Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on May 18, 2025, 06:51:45 AMI have always found "reactionary" to be an interesting word, in that it implies the "reactionary" lacks a positive case for their own position and exists solely in opposition.

Look, GV keeps calling me a liberal, I just have to accept that other people use their own vocabulary :D

Sir Ian is NOT a curmudgeon. He is a reactionary. Very different.

More seriously, I generally abstain on nonsense like this, even where I agree with it, because in my experience Talossans have enough fights about Talossan stuff without trying to pick them over extra-Talossan stuff.

Quote from: Iac Éovard Valadeir on May 17, 2025, 05:48:15 PM61RZ01-Per
61RZ02-Per
61RZ03-Per

As a sidenote, the database refused to log me in. Im not sure why

@Sir Lüc can you help this MC out?

I will ask the Deputy Minister @Iac Éovard Valadeir to speak to this directly

EDIT: And here it is:

"Between increased work hours, finals, and preparing for college, I'll admit that I've bitten off more than I could chew. However, rest assured I have no intentions of abandoning talossa or the responsibilities I have to it"

Estimat Túischac'h, can I confirm whether the member understands that he is quoting the Opposition Leader, not the King?

M is for the moan, and the miserable groan
From the pain that She felt when I was born

O is for the oven with it's burnin' heat
Where She stood makin' sure I had something to eat

T is for the time that She stayed up at night
And took my temperature when I wasn't feelin' right

H is for the hard earned money She spent
To keep clothes on my back and try to pay da' rent

E is every wrinkle I put on Her face
And every worry that I caused when I stayed out late

The last letter R is that She taught me Respect
And for the room up in Heaven that I know She'll get

I'm the Prime Minister of Talossa. Ask me anything.

Estimat Túischac'h, I notice that a series of seven identical Terpelaziuns have been submitted. In my capacity as Seneschal to substitute for any Minister, I give them all seven the identical response: that the Government's plans for every portfolio have been set out, as is right and proper, in the Speech from the Throne at the State Opening of the Ziu.

So have we more or less reached a consensus?

Talossa is (more or less) a Romance language and perhaps its grammatical structures are counterintuitive if your only language is English.

I will always remember being 8, trying to work out how to say "I don't know" in German and being not sure how to translate the word "do".

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.

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

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: Xheralt Del'Encradeir on May 04, 2025, 09:49:51 AMOf course, meeting live and discovering how discordant someone is in person can ALSO lead to ongoing (and permanent) problems.  Ask me how I know.

Sir Tamoran dal Nava aka Chris G could tell you in great detail how his half a decade of friendship with KR1 came to a disastrous end after a weekend in the same room at Talossafest 2003 :D

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 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.