Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

We 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.

I think on several occasions I've tried to suggest a "Being A Jerk, Minus A Million Points" Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I think as a government owned forum, it would be appropriate to codify some informal Wittenberg policy. Thereafter, make a strong sense of the Ziu that outlines the Ziu's policy objectives and enforcement priorities keeping the Covenant in mind; this could even be a statement of how the policy should be interpreted.

I think that it would also be possible to write in due process provisions, such that the alleged offending party who is immediately restricted from posting may have access to challenge the determination; this could be post access to the Cort only, or even by sending filings to the Clerk to be posted via email off-Witt.

I think that our public statement of how the policy should be interpreted could also denote when actions rise to the level or continue after Witt restrictions to a level of criminal harassment that is already codified. Such as "will refer to AG" or "may refer to AG".

There are further intricacies to consider: what if the alleged victim is the moderator? Or what if the alleged offending party is an elected member of the Ziu? But maybe this is a place to start, and if it's not enough or some of this already exists (we do see a very lax provision in Lex.J.2), just ignore me.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I think as a government owned forum, it would be appropriate to codify some informal Wittenberg policy.

Well, we already have Wittiquette. IMHO it would be pretty much enough if the Government were to back up Witt moderators to enforce it.

I think that it would also be possible to write in due process provisions, such that the alleged offending party who is immediately restricted from posting may have access to challenge the determination

Rules for appealing moderation are a good idea. One caveat is that - and @Sir Lüc can correct me if I'm wrong - if a post is deleted it disappears forever, which might be an issue if a moderation decision is overruled.

I think that our public statement of how the policy should be interpreted could also denote when actions rise to the level or continue after Witt restrictions to a level of criminal harassment that is already codified. Such as "will refer to AG" or "may refer to AG".

Good!

There are further intricacies to consider: what if the alleged victim is the moderator?

Let's face it, the case that brought all this to a head is one where the victim is the Secretary of State. I don't think a moderator needs to do anything different if they are targeted, but they should be aware that a heightened standard of scrutiny may apply. Moderators are responsible to the Secretary of State for doing their job properly; the Secretary of State is responsible to the Seneschal and the Ziu.

Or what if the alleged offending party is an elected member of the Ziu?

My reading of Organic Law and El Lexhatx Section J is that it would be impermissible to ban citizens from the parts of Wittenberg which are necessary to participate as a citizen, eg. having recourse to the Courts, or (if an MZ) access to the Ziu boards. However, the Courts can moderate their own boards, and the Túischac'h and Mençéi can moderate the Ziu boards, which can at least involved *temporary* bans.

[King Txec]

When I was Secretary of State I set it up that no post that is deleted disappears, but goes into a recycle bin only admin can see. Any recycle bin post can easily be restored. This was done after a lawsuit was filed because of deleted posts

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would suggest that a good procedure would be setting up a Bureau of Public Safety in the Chancery.  The Secretary of State can either appoint someone to the office, if they wish, or perform it themselves.  The decision of the Public Safety Officer could be appealed to the Secretary of State or His Majesty the king.  I think that the king is a perfect person for this role, since he's insulated from politics and he's personally very even-tempered.  Anyone who is inappropriate or cruel enough to upset both the Chancery and the throne probably deserves their fate.

I also agree entirely that anyone barred from Witt generally would still need to be able to access the Ziu boards, if they are a member of that body.  They do not need to access the Cort boards, since they can file a petition by email and the Cort can then order their presence (this is established in past precedent).

Of course, we still need to discuss suggested guidelines and penalties (what should be sanctioned, what the sanctions should be, etc), but how would people feel about that procedure?

By the way: I hereby formally invite His Majesty to participate in these discussions.

[King Txec]

By the way: I hereby formally invite His Majesty to participate in these discussions.

Thank you Baron,

As I told the Seneschal, if I had anything constructive to add I would do so, but only after deep consideration.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I like the idea of a Committee Bureau of Public Safety

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I like the idea of a Committee Bureau of Public Safety

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, that is a better name! Let's call it the Committee of Public Safety instead. I like the ironic touch.

[Bråneu Excelsio, UrN]

I have also asked two recent victims of harassment, @Sir Lüc and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN to give formal statements.

The health of Talossa depends on our ability to attract and retain new citizens. We cannot afford to let one person repeatedly disrupt our environment with impunity.
Talossa is a community. And no community can survive, much less grow, if its environment is toxic or discouraging.

Persistent antagonism and manipulative behavior from one individual have made our public spaces tense and unpleasant in the past. Protecting this behavior for the sake of avoiding precedent sends a louder message than any action would. The real precedent we should fear is allowing this to continue unchecked.
This is the problem we are facing. The good news is: at least now we're facing it together. Talossa needs tools to remove disruptive individuals from public spaces; not out of spite, but to protect the integrity of the community. So yeah, we also support the CPS.

I know policy may not solve everything, but ignoring the problem ensures it will grow. If we care about welcoming new citizens, then giving ourselves better tools to maintain a healthy civic environment is not only responsible, it's necessary.

The Kingdom of Talossa is not just an old fantasy or experiment; it's a story that works because we agree to treat each other as co-authors and perhaps now is the moment to consider what kind of tone we want our story to carry.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Thanks for that, Bråneu. What happened to you was IMHO one of the big tragedies in Talossan political history, and I'm glad you were able to come back from it.

Now to make sure it happens to no-one else.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you. Bran.

So, folks, any thoughts on my proposal about the procedure: a designated officer from the Chancery, and appeal to the Secretary of State or the king? If we agree on that, we can move to standards of behavior and recommended sanctions.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I want some kind of path to judicial review eventually. I am fine with an initial appeal to the SoS from a decision of a first level Chancery official.

I am fine with immediate restrictions pending appeal. I think the restrictions should be no greater than an initial period of 30 days for a first level enforcer, with the SoS being able to extend or restrict indefinitely.

I think the King (or another party) should serve in the place of the SoS only if the SoS is a party to the harassment.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, if it was an administrative decision, anyone could still sue. Just because there's no specific assigned role for the judiciary doesn't mean that citizens wouldn't still have the usual recourse of a lawsuit.