Broosking Discussion.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

Long story short I believe I acted appropriately. I carefully considered the action and consulted the law as currently written and based on my own understanding as a Justice Emeritus. I am nearly always polite and thoughtful but it should be noted that I will always act in good faith and based on the law. If my interpretation of the law is wrong I’m open to discussion and if needs be legal interpretation.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

So the SoS wouldn't get to overrule the Ziu, but they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments), the board for the College of Arms (rather than the King/Queen of Arms), the College (not the president there), and so on?  Can you point to anything in the law that actually says this power exists in this way?

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.

I have repeatedly and emphatically said that this has nothing to do with this particular incident, but rather the very surprising fact that the SoS was asserting this power.  It's better to sort these things out at first light, rather than establish a precedent that the SoS may censor at will.

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.

I couldn't figure out why you were so eager to be gratuitously insulting, either here or in the dispute over my writing, until I realized that you'd simply prefer not to talk about the actual merits of the discussion at hand.  As the saying goes, "pound the table."  Your very example here was what helped me.  Thank you.

Long story short I believe I acted appropriately. I carefully considered the action and consulted the law as currently written and based on my own understanding as a Justice Emeritus. I am nearly always polite and thoughtful but it should be noted that I will always act in good faith and based on the law. If my interpretation of the law is wrong I’m open to discussion and if needs be legal interpretation.

Thank you!  Once again, I appreciate the fact that you're so aware of your responsibilities here.  From when I first brought this up, you have been thoughtful and polite in discussing it.

As I pointed out, this power is said to be exercised "when requested."  Can you explain your reasoning here when it comes to that clause's operation as a conditional statement?  To me, it suggests that the Chancery can act only when the person in charge of a board requests it, since otherwise it doesn't make any sense to me simply in terms of parsing as English.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

AD I don’t have time right now to delve into my thinking here but please don’t mistake my politeness with agreeing with your legal interpretation. I acted appropriately based on my understanding. You believe the power could be a danger. Others chimed in. We had a nice conversation. I propose that if you don’t like this authority then change the law or get a legal ruling if necessary. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening  .

Thanks

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

AD I don’t have time right now to delve into my thinking here but please don’t mistake my politeness with agreeing with your legal interpretation. I acted appropriately based on my understanding. You believe the power could be a danger. Others chimed in. We had a nice conversation. I propose that if you don’t like this authority then change the law or get a legal ruling if necessary. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening  .

Thanks

I was hoping to actually hear your explanation of your thinking, because maybe you're right and I'm wrong.  It looks to me like the plain letter of the law, but at least one reasonable person in this discussion has already agreed with you, so I might just be mistaken.  But you seem to be saying you refuse to explain yourself further, and my only recourse is to sue you or something?  You're claiming the power to move or censor any post unilaterally on the official state message board... that's rather a big claim to authority.

I hope maybe tomorrow you will be willing to engage further and explain a bit more to me about your thinking?  There's no emergency about this, so I definitely wasn't insisting on further discussion right this second or anything, if you somehow got that impression.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

Nope it is because it is Sunday night and I have to teach tomorrow but then I really also frankly need to refocus on more important stuff right now.

Read into what I’ve said or whatever else you like.

Thanks

[Eðo Grischun]

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!

...

That's insane!

In your opinion.

What say the alternative?  I mean, somebody needs to have this power, right? 

Cool, so you think it's insane that the Chancery has that power.  Even though you were totally cool with John Woolley (King John, but in his private capacity as a private person) having that same power?  Whatever...

If not the SoS, who is subject to (wait for it, it's one of your favourites) checks and balances, then who?

If not the SoS, who can be replaced for malfeasance (unlike the private owner of the previous Wittenberg), then who?

[Eðo Grischun]

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?

Let's rewind a couple of years.

Sir AD, you were the opinion that the King, in his private capacity, 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?

[Eðo Grischun]

So the SoS wouldn't get to overrule the Ziu, but they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments), the board for the College of Arms (rather than the King/Queen of Arms), the College (not the president there), and so on?  Can you point to anything in the law that actually says this power exists in this way?

I can point that out, I think. 

