Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I think we're thinking about prosecutions too much. I think it starts with civil violations and civil procedures (codifying the Witt rules doesn't mean they become criminal violations of law, we would preserve existing Title A, nor would creating a sound review process); and the Sense of the Ziu outlines when violations MUST be referred to the A-G for possible criminal charges.

Because the A-G already has both the authority to bring charges whenever, and the discretion not to. This still preserves any decisions for criminal prosecutions with the government, relieving the Chancery, and allowing the government to remain out of most disputes, keeping violations politically neutral.

And again, a Sense of the Ziu can reflect our intent behind this isn't to refer every case or even borderline cases, but (in my opinion) only for either egregious cases or those where civil remedies failed/weren't enough.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If a Sense of the Ziu that says "we will back you if you start to enforce Wittiquette" will do it, then I guess it's fine with me?  I don't think it will make any real difference, but it's not like we can't just do this again if necessary.

[King Txec]

2) I would like very much to hear more "horse's mouth" reports from @Sir Lüc as SoS, and from his predecessor in that role, @King Txec, on their real experience of why they have not felt capable of enforcing Wittiquette in the past, and what kind of legislative, political or moral support they would need to do so. My impression is that they just felt that attempting to moderate discussion would make them targets for personal abuse and/or lawsuits, and having the backup of a supermajority of Talossan opinion would be all they needed to be able to do their job. But now it seems that that supermajority might not be coming unless there are additional restrictions on their on-paper right to moderate?

I spent four years as the Secretary of State, and in that time I only really had to use the powers of the office in enforcing Wittiquette a handful of times. Most of the time, it was a general warning to the offending party that his or her "speech" was inflammatory. I did enforce a temporary ban against one now former citizen for a week when he went nuclear. Most of the time, administrating Witt was adjusting forum permissions, adding or deleting boards, renaming them, etc. I was once famously sued by a member of my own party when a moderator on a sub-board deleted his posts. That was annoying especially since there wasn't a thing I could do about the deletion. Fortunately, I found a solution for future deletions and the Cort essentially sniffed at the case and things moved on.

When S:reu Tzaracomprada made his infamous posts about Sir Luc, I commented that it was could be seen as rude and offensive, which in most situations would have been the end of it. I honestly felt (and still feel) that if someone had told me that a post I made came across as rude, even if my intention was not, I would have apologized and moved on. S:reu Tzaracomprada essentially buckled down instead and continued with the behavior. The question arose, why didn't I, as Secretary of State and Administrator of Wittenberg act? Allow me, for a second, to take you through my thought process.

The first thing I did was to thoroughly re-read the rules of Wittiquette. Did S:reu Tzaracomprada's comments violate any portion? Was it abusive language? Not really. To me, abusive language is calling someone a name or making a threat. Was it being a troll? Not at first, no. It was icky, but not trollish. What his post DID violate, to me, wasn't Wittiquette per se, but the rules of general decency. He called Sir Luc cute (or something like that). He was called out for it, and he did not relent. His behavior then did become a bit trollish.

Now, I had another problem. S:reu Tzaracomprada had spent the better part of two years hassling me for a decision I had made early on in my tenure as SoS. Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial. I felt intimidated by the constancy of the "discussion" to the point where I felt I could not engage with S:reu Tzaracomprada effectively without giving up my level-headedness. It was at that point that I appointed a Deputy Secretary of State to assist in administering Witt. Naturally, this went off like a bomb and further complaints of bias were leveled against me. So what was the outcome? I gave up any attempt at moderating the offensive speech.

During this entire time, a paradox was underway. While S:reu Tzaracomprada was behaving thusly, he was also advocating for my elevation to the throne. While he claimed I was partisan, he also claimed I was the right guy for the job. It was also during this time that the Queen was diagnosed with cancer, a fact I did not reveal to the nation due to the private nature of the diagnosis. Nevertheless, I kept doing the job of Secretary of State and eventually, as King. I struggled with the fact that I felt attacked and flattered while also grieving and depressed. The Queen and I will never have children as a result of her illness and that will never be something we get over.

I have often bemoaned both privately how disconnected we are sometimes as Talossans. We forget sometimes that we are real people behind our keyboards. Other prominent Talossans have endured similar issues, and I am not at liberty to discuss it, but they know who they are. We need to stop the insanity before we drive away people who can't see past it.

I am sure I will be attacked for this post. It is possible I have not remembered every detail exactly correct, and I apologize in advance if that be the case.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Big thanks to His Maj for engaging with this summit, and doing so so honestly. I hope the Queen is doing well.

