it further, saying he thought his target was handsome and that he'd tell anyone who asked.  He said he'd keep saying whatever he wanted.

Some weeks later, S:reu Tzaracomprada followed up these incidents by saying that he thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  He repeated it again when asked to stop.  And he loudly proclaimed that he would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that his target was deeply unhappy with his attentions, and

WHEREAS this treatment of another Talossan was unacceptable.  Behavior must be considered in context: there's nothing wrong with the word "cute" in many other situations, nor is it unreasonable to compliment someone's physical beauty at times.  However, this behavior was situationally inappropriate: (a) the "compliments" were combined with antagonism, (b) they were directed by an older person to a much younger person with no real existing relationship, and (c) S:reu Tzaracomprada was made aware that his target was very uncomfortable with the behavior.  It is clear in context, then, that S:reu Tzaracomprada was engaging in sexual harassment and

WHEREAS S:reu Tzaracomprada has made it clear that he does not regret his behavior, suggesting that it might happen again, and

WHEREAS it is awkward for the administrators of Wittenberg to act to limit this sexual harassment, considering S:reu Tzaracomprada is the sole vocal legislator for a political party, and this hesitance is understandable but not sustainable, and

WHEREAS it materially harms the Kingdom of Talossa to permit it to become a place where one citizen can sexually harass another with impunity,

THEREFORE be it known that it is the sense of the Ziu that any further misbehavior by S:reu Tzaracomprada must not be tolerated by the administrators of Wittenberg and the Chancery.

Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.

No one deserves to be treated this way.

I believe that any proposal should have some teeth including penalties and such. I proposed some ideas in a different thread that might be worth codifying here. I also believe that for Wittiquette to truly have the intended effect, it should also be codified into El Lex.

-Txec R

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 23, 2025, 11:26:02 AMAs written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Well, it's definitely describing one person's behavior in particular. I wouldn't characterize it as a personal attack, since it's describing things that are easily verifiable. It sounds bad because his behavior was really bad. It was so bad it motivated an unprecedented interparty meeting to try to figure out what to do.

My fear is that if we just say something generic, then there really isn't much point to this at all. If we are afraid to actually call someone out for their behavior, then that is just going to be continued permission for them to continue acting that way.

I don't see any particular danger that this could be used as a weapon, because there's no actual new law being made here. It's a statement of support for specific actions and condemning specific behavior.

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 11:51:41 AMI believe that any proposal should have some teeth including penalties and such. I proposed some ideas in a different thread that might be worth codifying here. I also believe that for Wittiquette to truly have the intended effect, it should also be codified into El Lex.

-Txec R

Thank you, Your Majesty. I kind of agree with you, but my understanding is that right now people are mostly comfortable with doing this, rather than trying to write it into the law. In my opinion, we should also write the law, though - even if we don't pass it. Would you be okay with this as a first step, regardless of any further steps we might take?

I'm good with whatever comes from this as long as it works to address the issue.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 01:53:53 PMI'm good with whatever comes from this as long as it works to address the issue.

-Txec R

Great. If we move forward with something like this now, and it seems like it doesn't help the problem at all, or if there still seems like there's momentum to keep going, then we can formalize some laws about behavior too. I'm sympathetic to the concerns expressed by a few people (Dien and Tric'hard) about starting right off with first new regulations that might be abused, but it won't hurt to get started writing potential new laws anyway.

Could you remind me of what you were talking about when you said you'd already written some stuff as a starting point?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2025, 02:52:10 PMCould you remind me of what you were talking about when you said you'd already written some stuff as a starting point?

Absolutely.

• First offense: A written warning / post may be locked or removed
• Second offense: Account locked from posting for 24 hours
• Third offense: Account locked from posting for seven days
• Fourth offense: Account permanently locked from posting except for X boards.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 11:50:21 AMI am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

It sounds like my name got dragged in here because, since Lüc and Brenéir have preferred not to take the lead, Tric'hard sees me as the protagonist here, and is seeing all this as a political ploy to "get" Brenéir rather than a response to real, damaging, antisocial behaviour.

