Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 03:33:35 PMYes, we know that your statement was true to what you believe happened.  We all know that.  You don't think there was anything wrong with your behavior.  We know.  That's the problem.

Yes, that is the problem for you. Not for me. I have apologized for what I believe to be the problem but will not be beaten into submission and believe that what occurred was sexual harassment. You can whisper or "remind" all you want.

Okay, the conversation continued:

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:29:20 PMAs Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the proported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

I suspect we're close to finding an even better version of this, and we'll keep up the pressure and get it passed in the first Clark!

So it looks like we're going to mirror the emails to another account, give access to the official Opposition Leader (already recognized under the law), and then someone else will also need access so we don't lose control of the account.  Your Majesty @King Txec , how would you feel about that?  You wouldn't need to do anything but give the password to people once a term.

You're right. I had quite forgotten that and should probably include Owen in PMs and such.

-Txec R

Yes, we know that your statement was true to what you believe happened.  We all know that.  You don't think there was anything wrong with your behavior.  We know.  That's the problem.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:29:20 PMAs Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the proported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

I actually think it's worth quite a bit to criminalize it.  I think that most people are hesitant to break the law, even if they think they might get away with it.

Okay, so then, I'll try to build a consensus around that: The Public Process Bill with an extra provision requiring that immigration applications be mirrored to an account accessible by the Opposition Leader.  The account will need a custodian, so I guess maybe either His Majesty or the Chancery?  I'll see what makes sense and what people are comfortable with.  It's basically just "save this password somewhere" so it's not a lot.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 03:28:21 PMYeah, no one buys that as an apology.  Most of your "apology" is just an announcement that you didn't do anything wrong.

It's funny how much of this would just evaporate if you could just find it within yourself to actually apologize.  To seem like you knew that you stepped over the line, when you kept on after someone else.

Again, I know that many folks did not "buy the apology" because you immediately decided to Clark the resolution after I made my apology.

But that apology is true to what I believe happened. The discomfort I caused was the line that was crossed. My words caused that discomfort. And I apologized for the discomfort that was caused. And, most importantly, have not spoken words that I believe might cause additional discomfort ever since.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 03:23:29 PMAs an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.

As Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the purported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

QuoteSo sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Nah, go ahead.

Yeah, no one buys that as an apology.  Most of your "apology" is just an announcement that you didn't do anything wrong, Brent.

It's funny how much of this would just evaporate if you could just find it within yourself to actually apologize.  To seem like you knew that you stepped over the line, when you kept on after someone else.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:18:17 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Today at 03:16:54 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:15:18 PMWell, that's only half of your apology (and note how even then you talk about everyone else is "committed to seeing" your statements as harrassing). You forgot to post the second half in which you relativise and make excuses for your behaviour.

So, in the first half you now admit that I did apologize for the discomfort I caused Luc?

Yes, that was what I was refering by "I'm sorry you took it the wrong way". Not once did you actually apologise for what you said, but rather for how they came across. That is gross.

I did apologize to Luc for the discomfort my words caused, Marcel. You acknowledge that.
You have an issue with me telling you that I am someone who compliments people and that is okay with me. You think that explanation is gross, okay.

But I am going to call out a continued campaign of harassment, now, against me. Which Miestra is currently leading.

I will be here, Marcel. And I will continue to be true to myself.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:56:04 PMIf you simply were to give access to an account with mirrored applications on it to e.g. the Tanaischteu you wouldn't need any further edifices. Better yet, the Opposition wouldn't have to wait until they win an election to discover illegally suppressed applications, since they have full access to the emails as they come in in real time. Wouldn't that be preferable?

As an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.  So sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Quote from: King Txec on Today at 03:13:31 PMTwo points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

Sure, although we probably don't want to require that.  It could just be a person nominated by the Opposition, almost similar to what Mic'halgh has suggested (albeit without the new bureaucracy).

Quote from: King Txec on Today at 03:13:31 PMSecond: Chief Judge Edwards doesn't advise me in any substantial way, is not on my Privy Council, so I don't exactly know what you are referring to Baron. Puisne Judge Plätschisch is a member of the Privy Council, however, but his advice is limited to the functions of any other Guaír (as are you).
-Txec R

It's not done as a matter of practice, but the senior justice is ex officio a member of the Sabor, according to the law, Your Majesty.  So is the Seneschal.