Cross-Party Joint Statement

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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

This seems reasonable for the most part -- anyone have any disagreement with this basic approach?

I'm not sure about permanent consequences without judicial proceedings.  Perhaps the fourth offense should be criminalized somehow?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Perhaps the fourth offense should be criminalized somehow?

My first impulse would be to create an offence of "disturbing the peace", which would - among other things - include wilful disregard of Wittiquette and defiance of Witt moderators

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

BTW, you guys may be amused to learn that an ¡Avant! legislator who's a less regular Witt follower asked me what in blazes "this word salad" was supposed to mean, referring to 61RZ17 :D

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

My first impulse would be to create an offence of "disturbing the peace", which would - among other things - include wilful disregard of Wittiquette and defiance of Witt moderators

I would be open to that. The trick will be defining it in a way that doesn't threaten civil liberties.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I would be open to that. The trick will be defining it in a way that doesn't threaten civil liberties.

Perhaps the model should be El Lexh A.7.2.4., the existing Contempt of Court provisions? Witt moderators are the analogy of peace officers.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

7.2.4. Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1. Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2. Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3. Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4. Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

Yeah, I like it.  Makes sense to me, particularly looking at 7.2.4.1.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

BTW, you guys may be amused to learn that an ¡Avant! legislator who's a less regular Witt follower asked me what in blazes "this word salad" was supposed to mean, referring to 61RZ17 :D

Someday, this stuff will be in history books, and it will be very funny.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

7.2.4. Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1. Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2. Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3. Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4. Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

Yeah, I like it.  Makes sense to me, particularly looking at 7.2.4.1.

Should also point out Lexh.A.7.3.2: "Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour." (emphasis not added by myself)

[King Txec]

Perhaps the model should be El Lexh A.7.2.4., the existing Contempt of Court provisions? Witt moderators are the analogy of peace officers.

I had the concept a while back and even mentioned it of establishing the role of some form of law enforcement officer to enforce Wittiquette. Perhaps it is worth looking in to establishing a kind of peace officer role for a Witt moderator with some judicial authority analogous to law enforcement officers. This Witt cop, for lack of a better term, could work under the auspices of the A-X to enforce Witt, especially when it comes to more severe enforcement such as long term bans (think of being jailed while awaiting trial). Just some ideas at 3:44 AM but maybe worth considering?

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Do we think the whole kit and kaboodle of our harassment laws should be refined with an eye towards this reform, or do we want to move forward with a new specific charge intended for this use-case?  I'd lean towards the latter, but I'm open to either possibility.