First, lets's look at what the law of this nation of laws actually says.  The law actually says that NewWitt should only be hosting provincial sub-forums for the "provinces that so request" (Lex.J.1).  I won't bother going into the nitty-gritty on this, seeing as exactly zero provinces have ever officially made such a request, therefore Wittenberg should not actually be currently hosting any provincial sub-forum at all (but if you really want this nation of laws to follow the law down to the last comma then you know how to file a suit (not sure who you would sue though, since the guy that created all the NewWitt provincial sub-forums isn't a citizen any more, but (expletive removed) rock on, law dude).

Anyway, the very fact that El Lex has that phrase ("provinces that so request") indicates that it is not mandatory for provinces to even have a sub-board on NewWitt.  So, to what you assert ("they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments")... Yes.  If a province is supposed to legally request the Chancery host a forum board for them, then yes, the province should yield any say in how that sub-forum operates.  If the province doesn't like that, then the province is free to not make a request for a forum to be hosted on Witt and can go set up it's own methods of communication.  Further, if something as important as a province gets this level of treatment then you can be sure that something like the College of Arms can be treated in law in the same way.  Don't agree?  Court.

I have repeatedly and emphatically said that this has nothing to do with this particular incident, but rather the very surprising fact that the SoS was asserting this power.  It's better to sort these things out at first light, rather than establish a precedent that the SoS may censor at will.

Your entire argument against the Chancery, here, is the exact opposite of what you have argued in the past while in defence of King John as a private individual having the exact same powers over OldWitt on Proboards.  You once argued that it was 100% legit and cool for John to moderate Witt and enforce Wittiquette as he saw fit without oversight from anybody.  Now that we are in a position where the SoS has Witt control, while the SoS is subject to impeachment and removal from office and is subject to scrutiny and oversight, you're crying blue bloody murder?

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU ARE CONSTANTLY ACCUSED OF ARGUING IN BAD FAITH. 


You know what.
(expletive removed) the government's code of conduct.
Apologies to my (possibly ex) cabinet colleagues. 
I'm willing to take the chop for this.

AD, You don't even realise that the only reason we have pandered to your (expletive removed) nonsense for this long is only because we feel the need to keep highlighting your (expletive removed) to new citizens, visitors and those yet to learn all about you for what you actually are; that you're nothing more than just a narcissistic and vainglorious (expletive removed) determined to "win at Talossa" by arguing that black is white just because the other side said the other.  How many arguments have you started in the past week?  The past month?  You're (expletive removed) relentless.  You start some (expletive removed) somewhere and as soon as you are called out on it you scream that you're the victim, when in reality you are nothing but a troll that got the result you set out to get: attention. 

Unequivocally, Just (expletive removed) off, you absolute weapon.

I am so sick and tired of coming online to do some Talossa stuff only to be distracted by your (expletive removed) (expletive removed).  Are you not tired of it?  Would you not rather just (expletive removed) off to your own little corner and work on your own little bit of something to contribute to what we are all trying to achieve here?  Over and over and over, when you could be just working on your history book or whatever project you intended on getting into when you 'politically retired' or just away pulling on your todger, you keep coming back, every five (expletive removed) minutes to pick ... No, (expletive removed) it. I'm done.  I'm not doing this again and again.  I really hope you enjoy being king of the ashes., because that's where it's headed. (expletive removed) bellend.

And all this only touches on your most recent behaviour.  I've not even went near (oh, but I'm (expletive removed) about to) your bullshit with V that skirted round the edges of homophobia (not to mention how you frequently 'innocently and unintentionally' drop transphobic and mentally-challenged buzzwords buried within walls of seemingly innocuous text).  But, all that doesn't really explain my own personal problem with you.  I mean, yeah, I ignored all that stuff.  I'll live with that guilt.  But for the benefit of anyone wondering when I, personally, switched against you?  Well, it started at some point around 2016.  It wasn't a boolean on/off thing; that's just roughly when I started to see patterns.  Patterns in how you would manipulate your own party members.  Hey, I don't even know if you did it to all party members, but you did it with me.  How you would feed me (expletive removed) sandwiches.  But, that's cool, that's just management, right?  How about when you would try playing my emotions by using my past against me?  When you would play the role of my greatest recovery cheerleader then play the role of a disappointed father figure to manipulate my feelings to guide my actions? When you would try filling my head with self-doubt about my own abilities?  You are nothing but a total piece of (expletive removed). 

