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.

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: 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 26, 2025, 11:52:44 PMI don't think calling someone cute, sauve, and debonair are acts of harassment especially not of a sexual kind, Baron. I don't think saying that something someone did is adorable is destructive. As I said at the start of this I am a person who gives compliments and the idea that these compliments would be deployed to harm is not correct.

Repeatedly complimenting the physical attractiveness of another person, even after you have been told that they are uncomfortable with your attentions, is deeply inappropriate. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

If no one has ever informed you that you aren't the one who gets to decide what makes other people uncomfortable, then you probably have bigger problems then we can solve. We are not your therapists.

On 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.

We will not tolerate efforts to disrupt these proceedings.

I support this, your Majesty.

-SVA

Please add me as a sponsor.

I would have thought so?  Otherwise, he'd be a member of an opposition party.

Maybe the problem is mine... I always thought it was a pretty firm binary these days: either you supported the Government, or you did not.

Breneir, thank you for your offer to help us with our "how to stop Breneir from sexually harassing others" problem.  We will not be needing your input at this time.