No political arguments = Happier Talossa?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Merge the chat room and this board, create a new chat called political discussion, and encourage a norm where people start or continue political discussions there.

Wait, how would that be different from having another Thunderdome (albeit with better PR)?

Because the thunderdome is a place where posts are forcibly segregated when someone in power doesn't like their tone or thinks the topic should be different. This would just be providing a purposely marked place to encourage folks to segregate their own speech.

[Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù]

I made a political party to do just that xD

[DNVercaria]

Maybe nasty arguments could simply be drowned in a multitude of fun topics, for instance by reducing the number of subforums of subforums.  The more every particular whimsy talk has to be taken to its own rarely frequented niche, the longer it takes to find all the pearls of the everyday talk of Talossans, and the more the heart of Wittenberg is just looking like a dry boring desert where nothing interesting is ever happening unless a wild uncontrolable argument is exploding like a shell.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not actually in the government. I'm a civil servant. Just FYI.

Small g government, yes :-)

Txec <--- tired teacher brain.

I actually wasn't familiar with the distinction until relatively recently, since it's not a phenomenon in America. I think it's a kind of fun little way to distinguish, but like a lot of things (eg pretty much every aspect of heraldry) it took me a while to get it (if I even do).

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Maybe nasty arguments could simply be drowned in a multitude of fun topics, for instance by reducing the number of subforums of subforums.  The more every particular whimsy talk has to be taken to its own rarely frequented niche, the longer it takes to find all the pearls of the everyday talk of Talossans, and the more the heart of Wittenberg is just looking like a dry boring desert where nothing interesting is ever happening unless a wild uncontrolable argument is exploding like a shell.

I certainly support this. Get rid of the chat room!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The real problem with "stopping arguments", is the problem we had with the Biondeu suggestion, the lessons of which have not appeared to have been learned by most people here.. This point is that arguing isn't the problem, it's people behaving reprehensibly that's the problem. One of the ways manipulative abusers survive is that they cloak their abuse in innocent "harmless chatting", and then make the people who try to stop them/contradict their lies appear to be "mean people starting arguments". Denying, Attacking, Reversing Victim and Offender.

However, I don't think the Thunderdome is feasible unless we find a moderator who is ruthless and won't be swayed by whining and complaining and "working the ref" for pulling a Red Card on a particular thread, or a particular poster.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The real problem with "stopping arguments", is the problem we had with the Biondeu suggestion, the lessons of which have not appeared to have been learned by most people here.. This point is that arguing isn't the problem, it's people behaving reprehensibly that's the problem. One of the ways manipulative abusers survive is that they cloak their abuse in innocent "harmless chatting", and then make the people who try to stop them/contradict their lies appear to be "mean people starting arguments". Denying, Attacking, Reversing Victim and Offender.

However, I don't think the Thunderdome is feasible unless we find a moderator who is ruthless and won't be swayed by whining and complaining and "working the ref" for pulling a Red Card on a particular thread, or a particular poster.

For my part, I am wary when the head of the Government proposes putting in place a censor, specifically chosen for ruthlessness, in order to police speech with an undefined standard that sounds incredibly subjective and prone to abuse by the powerful.  I'm sure that you have good intentions, but the next Seneschal or censor might not be so scrupulous about trying to silence their critics.  I can easily envisage a scenario where a powerful political party discusses on Facebook or Slack the latest outrages by the enemy with the Secretary of State (or whoever the censor might be) and educates the uninitiated in appropriate attitudes.  Even if such a group wasn't perfectly secure, it would be deeply problematic for our democracy.  We can't always hope that we'll have virtuous and kind officials in charge, and we need to plan for someone hateful and abusive in office.  What's the Madison quote?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary, right?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

"Working the refs" in politics means pre-emptively attacking the media (or other arbiters of truth) for "bias", to intimidate them and make sure the bias goes the other way. The classic example is D. Trump's relationship with the New York Times - he treats them mean to keep them keen. For example, a good way to make people unwilling to put a stop to your antics is to drop snide accusations that they're doing so as part of a political conspiracy against you. Screaming BIAS and CORRUPTION are quite effective ways for Donald Trump to delegitimise anyone who wants to stop his evil deeds. They're similarly effective in Talossa, sadly.

What we really can't have in Talossa is censorship based on "tone of voice" (eg. if someone starts using cusswords) or political content (as if, for example, a nasty flamewar about the Star Wars sequel trilogy would be hunky-dory). The best thing about the Thunderdome is it's not actually censorship. Free speech goes on unabated - in a forum where it doesn't get in other people's faces. The reason the last Thunderdome stopped working was that the moderators were bullied out of it by people whose posts kept ending up in the Thunderdome, and they didn't like it.