LOL, and then that time you (and Cresti, btw) convinced us all to follow the party lead in defending that other piece of (expletive removed), BenArd, during his impeachment for being a raging hard-on of a bigot while in office.  Wow!  You actually got me to vote against my conscience on that one (52RZ6).   

How many ex-Rumpers have opened their eyes to you now?  Myself, Nordselva, Tim, Viteu... ?
The RUMP party has completely collapsed. 
You are now running around without any (expletive removed) allies. 
And you still won't change the record.

What the (expletive removed) is actually wrong with you?
Is this just how it looks when a control freak loses control?

Explain it.
Know what. 
Doesn't even matter.

You won't even see what I am saying here as legit. 
You won't even recognise any of this as valid. 
You'll somehow still manage to play the sweet wordsmith and colour me the bully.

I don't even care. 
Just, (expletive removed) you, Alex. 
Just, (expletive removed) you and (expletive removed) off.



I'll happily take my Witt suspension now, S:r SoS (if Alex allows it).  It was (expletive removed) worth it.


Edit...
Expletives removed. I've calmed down and it's not fair on visitors to be forced to read that kind of language.  Content and substance stands unedited.

[Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu]

Is this discussion even about broosking anymore?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

You guys have managed to derail a derailed conversation. Meta!

[Sir 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!

What say the alternative?  I mean, somebody needs to have this power, right? 

Cool, so you think it's insane that the Chancery has that power.  Even though you were totally cool with John Woolley (King John, but in his private capacity as a private person) having that same power?  Whatever...

If not the SoS, who is subject to (wait for it, it's one of your favourites) checks and balances, then who?

If not the SoS, who can be replaced for malfeasance (unlike the private owner of the previous Wittenberg), then who?

...what the law says?  That the SoS acts upon request from whoever is in charge of that particular board?  For example, the Chancery shouldn't be policing debate in the Senats.  The Mencei should request action from them.  That's what the law says, as best I can tell.

Sir AD, you were the opinion that the King, in his private capacity, 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?

...no?  I wasn't okay with it.  That's why I wrote the law that created Telecomuna, so our Wittenberg would be administered by elected and appointed officials.

For years, I was of the opinion that the king was doing a fine job and it would be illegal to just seize Witt, but that we should have a setup that had more legitimacy.  Not everyone in the RUMP agreed with it, but I thought it was the best thing.  Here's the law: http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Decoupling_the_Public_and_Private_Witts_Act

I also wrote the extension to try to make it work later when the Chancery needed more time to get things set up:
http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Trying_Again_on_Telecomuna_Act

You voted for these bills.

The law actually says that NewWitt should only be hosting provincial sub-forums for the "provinces that so request" (Lex.J.1).  I won't bother going into the nitty-gritty on this, seeing as exactly zero provinces have ever officially made such a request, therefore Wittenberg should not actually be currently hosting any provincial sub-forum at all (but if you really want this nation of laws to follow the law down to the last comma then you know how to file a suit (not sure who you would sue though, since the guy that created all the NewWitt provincial sub-forums isn't a citizen any more, but fucking rock on, law dude).

You accidentally clipped out the next sentence: "The Secretary of State shall have ultimate discretion in the question of infrastructure, although they are highly advised to take the wishes of officials into account in their decision-making."  That was done specifically so that the SoS could set things up as seemed best to them, law dude.

Anyway, the very fact that El Lex has that phrase ("provinces that so request") indicates that it is not mandatory for provinces to even have a sub-board on NewWitt.  So, to what you assert ("they would be in charge of every provincial board (rather than local governments")... Yes.  If a province is supposed to legally request the Chancery host a forum board for them, then yes, the province should yield any say in how that sub-forum operates.  If the province doesn't like that, then the province is free to not make a request for a forum to be hosted on Witt and can go set up it's own methods of communication.  Further, if something as important as a province gets this level of treatment then you can be sure that something like the College of Arms can be treated in law in the same way.

If I understand your reasoning, you're saying that because the provinces request a service, then therefore that must make them subordinate within that service to the provider.  And because the College of Arms is less "important," it must be the same for them.  I don't think this reasoning holds.  I had to request an email account -- does Google get to say what mail I'm allowed to send?  No, of course not.

Plus, the law seems to say otherwise, since it says that, "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."  That is different than "The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary."  We can't just go with your gut feeling on who is more important.