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 11:50:21 AM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 23, 2025, 11:26:02 AMAs written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

-Txec R

I just picked random names that I am familiar with...I don't know everyone's name LOL

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2025, 01:47:41 PM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 23, 2025, 11:26:02 AMAs written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Well, it's definitely describing one person's behavior in particular. I wouldn't characterize it as a personal attack, since it's describing things that are easily verifiable. It sounds bad because his behavior was really bad. It was so bad it motivated an unprecedented interparty meeting to try to figure out what to do.

My fear is that if we just say something generic, then there really isn't much point to this at all. If we are afraid to actually call someone out for their behavior, then that is just going to be continued permission for them to continue acting that way.

I don't see any particular danger that this could be used as a weapon, because there's no actual new law being made here. It's a statement of support for specific actions and condemning specific behavior.

I don't see the need to use anyone's name as part of the law. Yes in the future should people violate the law then certainly they should be named, but it isn't necessary in the law itself. It comes off as an attack against that individual, it almost makes it sound like "anyone else can do it but we are going to bury this person" to me

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 23, 2025, 07:38:45 PM

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 11:50:21 AMI am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

It sounds like my name got dragged in here because, since Lüc and Brenéir have preferred not to take the lead, Tric'hard sees me as the protagonist here, and is seeing all this as a political ploy to "get" Brenéir rather than a response to real, damaging, antisocial behaviour.

Not at all Miestra, I simply used your name because you are someone I am familiar with the spelling of your name LOL I fully support the idea behind the law, I simply have a problem with the fact that as written it singles out ONE individual. This makes it sound like it ONLY applies to him. If anyone is a protagonist behind this I would say it is the Baron, but even that is not what I was trying to say. I don't care who the "protagonist" is I just don't like the idea of codifying a law and naming a single individual. It should be more generic to make it clear that it applies to ALL citizens.

This is not a law and will not be codified. A Sense of the Ziu is basically a resolution. It will never appear in El Lex.

-Txec R

Yeah -- it's more like a statement than a law.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 24, 2025, 11:25:26 AMYeah -- it's more like a statement than a law.

Well in that case it is simply a waste of time

No, I don't think it's a waste of time to call out someone for their misbehavior.  He hasn't apologized or admitted to what he's done.  He's gotten away with it in part because the Witt admins are hesitant to punish him since he's the head of a political party and he holds grudges for years.  He's going to keep getting away with it unless we show him that we're all opposed to him preying on other Talossans.

I mean, just check out his commentary thread -- if we don't take a stand, he's going to say, "Aha, I was just giving a compliment and I didn't do anything wrong... otherwise they would have said so.  I can get right back to it."  It'll be permission that he can get away with it.

Also, I think this is a first step.  We also are going to be working out a proposed law, too, which would have some real teeth and which wouldn't single anyone out (since I do agree that would be inappropriate in a law).

As @Iac Marscheir has rightly said in the Shoutbox, this is a motion of censure. You have to name the person you're censuring.

Hmmm, maybe we should make the title to something like: "Sense of the Ziu: Motion of Censure and Condemnation of Toxicity and Destructiveness"? The first seven words, at least

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 25, 2025, 03:50:03 PMAs @Iac Marscheir has rightly said in the Shoutbox, this is a motion of censure. You have to name the person you're censuring.

Hmmm, maybe we should make the title to something like: "Sense of the Ziu: Motion of Censure and Condemnation of Toxicity and Destructiveness"? The first seven words, at least

Makes sense to me.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2025, 11:02:33 AMWHEREAS on October 17th, Breneir Tzaracomprada told another citizen he was cute amidst an aggressive policy dispute.  This made the other citizen uncomfortable, but when told that he was being rude, he reiterated that he thought the target of his affections was cute.  Several people again reminded him that was inappropriate behavior, but S:reu Tzaracomprada took it further, saying he thought his target was handsome and that he'd tell anyone who asked.  He said he'd keep saying whatever he wanted.

