Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Here's a first draft.  It was tempting to make it vague, but I think that would harm our specific efforts to "name and shame."  The Chancery -- and everyone -- has to see that we're not afraid to take sides against harassment.



WHEREAS on October 17th, Breneir Tzaracomprada told another citizen he was cute amidst an aggressive policy dispute.  This made the other citizen uncomfortable, but when told that he was being rude, he reiterated that he thought the target of his affections was cute.  Several people again reminded him that was inappropriate behavior, but S:reu Tzaracomprada took it further, saying he thought his target was handsome and that he'd tell anyone who asked.  He said he'd keep saying whatever he wanted.

Some weeks later, S:reu Tzaracomprada followed up these incidents by saying that he thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  He repeated it again when asked to stop.  And he loudly proclaimed that he would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that his target was deeply unhappy with his attentions, and

WHEREAS this treatment of another Talossan was unacceptable.  Behavior must be considered in context: there's nothing wrong with the word "cute" in many other situations, nor is it unreasonable to compliment someone's physical beauty at times.  However, this behavior was situationally inappropriate: (a) the "compliments" were combined with antagonism, (b) they were directed by an older person to a much younger person with no real existing relationship, and (c) S:reu Tzaracomprada was made aware that his target was very uncomfortable with the behavior.  It is clear in context, then, that S:reu Tzaracomprada was engaging in sexual harassment and

WHEREAS S:reu Tzaracomprada has made it clear that he does not regret his behavior, suggesting that it might happen again, and

WHEREAS it is awkward for the administrators of Wittenberg to act to limit this sexual harassment, considering S:reu Tzaracomprada is the sole vocal legislator for a political party, and this hesitance is understandable but not sustainable, and

WHEREAS it materially harms the Kingdom of Talossa to permit it to become a place where one citizen can sexually harass another with impunity,

THEREFORE be it known that it is the sense of the Ziu that any further misbehavior by S:reu Tzaracomprada must not be tolerated by the administrators of Wittenberg and the Chancery.

Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.

No one deserves to be treated this way.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

[King Txec]

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

-Txec R

[King Txec]

Here's a first draft.  It was tempting to make it vague, but I think that would harm our specific efforts to "name and shame."  The Chancery -- and everyone -- has to see that we're not afraid to take sides against harassment.



WHEREAS on October 17th, Breneir Tzaracomprada told another citizen he was cute amidst an aggressive policy dispute.  This made the other citizen uncomfortable, but when told that he was being rude, he reiterated that he thought the target of his affections was cute.  Several people again reminded him that was inappropriate behavior, but S:reu Tzaracomprada took it further, saying he thought his target was handsome and that he'd tell anyone who asked.  He said he'd keep saying whatever he wanted.

Some weeks later, S:reu Tzaracomprada followed up these incidents by saying that he thought the same young man was "suave and debonair."  He repeated it again when asked to stop.  And he loudly proclaimed that he would continue to engage in this behavior, even when told very clearly that his target was deeply unhappy with his attentions, and

WHEREAS this treatment of another Talossan was unacceptable.  Behavior must be considered in context: there's nothing wrong with the word "cute" in many other situations, nor is it unreasonable to compliment someone's physical beauty at times.  However, this behavior was situationally inappropriate: (a) the "compliments" were combined with antagonism, (b) they were directed by an older person to a much younger person with no real existing relationship, and (c) S:reu Tzaracomprada was made aware that his target was very uncomfortable with the behavior.  It is clear in context, then, that S:reu Tzaracomprada was engaging in sexual harassment and

WHEREAS S:reu Tzaracomprada has made it clear that he does not regret his behavior, suggesting that it might happen again, and

WHEREAS it is awkward for the administrators of Wittenberg to act to limit this sexual harassment, considering S:reu Tzaracomprada is the sole vocal legislator for a political party, and this hesitance is understandable but not sustainable, and

WHEREAS it materially harms the Kingdom of Talossa to permit it to become a place where one citizen can sexually harass another with impunity,

THEREFORE be it known that it is the sense of the Ziu that any further misbehavior by S:reu Tzaracomprada must not be tolerated by the administrators of Wittenberg and the Chancery.

Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.

No one deserves to be treated this way.

I believe that any proposal should have some teeth including penalties and such. I proposed some ideas in a different thread that might be worth codifying here. I also believe that for Wittiquette to truly have the intended effect, it should also be codified into El Lex.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Well, it's definitely describing one person's behavior in particular. I wouldn't characterize it as a personal attack, since it's describing things that are easily verifiable. It sounds bad because his behavior was really bad. It was so bad it motivated an unprecedented interparty meeting to try to figure out what to do.

My fear is that if we just say something generic, then there really isn't much point to this at all. If we are afraid to actually call someone out for their behavior, then that is just going to be continued permission for them to continue acting that way.

I don't see any particular danger that this could be used as a weapon, because there's no actual new law being made here. It's a statement of support for specific actions and condemning specific behavior.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I believe that any proposal should have some teeth including penalties and such. I proposed some ideas in a different thread that might be worth codifying here. I also believe that for Wittiquette to truly have the intended effect, it should also be codified into El Lex.

-Txec R

Thank you, Your Majesty. I kind of agree with you, but my understanding is that right now people are mostly comfortable with doing this, rather than trying to write it into the law. In my opinion, we should also write the law, though - even if we don't pass it. Would you be okay with this as a first step, regardless of any further steps we might take?

[King Txec]

I'm good with whatever comes from this as long as it works to address the issue.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm good with whatever comes from this as long as it works to address the issue.

-Txec R

Great. If we move forward with something like this now, and it seems like it doesn't help the problem at all, or if there still seems like there's momentum to keep going, then we can formalize some laws about behavior too. I'm sympathetic to the concerns expressed by a few people (Dien and Tric'hard) about starting right off with first new regulations that might be abused, but it won't hurt to get started writing potential new laws anyway.

Could you remind me of what you were talking about when you said you'd already written some stuff as a starting point?

[King Txec]

Could you remind me of what you were talking about when you said you'd already written some stuff as a starting point?

Absolutely.

• 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.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

It sounds like my name got dragged in here because, since Lüc and Brenéir have preferred not to take the lead, Tric'hard sees me as the protagonist here, and is seeing all this as a political ploy to "get" Brenéir rather than a response to real, damaging, antisocial behaviour.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

-Txec R

I just picked random names that I am familiar with...I don't know everyone's name LOL

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Well, it's definitely describing one person's behavior in particular. I wouldn't characterize it as a personal attack, since it's describing things that are easily verifiable. It sounds bad because his behavior was really bad. It was so bad it motivated an unprecedented interparty meeting to try to figure out what to do.

My fear is that if we just say something generic, then there really isn't much point to this at all. If we are afraid to actually call someone out for their behavior, then that is just going to be continued permission for them to continue acting that way.

I don't see any particular danger that this could be used as a weapon, because there's no actual new law being made here. It's a statement of support for specific actions and condemning specific behavior.

I don't see the need to use anyone's name as part of the law. Yes in the future should people violate the law then certainly they should be named, but it isn't necessary in the law itself. It comes off as an attack against that individual, it almost makes it sound like "anyone else can do it but we are going to bury this person" to me

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

It sounds like my name got dragged in here because, since Lüc and Brenéir have preferred not to take the lead, Tric'hard sees me as the protagonist here, and is seeing all this as a political ploy to "get" Brenéir rather than a response to real, damaging, antisocial behaviour.

Not at all Miestra, I simply used your name because you are someone I am familiar with the spelling of your name LOL I fully support the idea behind the law, I simply have a problem with the fact that as written it singles out ONE individual. This makes it sound like it ONLY applies to him. If anyone is a protagonist behind this I would say it is the Baron, but even that is not what I was trying to say. I don't care who the "protagonist" is I just don't like the idea of codifying a law and naming a single individual. It should be more generic to make it clear that it applies to ALL citizens.

[King Txec]

This is not a law and will not be codified. A Sense of the Ziu is basically a resolution. It will never appear in El Lex.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yeah -- it's more like a statement than a law.