Green Party Summit Review

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

If I may, I'd like to begin by quoting the recent joint statement.

This statement has been approved by the leaders of both the ¡Avant! Coalition and the Progressive Alliance.

When antisocial behaviour is tolerated, the victims of antisocial behavior are effectively excluded. If our patriotic goal is a large and vibrant Talossa, behaviour which drives other people out of participation (or out of citizenship) is unpatriotic. This goes for all forms of harassment, sexually-tinged or otherwise.

Creating a hostile environment in Talossa, where not only the target of the behaviour but others watching it feel icky and alienated, must be sanctioned. The threshold for criminal harassment (El Lexhatx A.7.1.2) is high and should remain high. However, there must be a ladder of escalation. There should be informal, or social, sanctions for such behaviour before it escalates to the criminal level. This is a call for serious enforcement of Wittiquette rule 8: "Don't be a troll or otherwise post in a way that is intended solely to annoy people or infuriate them." (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=125.0)

In previous years, effective moderation of Wittenberg was hampered when the targets of moderation made a claim to either "free speech" or "political bias". In a country like Talossa, where more than half the active population are political figures, it is far too easy to politicise basic requests for human decency. This is why a cross-party political agreement of forces representing a supermajority of Talossans is necessary so that this does not happen again.

Therefore:

1) we support strong moderation of Wittenberg to enforce Wittiquette Rule 8 when it comes to sexual harassment, even when it doesn't rise to a criminal level; we have confidence in the Chancery and its appointed agents to do so fairly, and we will back their decisions.

2) we pledge non-cooperation with and informal boycotts of serial harassers whose behaviour does not (yet) rise to the level of criminal activity; to end when such offenders convincingly change their ways.

3) we will likewise support similar measures following such behaviour on the part of any signatories of this declaration, or any members of their parties or their allies.

4) we will open a broader debate on how to deal with trolling, cruelty, and creating a toxic environment in Talossa.

I have asked for the creation of this board to begin the broader debate on trolling, cruelty, and creating a toxic environment in Talossa.  This is an important issue, since it exists at the intersection of free speech and the safety of the public commons.

Talossa is a mostly online experience, these days, although hopefully that won't always be true.  Accordingly, it is uniquely vulnerable to government intrusion on free speech.  Some of you may know that I am a political activist in my other country, as well, and we run frequent protests, stand-ins, and other activities (especially lately).  It would be impossible to engage in these physical forms of protest in Talossa, since speech is so central to our experience.

But we also cannot allow trolling and toxic behavior to drive away potential immigrants or target current citizens, since both of these groups -- and our public commons -- deserve protection.

D:na Seneschal, do you have an agenda in mind?

The Green Party supports all of this, Baron.

I do think we have some important questions here offered under Section 4 of your statement:
 
I would be interested in seeing definitions of what will qualify as "trolling and toxic behavior" and where, if at all, does it make Wittenberg unsafe.
How does a serial offender demonstrate convincingly they've changed their ways?
What legal recourse does the accused have to challenge Section 8 rulings by the Chancery or their designee?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have moved your post to a separate thread. This Avant-Prog effort to deal with your sexual harassment does not need your concern trolling. Please confine any further comments you might have to this thread. They will otherwise be deleted.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You posted this on the other thread:

I raised what I think were reasonable questions based on what you described in your own joint statement. That is hardly trolling. And have pushed you all to define your terms (what will be considered toxic and destructive) as you appear to be moving toward. I've also committed to not resist any sanctions, coming from this process, which might be applied to me. None of this is trolling.

I do agree with Ian though. You are probably headed toward some kind of temporary access ban, perhaps in tiers based on severity and repetition of the offense.

Just a reminder: please confine your posts to this thread.  The Green Party is not a part of this cross-party Avant-Prog discussion.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I have moved your post to a separate thread. This Avant-Prog effort to deal with your sexual harassment does not need your concern trolling. Please confine any further comments you might have to this thread. They will otherwise be deleted.

The Green Party supports all of this, Baron.

I do think we have some important questions here offered under Section 4 of your statement:
 
I would be interested in seeing definitions of what will qualify as "trolling and toxic behavior" and where, if at all, does it make Wittenberg unsafe.
How does a serial offender demonstrate convincingly they've changed their ways?
What legal recourse does the accused have to challenge Section 8 rulings by the Chancery or their designee?

