Wittequette question re: political party boards

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

What is the procedure for responding to things put on opponent parties' boards?

The live issue is that I want to respond to the TNC's programme for "Open Government", which I would categorise in four words as "bureaucracy and pointless busywork". But I'm not just going to barge into the TNC's house and start throwing things. Similarly, we would like to hear a TNC response to our own post re: The King Must Go!, but maybe they're being similarly polite.

So the options are:
a) engage on opponent parties' boards, but be polite (because of course they wield the banhammer);
b) put any replies on Witt public boards?

[King Txec]

As Witt administrator, I would opine that responding on public boards is okay as long as it doesn't violate Wittiquette. All posts should in theory be polite, so that should really go without saying. Each party may "police" their own boards, but they can't simply remove posts as the Chancery really doesn't want another legal drama during this election cycle like it experienced during the last cycle. If any party has an issue with a post, I'd firmly suggest checking with the Chancery (and keep in mind that the SoS is doing his level best to remain above politics but he will enforce Wittiquette.)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

What is the procedure for responding to things put on opponent parties' boards? ... But I'm not just going to barge into the TNC's house and start throwing things.

You previously visited our party forum to call us liars and argue with us about the legislative blockade.  I guess it's good you changed your mind about whether or not that's appropriate, though -- can we keep it that way?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, it looks like the SoS says it's appropriate, so I (or another FreeDem representative) will be along shortly  ;D

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

We would actually appreciate having our own space. Not every conversation on Witt needs to be subject to trolling. It's a public space dedicated to our party, where we have conversations, post stuff we're working on, or put up messages. It's nice and helps build a sense of community for us, which is one of the main reasons why we started this trend in the first place.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

Perhaps there needs to be a Political Debate sub-board or some-such for this kind of thing, especially if the purpose is explicitly for discussion/debate or to elicit a response from another party, instead of simple advertisement of party planks, etc.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I must say, the Free Democrats certainly didn't think that political party boards were places were political parties should be able to say whatever they want, for a public audience, but it would be considered rude or unseemly to challenge any such statements. There's a word for a political movement which only feels comfortable if it can totally protect the "information space" around its members and prevent any outside voices getting through. The place for "building community" is the private boards.

On the other hand, I'm not happy at the precedent set by a certain lawsuit which has made the SoS seemingly gunshy about doing any moderation. Personally, I would support the TNC mods having full control over what happens on their own public board (although they might be criticised if seen to be thin-skinned about any challenges). I don't see any Free Speech issue with that.

[King Txec]

On the other hand, I'm not happy at the precedent set by a certain lawsuit which has made the SoS seemingly gunshy about doing any moderation. Personally, I would support the TNC mods having full control over what happens on their own public board (although they might be criticised if seen to be thin-skinned about any challenges). I don't see any Free Speech issue with that.

I can't say this is an entirely fair statement. I have done moderation, and I am just as cautious when/if deleting threads as I was prior to the court case. With that said, I very rarely see any cause to delete threads, and almost as rarely find cause to caution members. I also periodically review deleted threads by members (or moderators if any occur) to make sure nothing was deleted that shouldn't be. This is really the only new thing as prior to the court case there was no mechanism to restore deleted threads.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

On the other hand, I'm not happy at the precedent set by a certain lawsuit which has made the SoS seemingly gunshy about doing any moderation.

I will remind everyone that the precedent set by the case in question was that Chancery moderation of Wittenberg posts is OK under certain circumstances:

Cort shall come to order.

Unlike previous incarnations of "Wittenberg," the forum now located at wittenberg.talossa.com (henceforth referred to as Wittenberg) is Government rather than private property. While a private forum owner could moderate their forum in any way they see fit, regulation of Wittenberg must adhere to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. The fact that the Government is not required to provide forums beyond the minimum required for official business is irrelevant; everything the Government does is bound by the Covenants, and restrictions on speech on Wittenberg in violation of those Covenants would be cause for deep concern.

This does not mean that citizens may post anything on Wittenberg that they want. The First Covenant clearly does not protect speech that endangers public order. Further, it is more reasonable for the Government to regulate the use of its own property than the property of private citizens. If the Government is to control property, it must set rules so that the property can be used to accomplish the desired purpose. I am not allowed to graffiti on the side of public buildings or break out into bad karaoke while standing in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, and yet my freedom of speech is not really restricted (I am still free to graffiti or sing badly on my own property or any other property that will tolerate it). Per Lex.J.2, the Ziu has determined that the purpose of Wittenberg is for users to socialize respectfully.

This Cort finds that this purpose and the accompanying rules (ie, the Secretary of State's ability to enforce Wittiquette) are not in conflict with the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. This Cort also finds that the actions of the moderators in this particular case could be considered reasonable.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I am just as cautious when/if deleting threads as I was prior to the court case. With that said, I very rarely see any cause to delete threads

I suppose I need some clarification on the live issue. The TNC's public board is their information space. If I were to post a critique of their recent "Open Government" platform as bureaucracy and pointless busywork on that group (let's assume this was a straight-forward analysis with no name-calling or snide comments), and the TNC were to delete or ruthlessly edit my reply, would you think that was fair enough, or not?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There's a word for a political movement which only feels comfortable if it can totally protect the "information space" around its members and prevent any outside voices getting through.

For most people, there's some room between "totally protected information space with no outside voices" and "open to trolling at will."

The last time you posted on our board, it was to call us liars and argue about how we were wrong.  It's nice for there to be a public space for us to post notices, announcements, work on projects with others, and build community -- without being subject to arguments or name-calling.  You like to do that on private boards closed to non-members or on your blog -- that's fine!  Can you let us do stuff our own way?

No one's saying all outside voices should be banned.  But maybe just exercise some self-restraint and give us some space?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yeah, but what if you are lying?

[King Txec]

I am just as cautious when/if deleting threads as I was prior to the court case. With that said, I very rarely see any cause to delete threads

I suppose I need some clarification on the live issue. The TNC's public board is their information space. If I were to post a critique of their recent "Open Government" platform as bureaucracy and pointless busywork on that group (let's assume this was a straight-forward analysis with no name-calling or snide comments), and the TNC were to delete or ruthlessly edit my reply, would you think that was fair enough, or not?

I don't believe that anyone has the right, myself included, to edit another persons posts. To me that is tantamount to censorship. With that said, board level moderators actually can't edit or outright delete anyone else's posts but their own.

[King Txec]

Yeah, but what if you are lying?

Perhaps it might be better if non-party members quoted and posted their replies in their own party's public board? I think most Witt users use the latest 59 feature or the unread topics feature.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Maybe a better solution is that anything that requires a response from a different party is published in the main Wittenberg section? And most everything else is posted in party boards?