Being a jerk, minus a million points

[Viteu]

I understand the trepidation some people have about Witt moderation. With very, very few exceptions, the current scheme has worked well. We as a nation often struggle to fill even the most vital posts, so creating a new bureaucracy doesn't seem terribly wise to me. Something more appropriate might be developed instead. Perhaps a point-based system can be used to determine if a post violates Wittiquette. Rack up so many points, and the post gets moved (not deleted) or locked. Just a thought. Personally, whenever I'm moderating I refer back to Wittiquette to see if something specific has been violated. I will move posts or even lock them, but I don't delete them. That's a step too far. I've also never temp or perm banned anyone. That isn't really my place, except in highly exceptional cases, which no one has yet even come close.

I forgot to add this to my initial response. 

I would strongly discourage a point-based system to determine if a post violates Wittiquette.  This leaves any and all posts vulnerable to the whims of the majority.  It also may not provide the reason that someone awarded a point.  If the point awarding scheme had some mechanism requiring the person to choose which part of Wittiquette is alleged have been violated, I fail to see how such would provide the person's reasoning or justification for doing so.  Unless you're suggesting that if the moderator selects a post for questioning, and then the majority can vote on it, I fail to see how the moderator could assess whether a point should be awarded based on the reason provided.  Moreover, it does not include any review process or ability for the poster to question the points.  Lastly, I'm not clear what the threshold is for a post to be moved or locked, or how to address repeat offenders. 

[Eðo Grischun]

I think we are doing our usual thing here and over-complicating things.

Would a simple 'breach of the peace' law work?  Make it a criminal offence to cause other Talossans alarm and distress?  Probably inOrganic, but is it worth exploring?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I think we are doing our usual thing here and over-complicating things.

Would a simple 'breach of the peace' law work?  Make it a criminal offence to cause other Talossans alarm and distress?  Probably inOrganic, but is it worth exploring?

I'm sure you considered this but defining "causing alarm and distress" is pretty much impossible, plus I don't think causing alarm should be criminal anyway (if by distress you mean an actual threat of violence, I think that's illegal already)

[Viteu]

I don't disagree.  Perhaps a rule that, except for the Ziu, Hopper, Courthouse, etc., ony the SoS can delete a post.  All other admins may move a questionable post to a sort of swap board to allow the poster to be on notice that their post was moved, and if they want, to challenge it.  This would hopefully prevent any other posts from being "lost forever" to stave off another lawsui perhaps.

V

[King Txec]

I don't disagree.  Perhaps a rule that, except for the Ziu, Hopper, Courthouse, etc., ony the SoS can delete a post.  All other admins may move a questionable post to a sort of swap board to allow the poster to be on notice that their post was moved, and if they want, to challenge it.  This would hopefully prevent any other posts from being "lost forever" to stave off another lawsui perhaps.

V

After the last incident, I've set up the board that no post is ever lost. They go into a recycle bin that I can restore.

[Antonio Montagnha, Ed. D.]

One of my academic areas of academic research is the philosophical, socially constructed foundations of ethics, and the practical application of such. Civility is a subbranch of ethics. Ethics simply don't exist without human construction or choice. This is not a bad thing, as it give us the power to decide what type of ethics will let us build the type of society that we want. We are not locked into the past or our biological drives. Unless we choose to be.

What should the standards of public, civil ethics (civility) be? That we must decide for ourselves through authentic and respectful dialogue, but what ever the decision I would suggest these principles have a place on that list:

Transparency in Decisions - Any process to do with the public good should be conducted in the full light of day and in public, unless national security (as opposed to personal or political party advantage) TEMPORARILY demands operational security.

Fairness and Justice - The opposite of war is not peace, but justice. Functionally this means that when making decisions, you should proceed as if you were assigned a random role in our society, post-decision. (see John Rawls "Veil of Ignorance" https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance).

Mutual Respect - When making public comments about your fellow citizens, especially when you are angry or your ego is bruised, you must ask yourself how you would feel if similar comments were to be made about you or someone you loved.

Social as Opposed to Legal, Enforcement - While the extremes of ethics can have legal definitions, the main enforcers of civility are the individuals who make up the society in question. I am not talking of vigilantism, rather the firm but respectful calling out unacceptable behavior especially when it is being practiced by a friends or cultural or political ally. Often this is best done in private, though apologies for public comments lack weight if not done in public. Civility is not a zero sum game where you must protect your team at all cost. This even more necessary when you are an elected or appointed leader, and those you lead act in a way that violates a civil norm. For civility to truly take route it must become a defining and defended feature of our culture.

P.M. Forni was a professor at Johns Hopkins University where he founded the Civility Project. As part of his work he created a list of 25 rules for considerate conduct. I have found them very useful in my professional and personal life. https://realwellnessdoc.com/2018/03/14/choosing-civility/.

Finally, some less than ethical people choose to use the term "civility" for adherence to an arbitrary or exploitive order that advantages them or their "tribe" disproportionately. This explicitly rejects the definition of civility used herein and should not be confused.