Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2025, 09:46:44 AMIf 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?
The Green Party supports all of this, Baron.
I do think we have some important questions here offered under Section 4 of your statement:
I would be interested in seeing definitions of what will qualify as "trolling and toxic behavior" and where, if at all, does it make Wittenberg unsafe.
How does a serial offender demonstrate convincingly they've changed their ways?
What legal recourse does the accused have to challenge Section 8 rulings by the Chancery or their designee?
I have moved your post to a separate thread. This Avant-Prog effort to deal with your sexual harassment does not need your concern trolling. Please confine any further comments you might have to this thread. They will otherwise be deleted.
You posted this on the other thread:
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 27, 2025, 11:49:36 PMI raised what I think were reasonable questions based on what you described in your own joint statement. That is hardly trolling. And have pushed you all to define your terms (what will be considered toxic and destructive) as you appear to be moving toward. I've also committed to not resist any sanctions, coming from this process, which might be applied to me. None of this is trolling.
I do agree with Ian though. You are probably headed toward some kind of temporary access ban, perhaps in tiers based on severity and repetition of the offense.
Just a reminder: please confine your posts to this thread. The Green Party is not a part of this cross-party Avant-Prog discussion.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2025, 03:17:29 PMI have moved your post to a separate thread. This Avant-Prog effort to deal with your sexual harassment does not need your concern trolling. Please confine any further comments you might have to this thread. They will otherwise be deleted.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 27, 2025, 12:07:25 PMThe Green Party supports all of this, Baron.
I do think we have some important questions here offered under Section 4 of your statement:
I would be interested in seeing definitions of what will qualify as "trolling and toxic behavior" and where, if at all, does it make Wittenberg unsafe.
How does a serial offender demonstrate convincingly they've changed their ways?
What legal recourse does the accused have to challenge Section 8 rulings by the Chancery or their designee?
These questions can be called "concern trolling" or whatever you like but they remain unanswered, Baron. It is important to define the terms, explain how a designated serial offender can demonstrate change, and what oversight will the Chancery to be subject to judicially.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 28, 2025, 08:32:19 AMI 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 think this is a good point, Mic'haglh but a misdemeanor is still a charge within an official legal process where the accused has a chance to defend themselves. You are also attempting to design a process, which I am concerned, does not give ability to the accused to defend themselves.
Last post for a bit but Miestra's comment concerning Being a Jerk, Minus a Million Points reminded me of the previous discussion on this. I would recommend the members of this Summit inclusive of all parties but the Green Party consider their former comments: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1396.msg11626#msg11626
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 28, 2025, 05:28:54 PMLast post for a bit but Miestra's comment concerning Being a Jerk, Minus a Million Points reminded me of the previous discussion on this. I would recommend the members of this Summit inclusive of all parties but the Green Party consider their former comments: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1396.msg11626#msg11626
We have short memories here. Within that discussion thread there is a review by the Baron of an incident where Miestra conducted an acknowledged campaign of harassment against him she described as "rough music." This might be something to be reviewed during the Summit as well.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2025, 09:22:07 AMYou posted this on the other thread:
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 27, 2025, 11:49:36 PMI raised what I think were reasonable questions based on what you described in your own joint statement. That is hardly trolling. And have pushed you all to define your terms (what will be considered toxic and destructive) as you appear to be moving toward. I've also committed to not resist any sanctions, coming from this process, which might be applied to me. None of this is trolling.
I do agree with Ian though. You are probably headed toward some kind of temporary access ban, perhaps in tiers based on severity and repetition of the offense.
Just a reminder: please confine your posts to this thread. The Green Party is not a part of this cross-party Avant-Prog discussion.
Neither is the King but he is commenting in the primary thread...
Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on April 29, 2025, 04:57:54 PMI 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.
Incredibly important.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2025, 06:04:37 PMThe 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.
You all are making good progress on some details but the forbidden behavior has yet to be clearly defined. Also, if the Chancery gets to decide when something violates Wittiquette then we need to, as Dien has pointed out, ensure there is a way for the accused to appeal.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 27, 2025, 04:51:56 PMI have also asked two recent victims of harassment, @Sir Lüc (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2) and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=344) to give formal statements.
Alleged victims. I hope there will be an opportunity for responses from the alleged perpetrator.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 29, 2025, 11:05:08 PMNeither is the King but he is commenting in the primary thread...
You'll notice that my comment was reserved to a technical question posed by the Seneschal about deleted posts, nothing more S:reu Tzaracomprada. Nevertheless, if it bothers you so greatly that the King of Talossa commented on something technical that really had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will delete the post.