The first thing I did was to thoroughly re-read the rules of Wittiquette. Did S:reu Tzaracomprada's comments violate any portion? Was it abusive language? Not really. To me, abusive language is calling someone a name or making a threat. Was it being a troll? Not at first, no. It was icky, but not trollish. What his post DID violate, to me, wasn't Wittiquette per se, but the rules of general decency. He called Sir Luc cute (or something like that). He was called out for it, and he did not relent. His behavior then did become a bit trollish.

In that case, do you think changes in Wittiquette would be appropriate to give more space for moderators to step in?

Now, I had another problem. S:reu Tzaracomprada had spent the better part of two years hassling me for a decision I had made early on in my tenure as SoS. Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial. I felt intimidated by the constancy of the "discussion" to the point where I felt I could not engage with S:reu Tzaracomprada effectively without giving up my level-headedness. It was at that point that I appointed a Deputy Secretary of State to assist in administering Witt. Naturally, this went off like a bomb and further complaints of bias were leveled against me. So what was the outcome? I gave up any attempt at moderating the offensive speech.

Yes. This is what I've been trying to tell people here - that working the refs (political and personal attacks on moderators to the point where they no longer want to engage or feel that they will be punished for moderating) is the biggest problem at the moment. Again, any ideas on what can be done?

During this entire time, a paradox was underway. While S:reu Tzaracomprada was behaving thusly, he was also advocating for my elevation to the throne.

Typical sociopath tactics. Negging combined with conditional praise.

[King Txec]

Big thanks to His Maj for engaging with this summit, and doing so so honestly. I hope the Queen is doing well.

The Queen is well and on the mend. Thank you.

In that case, do you think changes in Wittiquette would be appropriate to give more space for moderators to step in?

One thing I regret from my time as SoS was not codifying Wittiquette into El. Lex. As it is now, Wittiquette is just a set of rules that can easily be changed. If they were written into El. Lex as a set of rules/guidelines they would be more difficult to change.

Also, they should be accompanied by a list of penalties such as (examples only):

• 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.

Yes. This is what I've been trying to tell people here - that working the refs (political and personal attacks on moderators to the point where they no longer want to engage or feel that they will be punished for moderating) is the biggest problem at the moment. Again, any ideas on what can be done?

Public personages are unfortunately subject (and often easy targets) to public attack/scorn/harassment/etc. Sometimes the "attacker" feels justified, and I'm not addressing that. It's not ideal but it is the reality when there is a public square like Wittenberg. The moment that language crosses into libel or trolling, then there are remedies (see above for trolling) and the Corts for libel.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

One thing I regret from my time as SoS was not codifying Wittiquette into El. Lex. As it is now, Wittiquette is just a set of rules that can easily be changed. If they were written into El. Lex as a set of rules/guidelines they would be more difficult to change.

Also, they should be accompanied by a list of penalties such as (examples only):

• 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.

Well, there we have it: a proposal for amending Wittenberg Title J. Anyone want to make a first draft?

Public personages are unfortunately subject (and often easy targets) to public attack/scorn/harassment/etc. Sometimes the "attacker" feels justified, and I'm not addressing that. It's not ideal but it is the reality when there is a public square like Wittenberg. The moment that language crosses into libel or trolling, then there are remedies (see above for trolling) and the Corts for libel.

If the rules/the law can't be enforced because the enforcers are being bullied out of it, then that needs to be dealt with somehow.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I am going to write a draft of my proposal and put it on its own topic. Call it the independent proposal, but this way it is more clear where I'm coming from with my ideas.

It would be nice to see several different drafts of proposals so we can pick and choose what we like from each.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

What we need is a Sheriff or a Bailiff. Someone whose job is to enforce Wittiquette with the proverbial drunk tank until a hearing or some other process takes place.

Basically, a sort of security officer within the Chancery who enforces public order?

Also, they should be accompanied by a list of penalties such as (examples only):

• 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.

Would we want to consider these as "first/second/etc. offense within X amount of time"? In other words, if behavior improves over time, you back down from facing harsher penalties to facing lighter ones again should you reoffend some time in the future.

[King Txec]

Basically, a sort of security officer within the Chancery who enforces public order?

Yes.

Would we want to consider these as "first/second/etc. offense within X amount of time"? In other words, if behavior improves over time, you back down from facing harsher penalties to facing lighter ones again should you reoffend some time in the future.

Yes, like any progressive discipline, it would have time limits or statutes of limitations or whatever we would want to call it.

-Txec R