Green Party Summit Review

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Logically such action should apply across all "equivalent" Talossan-owned accounts on social media etc - Facebook, Witt, etc. It would not reasonably apply to, say, a private political party Discord - this is not civil disability, it's a moderation decision by the Governmant about Government-administered property.

Thanks Owen, that seems reasonable. Do you think the Summit should also discuss the "Rough Music" incident, reference earlier in this thread, between Miestra and the Baron as a part of this process? It seems like a more clear-cut case of harassment IMHO.

Also, do you foresee the Judiciary playing a role in this new process?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Even to set appeals to the SoS, we'd need some change to existing law.

I think we need to codify the rules of Witt within law if we're going to exercise any government enforcement powers. Why couldn't Witt rules just be changed later at the whim of one person otherwise? This may never have been done before because Witt was hosted privately; but this is no longer the case.

I circle back to my original thoughts. We can use Sense of the Ziu to express our priority desires, but we still need to update our existing law.

Codify Witt rules
Codify appeal procedures
Sense of the Ziu expressing enforcement priorities

Because without law change, strong, clear, no room for gray area law change, I'm not sure I really understand the point of the summit is. I thought the point was to strengthen our position and use law to actually prevent future harassment.

Very well stated.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm going to have to ask this again.

- Is there any problem with the rules set under Wittiquette as it stands?
- Is there any question about the right of Chancery staff under Title J of El Lexhatx to enforce Wittiquette as it is currently written?

Yes, it's that clearly the Chancery doesn't feel comfortable doing that.  This doesn't seem like a mystery to me.  The actual existing infrastructure exists already, but making it a process that spells things out formally and with an inherent appeal might help create the permission structure needed.  You seem to think that saying, "We'll back you up" is all that's needed, but clearly it's not.

We need the permission structure.  If we didn't, then you -- the Seneschal for a long time now! -- would be directed your Avocat-Xheneral to prosecute Breneir for harassment.

Okay, a few points:

1) If either Bråneu or Lüc had asked the Government to lead a case under El Lexhatx A.7.1.2/7.3.2, you'd better believe we would have treated that request with seriousness. Anything of this nature has to be victim-led otherwise it does look like a political vendetta. But the funny thing is that when we set this Summit up, it was precisely the Lüc case which we had a consensus on - whereby the Government would have considered what happened to Bråneu to resemble the description of El Lexhatx A.7.1.2 more.

Makes note...they did not. I too would be interested to know if the current or former SoS have felt or feel like they can't moderate on fear of retribution or general unpleasantness or if this is borne of imagination.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

No, King, you will not be attacked for sharing your personal views on what occurred.

I did claim you acted in a partisan way when you took up the leadership of the FreeDems while acting as Secretary of State. And this was the core of the issue for me despite continuous efforts to describe this as a personal vendetta. I was responding to your action and the refusal to disallow future SOSs from doing the same. King, it was a mistake and I am glad you acknowledged as much just before the end of your tenure but the discussion continued because your former party, the FreeDems, insisted there was nothing wrong with the decision you now admit was a mistake. That was the cause of the extended discussion not a personal vendetta. It continued for as long as you were SOS until it was addressed by your successor, Sir Luc. Notice there has been no talk of the issue since Sir Luc made his statement of internal policy on the matter.

Txec, I tried to work with you as your Deputy. I have tried to bond over sci-fi books when you told me you were an author. And I was one of the first to support your ascension to the Throne. I believe people can be good, even great, and make mistakes, but redemption is available to all. You acknowledged the mistake, which for me was a moment of greatness, then Sir Luc made the necessary change. And, again, you'll notice not much mention of this issue.

Thank you for disclosing the Queen's cancer diagnosis to this Summit please accept my sympathies to your family. You may be a private person so I know it is no small deal to disclose this publicly. You would have had my sympathies then as much as you do now. My family is currently dealing with my mother's failing heart and another family member's attempted suicide so I know family health struggles can be devastating.

We might disagree on whether calling some cute is an affront to common decency but let's dispense with the notion that a principled stand is a vendetta.

[King Txec]

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.

No, King, you will not be attacked for sharing your personal views on what occurred.

I did claim you acted in a partisan way when you took up the leadership of the FreeDems while acting as Secretary of State. And this was the core of the issue for me despite continuous efforts to describe this as a personal vendetta. I was responding to your action and the refusal to disallow future SOSs from doing the same. King, it was a mistake and I am glad you acknowledged as much just before the end of your tenure but the discussion continued because your former party, the FreeDems, insisted there was nothing wrong with the decision you now admit was a mistake. That was the cause of the extended discussion not a personal vendetta. It continued for as long as you were SOS until it was addressed by your successor, Sir Luc. Notice there has been no talk of the issue since Sir Luc made his statement of internal policy on the matter.

Txec, I tried to work with you as your Deputy. I have tried to bond over sci-fi books when you told me you were an author. And I was one of the first to support your ascension to the Throne. I believe people can be good, even great, and make mistakes, but redemption is available to all. You acknowledged the mistake, which for me was a moment of greatness, then Sir Luc made the necessary change. And, again, you'll notice not much mention of this issue.

Thank you for disclosing the Queen's cancer diagnosis to this Summit please accept my sympathies to your family. You may be a private person so I know it is no small deal to disclose this publicly. You would have had my sympathies then as much as you do now. My family is currently dealing with my mother's failing heart and another family member's attempted suicide so I know family health struggles can be devastating.

We might disagree on whether calling some cute is an affront to common decency but let's dispense with the notion that a principled stand is a vendetta.

Please understand S:reu Tzaracomprada I have not and will never call you a bad person. I also have not used any words with any connotation even approaching vendetta (I did say "buckled down" - which you essentially did). I do appreciate the kind words and also express my sympathies for you and yours.