Some weeks later, S:reu Tzaracomprada followed up these incidents by saying that he thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  He repeated it again when asked to stop.  And he loudly proclaimed that he would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that his target was deeply unhappy with his attentions, and

WHEREAS this treatment of another Talossan was unacceptable.  Behavior must be considered in context: there's nothing wrong with the word "cute" in many other situations, nor is it unreasonable to compliment someone's physical beauty at times.  However, this behavior was situationally inappropriate: (a) the "compliments" were combined with antagonism, (b) they were directed by an older person to a much younger person with no real existing relationship, and (c) S:reu Tzaracomprada was made aware that his target was very uncomfortable with the behavior.  It is clear in context, then, that S:reu Tzaracomprada was engaging in sexual harassment and

WHEREAS S:reu Tzaracomprada has made it clear that he does not regret his behavior, suggesting that it might happen again, and

WHEREAS it is awkward for the administrators of Wittenberg to act to limit this sexual harassment, considering S:reu Tzaracomprada is the sole vocal legislator for a political party, and this hesitance is understandable but not sustainable, and

WHEREAS it materially harms the Kingdom of Talossa to permit it to become a place where one citizen can sexually harass another with impunity,

THEREFORE be it known that it is the sense of the Ziu that any further misbehavior by S:reu Tzaracomprada must not be tolerated by the administrators of Wittenberg and the Chancery.

Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.

No one deserves to be treated this way.

I plan on proposing this.  I know that some people like His Majesty and Tric'hard think we should go further, so consider this a first and minimal step.  We can immediately get to work on the next step of writing an applicable law to make sure there's some teeth to this thing.  But for this first step, does anyone have any suggested changes or requests -- and would anyone like to cosponsor it?

Okay, as a censure I can get behind this but when we actually create a law, with teeth, regarding harassment, sexual or otherwise, I feel that all reference to the person being censured here should be removed. This is something that should apply to all individuals here in Talossa and should not reference any single individual. Furthermore I would suggest striking this part and reserving this for the future law as it really has no place in a censure

*Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.*

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 26, 2025, 05:43:02 PMwhen we actually create a law, with teeth, regarding harassment, sexual or otherwise, I

In fact, we already have one of those.

QuoteA.7.1.2. "Harassment" shall mean engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which harass, intimidate or distress a person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

...

    7.3.1. Whoever commits physical or sexual violence or threats thereof against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a felony. [58]

        7.3.1.1. "Sexual violence" shall include abuse of trust, where a Talossan citizen over the age of 18 initiates sexual conduct (physically or by means of words or images) with any person under the age of 18; and the citizen over 18 is in a position of supervision, authority or tutelage over said person under 18.[59]

    7.3.2. Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour.

The thing is that what Brenéir did, while repulsive, did not rise to that criminal level.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 10, 2025, 08:06:29 AMI'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

My apologies for not producing the draft I promised yet, just been too busy. But, no, I actually more or less agree with the King's position.

I desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex and make them civil violations (with some kind of statutory pathway to the Cort to appeal what would be an agency decision, but please don't get lost on that right now), paired with a Sense of the Ziu that outlines (yes, suggests) what we believe should be enforcement priorities.

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on June 04, 2025, 07:47:30 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 10, 2025, 08:06:29 AMI'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

My apologies for not producing the draft I promised yet, just been too busy. But, no, I actually more or less agree with the King's position.

I desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex and makes them civil violations (with some kind of statutory pathway to the Cort to appeal what would be an agency decision, but please don't get lost on that right now), paired with a Sense of the Ziu that outlines (yes, suggests) what we believe should be enforcement priorities.

I wrote up a sense of the Ziu in that regard a while ago: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4028.msg34371#msg34371

If I'm going to move forward with this, I'm going to need some buy-in or interest from other folks.  If someone else wants to take the lead and write something else, fine.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 09, 2025, 03:31:10 PMIf I'm going to move forward with this, I'm going to need some buy-in or interest from other folks.  If someone else wants to take the lead and write something else, fine.

I'm happy with your draft as a basis

I can propose it.  Would you like to cosponsor it?

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on June 04, 2025, 07:47:30 PMI desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex

Someone oughta draft this up, but I've done 3 different drafts today and my drafting finger is tired

Can I suggest urgency on this? Brenéir is at it again in the Cosa, attempting to destroy the Túischac'h for attempting to moderate him. Once again, accusations of political bias are all that bad actors need, under the current situation, to make themselves unmanageable.

I'll write up a law to give Witt moderation teeth - and maybe we need one to give the Túischac'h and Mençéi powers to impose order? Or is that an OrgLaw amendment?

I'll hopper the first step, then.  Can I interpret your like as a cosponsoring?