These questions can be called "concern trolling" or whatever you like but they remain unanswered, Baron. It is important to define the terms, explain how a designated serial offender can demonstrate change, and what oversight will the Chancery to be subject to judicially.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would think that's a good description of what I had in mind. Think of it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, in a way.

I think this is a good point, Mic'haglh but a misdemeanor is still a charge within an official legal process where the accused has a chance to defend themselves. You are also attempting to design a process, which I am concerned, does not give ability to the accused to defend themselves.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Last post for a bit but Miestra's comment concerning Being a Jerk, Minus a Million Points reminded me of the previous discussion on this. I would recommend the members of this Summit inclusive of all parties but the Green Party consider their former comments: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1396.msg11626#msg11626

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Last post for a bit but Miestra's comment concerning Being a Jerk, Minus a Million Points reminded me of the previous discussion on this. I would recommend the members of this Summit inclusive of all parties but the Green Party consider their former comments: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1396.msg11626#msg11626

We have short memories here. Within that discussion thread there is a review by the Baron of an incident where Miestra conducted an acknowledged campaign of harassment against him she described as "rough music." This might be something to be reviewed during the Summit as well.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

You posted this on the other thread:

I raised what I think were reasonable questions based on what you described in your own joint statement. That is hardly trolling. And have pushed you all to define your terms (what will be considered toxic and destructive) as you appear to be moving toward. I've also committed to not resist any sanctions, coming from this process, which might be applied to me. None of this is trolling.

I do agree with Ian though. You are probably headed toward some kind of temporary access ban, perhaps in tiers based on severity and repetition of the offense.

Just a reminder: please confine your posts to this thread.  The Green Party is not a part of this cross-party Avant-Prog discussion.

Neither is the King but he is commenting in the primary thread...

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

Incredibly important.

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.

You all are making good progress on some details but the forbidden behavior has yet to be clearly defined. Also, if the Chancery gets to decide when something violates Wittiquette then we need to, as Dien has pointed out, ensure there is a way for the accused to appeal.

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

Alleged victims. I hope there will be an opportunity for responses from the alleged perpetrator.

[King Txec]

Neither is the King but he is commenting in the primary thread...

You'll notice that my comment was reserved to a technical question posed by the Seneschal about deleted posts, nothing more S:reu Tzaracomprada. Nevertheless, if it bothers you so greatly that the King of Talossa commented on something technical that really had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will delete the post.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Breneir, thank you for abiding by our request and confining your comments to this thread in the summit.  I do think you should be able to say your piece, and I was going to invite you to do so, but it seems like you'd prefer to maintain this running commentary here in Predator's Corner?  That's also a fine choice, and I'll be sure to read your posts and bring anything necessary to the discussion thread.  I'm sure you don't need to be warned about threatening or harassing any participants, so I won't say anything about that.

Let me know if you have any questions about these things.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Neither is the King but he is commenting in the primary thread...

You'll notice that my comment was reserved to a technical question posed by the Seneschal about deleted posts, nothing more S:reu Tzaracomprada. Nevertheless, if it bothers you so greatly that the King of Talossa commented on something technical that really had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will delete the post.

-Txec R

It was the differential treatment that bothered me King. The standard was communication in the thread by those invited among the parties. Until the Baron's recent invitaton we both were not in that category.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

maintain this running commentary here in Predator's Corner?  That's also a fine choice, and I'll be sure to read your posts and bring anything necessary to the discussion thread.  I'm sure you don't need to be warned about threatening or harassing any participants, so I won't say anything about that.

Lol, nothing toxic or destructive about that.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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

I don't think it is a good idea to insert the King into this process. Why would we not simply use the Judiciary? They are supposed to be insulated from politics with an even-keeled approach to interpreting, in this instance quasi-judicial, actions.

[King Txec]

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

I don't think it is a good idea to insert the King into this process. Why would we not simply use the Judiciary? They are supposed to be insulated from politics with an even-keeled approach to interpreting, in this instance quasi-judicial, actions.

Members of our judiciary are by law allowed to hold political office and participate in political parties. They are not exactly insulated from politics. Under our current laws, there really is only one public person who is not allowed to hold any kind of political office or participate in politics (please note I'm NOT advocating for any role here, merely pointing out the facts as they currently stand).

-Txec R