Broosking Discussion.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Based on my reading from El Lex J, I believe I do have the authority to maintain things in a proper fashion based on my judgement.

The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary. This behavior is not defined in specifics, but shall include generally treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community. (53RZ17)

I'd be happy to engage in a substantive discussion on the interpretation of acceptable behavior but in my judgement I believed that it was not acceptable behavior to derail a thread on immigration with a long argument over what constituted broosking. I also feel moving the discussion helped respect Talossa and treating our potential new citizen with respect.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Based on my reading of that, you must be requested to take action by whoever is in charge of that particular board. That would seem to be the meaning of the second clause. that would also be in keeping of my understanding, which is that each board is generally governed by whatever the local authorities would be. They would set the rules and expectations, and if someone was breaking them and ignoring warnings, then they would request for you to take action. So, for example, the Ziu might make rules about who is allowed to speak in their chambers and when, and a person who violated those rules might have their posts removed by you after the Mencei or whoever requested it.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Like I said, I could have erred. I am new to the job after all.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I mean, these rules were written when the biggest concern of a lot of people, including our illustrious leader, was that the king was going to abuse his power in some way by arbitrarily policing discussions based on whatever he thought was appropriate. There was a lot of hullabaloo over that, as you might remember. So this scheme was intended to find a balance between the practical constraints of moderating a message board and the need for some minor check on the extremely expansive power that gives someone. After all, if you're free to shuffle individual posts or people out of a discussion, you can really control that discussion very effectively, which can be pretty dangerous to a democracy.

Just to further emphasize that I'm not disputing anything about this particular thread or discussion, since as I already said I thought it was a derail, but this is a pretty big deal in abstract terms.

Thank you for being willing to discuss this without seeing it as some sort of personal attack, by the way. It's not intended that way. We're just talking about a huge amount of power.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Just joking of course.

[Eðo Grischun]

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'.

And, thanks to the Chancery for stepping in and nipping it in the bud. It was likely that we would have went round in circles and made that immigration thread toxic without intervention. Thank you.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The attempts to undermine the new SoS something like two weeks into his term are repulsive. But that's always been AD's style, I suppose - if you're annoyed, find someone to accuse of improper use of power/corruption just to put them on the defensive. I say, bring back the Thunderdome.

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. AD's suggestion would mean that there was a kind of "federal system" when moderators of sub-boards became the boss (appointed by whom?) Of course, an unregulated and unregulateable Witt if your preference is to be able to "filibuster", derail threads at your whim to prevent free discussion and state functions, etc.

If you don't like it, start up your own private Talossan DG, with blackjack, and hookers. Talossa is not Wittenberg, right?

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Honestly, as that particular line of law that the SoS has quoted is a bit unclear in the middle, where

when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary

is stated, honestly with how it reads and how the start of the relevant section states

The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior

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.

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Kind of astonished at how this conversation has taken a turn.  There are people who actually advocate that the law basically read like this:

"The Secretary of State shall administer Wittenberg.  They will have unilateral and unchecked authority to determine what speech is acceptable in any given instance, and move, edit, or remove speech as they deem necessary."

That's insane!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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

Why, I would have no problem with that at all. I may not be your best friend but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't declare posts off-topic  and move them to random places out of partisan spite. You might delete them on some bogus reason, but moving them from one forum to another is pretty weak-sauce oppression.

The Chancery runs Wittenberg; the SoS runs the Chancery; thus, the SoS runs Wittenberg. There is a very important reason why Witt is run by a non-political civil servant, rather than by the Government or by private enterprise. If the SoS were to start being a jerk, the King and the Government can hold him to account. I consider this a fine system without flaws.

The kernel of truth in this manure pile of attention-seeking is that it would probably behoove the incoming SoS to promulgate a new system of Wittiquette so that everyone knows the rules. That said, he has other things to do right now, so I trust his judgement up until then. As to the crack about "my buddies", you will notice that I had exactly the same opinion of the previous SoS, who was no political ally of mine.

If you don't like it, I remind you that Talossa is not Wittenberg. Like those American Rightists convinced that Twitter is out to get them, who move to Gab or Parler. There were "alternative" Talossan DGs in the early years of Witt, except KR1 shut them down.

We are a nation of laws, and so we don't look to you to decide this.  We look to what the law says.

Which is the job of the CpI to determine. Looking forward to you getting a prosecution in before you get elevated to the Bench!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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

Why, I would have no problem with that at all. I may not be your best friend but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't declare posts off-topic  and move them to random places out of partisan spite. You might delete them on some bogus reason, but moving them from one forum to another is pretty weak-sauce oppression.

The Chancery runs Wittenberg; the SoS runs the Chancery; thus, the SoS runs Wittenberg. There is a very important reason why Witt is run by a non-political civil servant, rather than by the Government or by private enterprise. If the SoS were to start being a jerk, the King and the Government can hold him to account. I consider this a fine system without flaws.

The kernel of truth in this manure pile of attention-seeking is that it would probably behoove the incoming SoS to promulgate a new system of Wittiquette so that everyone knows the rules. That said, he has other things to do right now, so I trust his judgement up until then. As to the crack about "my buddies", you will notice that I had exactly the same opinion of the previous SoS, who was no political ally of mine.

If you don't like it, I remind you that Talossa is not Wittenberg. Like those American Rightists convinced that Twitter is out to get them, who move to Gab or Parler. There were "alternative" Talossan DGs in the early years of Witt, except KR1 shut them down.

We are a nation of laws, and so we don't look to you to decide this.  We look to what the law says.

Which is the job of the CpI to determine. Looking forward to you getting a prosecution in before you get elevated to the Bench!

It rather goes right to my point that you had to think about and estimate my character and whether or not I would abuse this incredibly huge power or not! No one should be in that position.

Government officials shouldn't try to get away with whatever they can until they get sued. They should read the law and follow it. Lawsuits should only seldom be necessary to try to force our elected and appointed officials to follow the law.

Notice how Txec and I were actually chatting like human beings about this, until a little bit ago? He is making a good faith effort to try to follow the law, not saying that he'll do what he thinks best unless he's sued.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Again, I just have a hard time believing this... D:na Miestra, you are the opinion of the Chancery should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg? You thought about it, considered possible problems that might result, and decided that this was the best and safest thing for our country?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

you are the opinion of the Chancery should get to unilaterally decide what is acceptable speech and what gets moved, removed, or deleted anywhere on Wittenberg?

Not on the Ziu boards, where the Túischac'h and Mençéi must have final say. But yes, in general. There must be moderation on Wittenberg; and that moderation should not be in the hands of the Government, the King or a private individual, but in the hands of a non-political civil servant, and the SoS does the job. If the SoS does the job badly, the SoS may be called to account or even sacked by the Government and the King. Power combined with responsibility combined with checks and balances.

Talossa is not Wittenberg. If you don't like the SoS's calls and you can't get support for your proposed alternatives, get your Beaver legislators to change the law, which the Free Democrats will oppose. Or start your own DG with Freeze Peach.

Let the record show that you're soiling your britches about a general political debate being moved out of an immigration thread into our main public debate thread, something that no sensible person could oppose on its merits. Probably because you realised how badly you'd been owned re: the History Project and you wanted to start a fight somewhere else. :D

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Also, I know how you work, AD - you pour your poison in people's ears, and when you get called out you say something like we were just chatting!!!. It's transparent, like when my daughter hides under a blanket and yells YOU CAN'T SEE ME.