Broosking Discussion.

[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-GC]

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-GC]

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-GC]

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-GC]

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.

[King Txec]

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.

[Baron 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.

[King Txec]

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

[Baron 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.

[King Txec]

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.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Is this discussion even about broosking anymore?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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