-Txec R

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

No, King, you will not be attacked for sharing your personal views on what occurred.

I did claim you acted in a partisan way when you took up the leadership of the FreeDems while acting as Secretary of State. And this was the core of the issue for me despite continuous efforts to describe this as a personal vendetta. I was responding to your action and the refusal to disallow future SOSs from doing the same. King, it was a mistake and I am glad you acknowledged as much just before the end of your tenure but the discussion continued because your former party, the FreeDems, insisted there was nothing wrong with the decision you now admit was a mistake. That was the cause of the extended discussion not a personal vendetta. It continued for as long as you were SOS until it was addressed by your successor, Sir Luc. Notice there has been no talk of the issue since Sir Luc made his statement of internal policy on the matter.

Txec, I tried to work with you as your Deputy. I have tried to bond over sci-fi books when you told me you were an author. And I was one of the first to support your ascension to the Throne. I believe people can be good, even great, and make mistakes, but redemption is available to all. You acknowledged the mistake, which for me was a moment of greatness, then Sir Luc made the necessary change. And, again, you'll notice not much mention of this issue.

Thank you for disclosing the Queen's cancer diagnosis to this Summit please accept my sympathies to your family. You may be a private person so I know it is no small deal to disclose this publicly. You would have had my sympathies then as much as you do now. My family is currently dealing with my mother's failing heart and another family member's attempted suicide so I know family health struggles can be devastating.

We might disagree on whether calling some cute is an affront to common decency but let's dispense with the notion that a principled stand is a vendetta.

Please understand S:reu Tzaracomprada I have not and will never call you a bad person. I also have not used any words with any connotation even approaching vendetta (I did say "buckled down" - which you essentially did). I do appreciate the kind words and also express my sympathies for you and yours.

-Txec R

Thank you very much. I should clarify you have never called it a vendetta. Others have called it that. I have strenuously objected to this and have repeatedly pointed to my own efforts to show it was never about the person but about the principle. Nevertheless, if it caused you to feel pain and intimidation then I am sorry.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Typical sociopath tactics. Negging combined with conditional praise.

I pointed out a mistake, repeatedly as necessary, in the hopes of preventing its reoccurrence. That was my only goal. Call it negging and sociopathic if you like but I will not apologize for fighting for a nonpartisan Chancery, Miestra.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Look, please accept the benefit of the doubt: I don't know whether you really are a sociopath, or if you just roleplay one online for kicks

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Look, please accept the benefit of the doubt: I don't know whether you really are a sociopath, or if you just roleplay one online for kicks

This looks like trolling too, folks.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

You know what the problem here is, though? That "the Green Party" will undoubtedly vote *for* any such resolution, unless it names their leader explicitly

Quick reader's note: The Green Party will be voting for the resolution even if it names their leader...everyone knows who the target of this Summit is anyway.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

So let's do that, then. We can even specify the specific misbehavior and make it clear that those in support are explicitly condemning that behavior. Play stupid games and wins stupid prizes, I guess?

I don't think there was any misbehavior but I support the strengthening of moderation to prevent rough music in the future. So I will be personally supporting the bill. This show is getting old and it seems the time has come to officialize the work of the Summit.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Sure thing. I already wrote up a lot of what he did and we have the other stuff from earlier in the thread, so it should be pretty easy to put together. I have a lot going on today and tomorrow (d&d game for my daughters, softball for my daughters, and then my d&d game), but shouldn't be a big problem to get it done in short order.

Looks like you all are getting close. Looking forwarding to seeing the draft too as this should be a precedent-setting moment.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

This is well-stated and the example highlights the oddity of this situation. I am quoting the King below, in relation to the example:

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

I agree with the King here and with Dien who has expressed this concern previously. With a Sense of the Ziu there are no codified policy changes just a reiteration of accusations and opprobrium which have no practical bearing on behavior as has been demonstrated repeatedly. We need to codify any changes which are planned to be enforced within Wittiquette into El Lex and we need to be sure there are protections for both the defendant and the plaintiff.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

Reader's Note: Miestra edited her post to clean up her response to Tric'hard's concern but I suspect she meant "Luc and Braneu?"

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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

Well stated again.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

No, I don't think it's a waste of time to call out someone for their misbehavior.  He hasn't apologized or admitted to what he's done.  He's gotten away with it in part because the Witt admins are hesitant to punish him since he's the head of a political party and he holds grudges for years.  He's going to keep getting away with it unless we show him that we're all opposed to him preying on other Talossans.

I want to thank Tric'hard for helping show what this Summit has become. If you really believe that I'm getting away with something (harassment by compliments apparently?) then the first step would be making policy changes to address what you believe I'm getting away with. Instead you are getting another statement. I would repeat again, even as the target of this project, we need actual policy change not another statement, and so I'm in agreement with the King, Dien, and now Tric'hard.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Can I suggest urgency on this? Brenéir is at it again in the Cosa, attempting to destroy the Túischac'h for attempting to moderate him. Once again, accusations of political bias are all that bad actors need, under the current situation, to make themselves unmanageable.

If by "at it again," you mean referring to your own toxic words and expressing concern over a very dangerous change to the Opposition's ability to hold the Government to account. Then yes I am at it again, Miestra.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The Baron appears confused. This is Miestra from last month concerning turning the page...the message was liked, well, by the Baron himself:

"I would just like to tag on here a reminder that this isn't over, not by a long shot. While we are rightfully prioritizing the issue of sexual harassment, Brenéir has most recently bullied the Túischac'h of the Cosa into taking an extended leave of absence. We're not through with Toxicity and Destructiveness unless we address it as a political phenomenon as well as a personal one."

This was followed by continued, sometimes frantic, assurances that this isn't over, Baron.

I think we know who refuses to turn the page.