-Txec R
Breneir, thank you for abiding by our request and confining your comments to this thread in the summit. I do think you should be able to say your piece, and I was going to invite you to do so, but it seems like you'd prefer to maintain this running commentary here in Predator's Corner? That's also a fine choice, and I'll be sure to read your posts and bring anything necessary to the discussion thread. I'm sure you don't need to be warned about threatening or harassing any participants, so I won't say anything about that.
Let me know if you have any questions about these things.
Quote from: King Txec on April 30, 2025, 06:43:46 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 29, 2025, 11:05:08 PMNeither is the King but he is commenting in the primary thread...
You'll notice that my comment was reserved to a technical question posed by the Seneschal about deleted posts, nothing more S:reu Tzaracomprada. Nevertheless, if it bothers you so greatly that the King of Talossa commented on something technical that really had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will delete the post.
-Txec R
It was the differential treatment that bothered me King. The standard was communication in the thread by those invited among the parties. Until the Baron's recent invitaton we both were not in that category.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2025, 07:46:32 AMmaintain this running commentary here in Predator's Corner? That's also a fine choice, and I'll be sure to read your posts and bring anything necessary to the discussion thread. I'm sure you don't need to be warned about threatening or harassing any participants, so I won't say anything about that.
Lol, nothing toxic or destructive about that.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2025, 07:34:30 AMI 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
I don't think it is a good idea to insert the King into this process. Why would we not simply use the Judiciary? They are supposed to be insulated from politics with an even-keeled approach to interpreting, in this instance quasi-judicial, actions.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 30, 2025, 02:22:38 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2025, 07:34:30 AMI 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
I don't think it is a good idea to insert the King into this process. Why would we not simply use the Judiciary? They are supposed to be insulated from politics with an even-keeled approach to interpreting, in this instance quasi-judicial, actions.
Members of our judiciary are by law allowed to hold political office and participate in political parties. They are not exactly insulated from politics. Under our current laws, there really is only one public person who is not allowed to hold any kind of political office or participate in politics (please note I'm NOT advocating for any role here, merely pointing out the facts as they currently stand).
-Txec R
Quote from: King Txec on April 30, 2025, 02:27:30 PMMembers of our judiciary are by law allowed to hold political office and participate in political parties. They are not exactly insulated from politics.
I am all for changing that, to be completely honest, as I mentioned in another thread I got into some trouble for that view during the 58th Cosa. That issue needs to be resolved asap. And then we should use the judiciary for what is really a quasi-judicial process, King. The Monarch should tread very carefully with involving itself in processes like this.
Also, just a quick note to add I was one of the first to publicly support your royal ascension so clearly I think you'd would be a good official but the concern about bringing your office into these matters is significant and should be considered.
I'll try to add some nightly commentary while the Summit is ongoing.
While I am glad the Baron and Miestra have united in their efforts to target someone else I do think the "rough music" incident deserves some inclusion in the Summit's dialogue when reviewing examples where better moderation is needed. First, this incident includes clear statements of intent "what is meant by rough music" by the supposed perpetrator and a statement of harm "truly unbearable to be on the end of it" by the supposed victim.
I am recalling this specific exchange:
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 24, 2022, 05:24:49 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2022, 03:44:50 PMBoth sides will support the Wittenberg death penalty for the least snarky comment from their opponent ("JUST STOP BULLYING ME!!!", they'll shriek), whereas any pushback on their own slander and personal abuse will be met with pearl-clutching about freedom of speech.
It's really gross to me that you've turned your campaign of harassment from a few years ago into a joke, and it's all the worse when you include it in a speech about civility. For months, you replied to almost everything I said on Wittenberg with cruel, personal mockery, trying to make things so unpleasant for me that I would agree to fire a political cartoonist at my paper. You called it "rough music," and it was truly unbearable to be on the other end of it. I didn't ask for a "Wittenberg death penalty" from any moderator at any time, and I didn't even say that it was unfair to criticize me -- I just begged you to stop your deliberate campaign of harassment.
You have said how you are delighted by the fact that you were able to disrupt my mental health and hurt me, and you still appear certain that it was fair and I deserved any cruelty you wanted to inflict. I've given up hope of trying to change your views on that. But would it be too much to ask for you to stop referencing it, over and over, every year, as a means to keep hurting me?
Hopefully this incident can also inform the Summit's efforts to design a fair, equitable, and ultimately effective solution to the problem they see.
Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio, UrN on May 01, 2025, 09:53:09 PMQuote 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.
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.
Where was the persistent antagonism and manipulation you mention, Braneu? There are no examples in your speech. Your failures are yours to own and I have tried to push back against
this continuous attempt to blame me for your decision to abandon the office the people bestowed upon you. That is the political tragedy and no attempt to reassign the blame can change that. At no point, have I heard you express even a scintilla of responsibility for those failures and the extent to which you've been aided by your allies in this amounts to some odd form of infantilization.
You decided to leave but just after you did you edited TalossaWiki with accusations, then Miestra translated your Twitter posts and reposted them here on Wittenberg. Then your friend came back and posted an expletive-laden diatribe, and then you posted another statement recently referencing your supposed victimization during the election. And now another statement where you stand on the pedestal of the victimized cloaked with unresponsibility.
With all of that, who is conducting a campaign aided by the Seneschal herself? Seriously Braneu, how much effort have you and Miestra in particular expended nursing this grievance and don't you think perhaps that has also generated the tense and unpleasant atmosphere you currently assign all the blame for to me?
Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 02, 2025, 11:25:00 AMI 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.
I am glad someone is seeking to ensure judicial review. At some point in this process we will need to involve the Judiciary.
It appears the evolving framework is either (assuming the SOS is neither the perpetrator or the victim):
(1) an enforcement action by an SOS-designated officer of the Chancery, appeal to the SOS, then potential appeal to the Judiciary, or
(2) an enforcement action by the SOS, appeal to the Judiciary.
I am now wondering whether this enforcement action would apply to Wittenberg, FB Wittenberg group, and other Talossa-associated fora or whether it is limited to Wittenberg.
Logically such action should apply across all "equivalent" Talossan-owned accounts on social media etc - Facebook, Witt, etc. It would not reasonably apply to, say, a private political party Discord - this is not civil disability, it's a moderation decision by the Governmant about Government-administered property.
Quote from: owenedwards on May 02, 2025, 12:01:18 PMLogically such action should apply across all "equivalent" Talossan-owned accounts on social media etc - Facebook, Witt, etc. It would not reasonably apply to, say, a private political party Discord - this is not civil disability, it's a moderation decision by the Governmant about Government-administered property.
Thanks Owen, that seems reasonable. Do you think the Summit should also discuss the "Rough Music" incident, reference earlier in this thread, between Miestra and the Baron as a part of this process? It seems like a more clear-cut case of harassment IMHO.
Also, do you foresee the Judiciary playing a role in this new process?
Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 02, 2025, 05:25:07 PMEven 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.
Very well stated.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 02, 2025, 10:52:47 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 02, 2025, 09:21:33 PMQuoteI'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.
Makes note...they
did not. I too would be interested to know if the current or former SoS have felt or feel like they can't moderate on fear of retribution or general unpleasantness or if this is borne of imagination.
Quote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 12:08:19 PMNow, 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.
No, King, you will not be attacked for sharing your personal views on what occurred.
I did claim you acted in a partisan way when you took up the leadership of the FreeDems while acting as Secretary of State. And this was the core of the issue for me despite continuous efforts to describe this as a personal vendetta. I was responding to your action and the refusal to disallow future SOSs from doing the same. King, it was a mistake and I am glad you acknowledged as much just before the end of your tenure but the discussion continued because your former party, the FreeDems, insisted there was nothing wrong with the decision you now admit was a mistake. That was the cause of the extended discussion not a personal vendetta. It continued for as long as you were SOS until it was addressed by your successor, Sir Luc. Notice there has been no talk of the issue since Sir Luc made his statement of internal policy on the matter.
Txec, I tried to work with you as your Deputy. I have tried to bond over sci-fi books when you told me you were an author. And I was one of the first to support your ascension to the Throne. I believe people can be good, even great, and make mistakes, but redemption is available to all. You acknowledged the mistake, which for me was a moment of greatness, then Sir Luc made the necessary change. And, again, you'll notice not much mention of this issue.
Thank you for disclosing the Queen's cancer diagnosis to this Summit please accept my sympathies to your family. You may be a private person so I know it is no small deal to disclose this publicly. You would have had my sympathies then as much as you do now. My family is currently dealing with my mother's failing heart and another family member's attempted suicide so I know family health struggles can be devastating.
We might disagree on whether calling some cute is an affront to common decency but let's dispense with the notion that a principled stand is a vendetta.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 05, 2025, 02:14:40 PMQuote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 12:08:19 PMNow, 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.