Your entire argument against the Chancery, here, is the exact opposite of what you have argued in the past in defence of King John as a private individual having the exact same powers over OldWitt on Proboards.  You once argued that it was 100% legit and cool for John to moderate Witt and enforce Wittiquette as he saw fit without oversight from anybody.  Now that we are in a position where the SoS has Witt control, where the SoS is subject to impeachment and removal from office and is subject to scrutiny and oversight, you're crying blue bloody murder?

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU ARE CONSTANTLY ACCUSED OF ARGUING IN BAD FAITH.

This whole screed seems a little silly now, doesn't it?  I pushed for us to be moved to an official forum starting about seven years ago or so, as I recall, since I was uncomfortable with the status quo.

You know what.
Fuck the government's code of conduct.
Apologies to my (possibly ex) cabinet colleagues. 
I'm willing to take the chop for this.

lol I don't think you need to worry.  Only challenging the people in power is against the code of conduct around here, it seems.  Also, I think you honestly might be confusing me with someone else in some of your account of misbehavior.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Is this discussion even about broosking anymore?

No, I derailed it when I asked when the Secretary of State obtained the power to move or censor posts.  I wasn't going to bring up broosking again, because it seems to me that there's a new norm, and there's nothing that can be done about that.

You guys have managed to derail a derailed conversation. Meta!

The whole thing is weird and tedious at this point.  Basically I just wish I'd ignored it and let the Secretary of State wield the new power without anyone noticing.  Does it even matter these days?

[Eðo Grischun]

Only challenging the people in power is against the code of conduct around here, it seems.

Except V was dropped from the Cabinet last term for losing the rag with you.  So, no.  You're talking (expletive removed) again.

Also, I think you honestly might be confusing me with someone else in some of your account of misbehavior.

Turn yer gaslight off.  I've got a saved document with all your posts, PMs and emails that show the pattern of behaviour if I ever need it, mate. 

Let's just do each other the favour and both got off this train right now. You (expletive removed) off from me and I'll (expletive removed) off from you.  If you need any information from or have questions for any of my offices just you get in touch with your elected rep and get them to raise a Terp on your behalf.  Anything other than that will just get blanked.  Deal?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Only challenging the people in power is against the code of conduct around here, it seems.

Except V was dropped from the Cabinet last term for losing the rag with you.  So, no.  You're talking shite again.

Luc and Ian P are no longer in the Government.

Also, I think you honestly might be confusing me with someone else in some of your account of misbehavior.

Turn yer gaslight off.  I've got a saved document with all your posts, PMs and emails that show the pattern of behaviour if I ever need it, mate. 

Let's just do each other the favour and both got off this train right now. You fuck off from me and I'll fuck off from you.  If you need any information from or have questions for any of my offices just you get in touch with your elected rep and get them to raise a Terp on your behalf.  Anything other than that will just get blanked.  Deal?

I've posted thousands of times, and I know I've said some wrong things in public over the years.  The world has changed and so have I since 2006.  But as far as I can tell from a quick search based on the two email addresses I have for you, we've only ever exchanged emails outside of public forums a small number of times -- mostly about anodyne stuff, like party platforms or the advertisement you ran in Beric'ht Talossan.  And we've exchanged 25 PMs, also, about similar matters.  I mostly say in private the same thing I say in public, as you know.  I knew I'd been consistent on the administration of Wittenberg because I've been saying the same things about it for a very long time.  (Not to say that I haven't changed views on some things, but this isn't one of them).

C'est la vie -- we've known each other more than a decade and I've posted thousands of times.  But it's been quite a while since I started a conversation of any kind with you or addressed you directly out of the blue, and I don't expect that will change.  There isn't much point, after all.  Still weird to me how the mind works -- I know how you feel, since you're very forceful about it, but I just can't stop thinking of you as a friend.  I've thought of you that way just too long as so much stuff has happened in both of our lives, I guess.  If you want to formalize your arrangement, this forum has a block function.  I am certainly happy to end this conversation.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

Well I'm sure I'm going to piss some people off, but this conversation has gotten completely out of hand and in my capacity as Administrator of Witt as the Secretary of State, I am going to enforce a cooling off period by closing this thread for one week. If anyone has any issues with this, they can file a suit with the Uppermost Cort.