Interestingly, the law doesn't cover what should happen when a sub-forum official is involved in the posts that need enforcement. In this particular case, the immigration official (myself) was part of the discussion that the Chancery saw as problematic. We shouldn't actually be debating about limiting the Chancery powers here, rather we should be adding to the law to strengthen its powers. The Chancery's actions here were entirely correct, while the immigration official was at fault. We should amend the law to reflect the exact actions that just took place.
Something like, "Whenever an official or moderator of a sub-forum is part of a breach of forum etiquette and fails to moderate said breach and fails to report said breach to the Chancery, then the Chancery may step in to moderate and enforce as necessary'.
I thought of that originally, but the problem is that this makes the Chancery incredibly powerful, because it gives them veto authority over the speech and behavior of everyone in every institution. In this instance, for example, maybe you could have thought that it was appropriate to expose a citizen to some real-life heated discussion -- or at least, maybe you could have thought it was wrong for the Chancery to decide you weren't allowed to say those things. The institution of the Chancery isn't set up for that level of power, which would put the office on the level of the Seneschal. Indeed, arguably it would make the Secretary even more powerful than the Seneschal, since even the Seneschal needs co-signing from the king to pass a law. The Secretary would unilaterally be able to arbitrate everyone's speech everywhere on Witt. There are very deep concerns there, as one of our current CpI justices has pointed out.
The issue is a balance between practical necessity (there has to be moderation and it might need to be timely) and freedom of speech (no one should be able to decide who gets to say what). We definitely shouldn't be giving even more power to the Chancery.
To illustrate: just imagine someone you really dislike were the Secretary of State. How much power should they have to decide what you get to say and when?
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Wittenberg is owned and operated by the Chancery and the SoS is the boss of the Chancery. The SoS thus has the same kind of authority over Wittenberg as I have in my cabinet roles: except in the special situation of the Ziu boards, he is the boss and any moderators under him act with delegated authority.
We are a nation of laws, and so we don't look to you to decide this. We look to what the law says.
AD's suggestion would mean that there was a kind of "federal system" when moderators of sub-boards became the boss (appointed by whom?)
You realize you explicitly voted for this and commented approvingly on this system when we laid it out, right?
But again, how would you feel if I were Secretary of State and got to decide which of your posts were acceptable and which were off-topic? Think in those terms. Would you be happy if I got to move or remove or edit your speech based exclusively on my whims? If this power is only safe in the hands of your buddies, then it's not a fit power for anyone.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the SoS does have the power to act without the individual in charge of that boards say so. The unclear part is whether the action is only able to be taken by someones requesting it first, or if the SoS can also act when they, in their judgement, is able to act without such request. And due to the unclear, and awkward phrasing here, i find it difficult to tell, as it does feel that the part referecing a request needs to be re written to become clearer. But due to the way the law is structured, i would argue that the SoS does have the power to act in this matter. And acknowlege this section should probably be amended to be clearer in its intentions.
I disagree, since if the Secretary of State can censor speech at whim, then there's no conceivable way to interpret the second clause of the law. There is a specific condition placed on the exercise of the power: "when such action is requested," with the further condition that "in their judgment" intervention is warranted. What's the point of "when... requested" if it can be done when not requested, too? Legal language should be interpreted in the way that's most obvious. I will cede that it is ambiguous and should be clarified, though.
Also i would point out something that i feel should be pointed out, whilst i do agree this power is a much needed power, i do think it might be prudent that all such actions, for sake of record keeping, incase of any possible action over any possble actions from the SoS, in order to safeguard the SoS, and those involved, be recorded and kept in records for a set time (tbd) (not public, and only accessed by request if it is needed) of the state of a thread both before and after any actions taken and the SoS's justification for the change. Unless such a requirement is already in place? (which im not sure there is) It would involve a bit more work for the SoS, however it does seem like a prudent requirement in such situations.
It is insane to me that anyone thinks it's a good idea to give the Chancery censorial power at whim over all of Wittenberg, so it shouldn't even come to this, I'd hope.