No, King, you will not be attacked for sharing your personal views on what occurred.
I did claim you acted in a partisan way when you took up the leadership of the FreeDems while acting as Secretary of State. And this was the core of the issue for me despite continuous efforts to describe this as a personal vendetta. I was responding to your action and the refusal to disallow future SOSs from doing the same. King, it was a mistake and I am glad you acknowledged as much just before the end of your tenure but the discussion continued because your former party, the FreeDems, insisted there was nothing wrong with the decision you now admit was a mistake. That was the cause of the extended discussion not a personal vendetta. It continued for as long as you were SOS until it was addressed by your successor, Sir Luc. Notice there has been no talk of the issue since Sir Luc made his statement of internal policy on the matter.
Txec, I tried to work with you as your Deputy. I have tried to bond over sci-fi books when you told me you were an author. And I was one of the first to support your ascension to the Throne. I believe people can be good, even great, and make mistakes, but redemption is available to all. You acknowledged the mistake, which for me was a moment of greatness, then Sir Luc made the necessary change. And, again, you'll notice not much mention of this issue.
Thank you for disclosing the Queen's cancer diagnosis to this Summit please accept my sympathies to your family. You may be a private person so I know it is no small deal to disclose this publicly. You would have had my sympathies then as much as you do now. My family is currently dealing with my mother's failing heart and another family member's attempted suicide so I know family health struggles can be devastating.
We might disagree on whether calling some cute is an affront to common decency but let's dispense with the notion that a principled stand is a vendetta.
Please understand S:reu Tzaracomprada I have not and will never call you a bad person. I also have not used any words with any connotation even approaching vendetta (I did say "buckled down" - which you essentially did). I do appreciate the kind words and also express my sympathies for you and yours.
-Txec R
Quote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 02:27:23 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 05, 2025, 02:14:40 PMQuote from: King Txec on May 05, 2025, 12:08:19 PMNow, 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.
No, King, you will not be attacked for sharing your personal views on what occurred.
I did claim you acted in a partisan way when you took up the leadership of the FreeDems while acting as Secretary of State. And this was the core of the issue for me despite continuous efforts to describe this as a personal vendetta. I was responding to your action and the refusal to disallow future SOSs from doing the same. King, it was a mistake and I am glad you acknowledged as much just before the end of your tenure but the discussion continued because your former party, the FreeDems, insisted there was nothing wrong with the decision you now admit was a mistake. That was the cause of the extended discussion not a personal vendetta. It continued for as long as you were SOS until it was addressed by your successor, Sir Luc. Notice there has been no talk of the issue since Sir Luc made his statement of internal policy on the matter.
Txec, I tried to work with you as your Deputy. I have tried to bond over sci-fi books when you told me you were an author. And I was one of the first to support your ascension to the Throne. I believe people can be good, even great, and make mistakes, but redemption is available to all. You acknowledged the mistake, which for me was a moment of greatness, then Sir Luc made the necessary change. And, again, you'll notice not much mention of this issue.
Thank you for disclosing the Queen's cancer diagnosis to this Summit please accept my sympathies to your family. You may be a private person so I know it is no small deal to disclose this publicly. You would have had my sympathies then as much as you do now. My family is currently dealing with my mother's failing heart and another family member's attempted suicide so I know family health struggles can be devastating.
We might disagree on whether calling some cute is an affront to common decency but let's dispense with the notion that a principled stand is a vendetta.
Please understand S:reu Tzaracomprada I have not and will never call you a bad person. I also have not used any words with any connotation even approaching vendetta (I did say "buckled down" - which you essentially did). I do appreciate the kind words and also express my sympathies for you and yours.
-Txec R
Thank you very much. I should clarify you have never called it a vendetta. Others have called it that. I have strenuously objected to this and have repeatedly pointed to my own efforts to show it was never about the person but about the principle. Nevertheless, if it caused you to feel pain and intimidation then I am sorry.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 05, 2025, 03:46:24 PMTypical sociopath tactics. Negging combined with conditional praise.
I pointed out a mistake, repeatedly as necessary, in the hopes of preventing its reoccurrence. That was my only goal. Call it negging and sociopathic if you like but I will not apologize for fighting for a nonpartisan Chancery, Miestra.
Look, please accept the benefit of the doubt: I don't know whether you really are a sociopath, or if you just roleplay one online for kicks
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 05, 2025, 04:25:15 PMLook, please accept the benefit of the doubt: I don't know whether you really are a sociopath, or if you just roleplay one online for kicks
This looks like trolling too, folks.