Anyone who characterises having a thread moved to a different subforum as censorship, and to spin persecution fantasies about it, is not only telling on themselves (i.e. revealing their true agenda, which is never to get negative feedback ever), but is cordially advised to grow the hútsch up.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm an American progressive activist, so I'm quite familiar with the phenomenon of working the refs, believe me.

When someone in power edits a conversation to eliminate the speech of some of the participants, that is certainly censorship. We should be candid when discussing such proposals. If you bridle at the use of that term, that's an appropriate reaction.

Obviously I don't have any problem with negative feedback, since I'm the one vigorously arguing against censorship... And if you can't understand why I might fear that this power over the speech of the citizenry might be misused, then it might be worthwhile for you to think more in terms of the hypotheticals that you scorn. Would you be okay with giving the Seneschal the authority to pass PD's without a counter signature, for example? Of course not, because even though you might be a certain that you would never abuse that power in an arbitrary and cruel manner, you don't know that a future leader would be as restrained with indulging their vendettas, right?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I should also note that no-one had any problem with the absolute independence of the SoS to run NewWitt the way he saw fit under the previous incumbent. But we had some problems with the King's shenanigans on OldWitt precisely because he could not be held accountable for what he did with his private property.

What are the current methods of accountability for the SoS?
1) he reports to the Ziu, in the person of the Túischac'h and Mençéi (El Lex. C.2.1)
2) he can be removed by the King on the recommendation of the above, or the Seneschál, for stated misbehaviour. (El Lex. C.3.1.)
3) the legal requirements for Witt moderation are given by El Lex. J.2:

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.

If you want the SoS to be under any other requirements for administration of Wittenberg, then they will have to be legal ones. To put it bluntly: the only way we get to force the SoS to administer Witt in any other way than the above is to pass a law.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm impressed by the rhetorical slight of hand where Facebook groups to which the gentleman is not invited are dubious hives of possible corruption, collusion and other forms of badthink against said gentleman; but on Wittenberg, all speech MUST be unregulated! Except where it upsets the gentleman, of course.

This reminds me of the gentleman's previous record of trying to break into confidential Cabinet discussions to see whether people are saying bad things about him. I try to not be a "backstabber", myself, and I don't say anything substantive in private that I wouldn't say on Wittenberg. It's just in public I try not to use cusswords. Anyway, the gentleman has got to accept that people are going to say unpleasant things about him if he... well, does what he does, and the real policing of speech is trying to shut that down or make it seem illegitimate.

And as for the turnabout issue: I fully accepted 23 years ago that, when I'm not around, Talossans whom I have rubbed the wrong way are going to retail all the garbage they possibly can about me. All I can do is challenge it when it gets into the public domain.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm impressed by the rhetorical slight of hand where Facebook groups to which the gentleman is not invited are dubious hives of possible corruption, collusion and other forms of badthink against said gentleman; but on Wittenberg, all speech MUST be unregulated! Except where it upsets the gentleman, of course.

This reminds me of the gentleman's previous record of trying to break into confidential Cabinet discussions to see whether people are saying bad things about him. I try to not be a "backstabber", myself, and I don't say anything substantive in private that I wouldn't say on Wittenberg. It's just in public I try not to use cusswords. Anyway, the gentleman has got to accept that people are going to say unpleasant things about him if he... well, does what he does, and the real policing of speech is trying to shut that down or make it seem illegitimate.

And as for the turnabout issue: I fully accepted 23 years ago that, when I'm not around, Talossans whom I have rubbed the wrong way are going to retail all the garbage they possibly can about me. All I can do is challenge it when it gets into the public domain.

... I think you must be confused. I am vigorously arguing that the authorities should not police speech here, to the maximum extent in keeping with public order. I don't think I anywhere suggested that we should be policing private Facebook groups or that speech that "upsets me" should be censored. I am emphatically arguing pretty much the exact opposite, actually.  I've actually tried really hard to make that clear. I think that no matter who is in power, the government should as much as possible not being involved in monitoring or censoring our communications. As the thread linked above shows, I have been consistent about that both when I was a politician and my party was in power, and now that I'm a private citizen.

I also thought I was pretty clearly establishing an elaborate hypothetical. I was not seriously suggesting that you and Txec were engaged in that behavior or that either of you would abuse your power. that is the whole point of the hypothetical... We aren't trying to make laws that will only apply for the current occupants of offices, but to all future occupants.

[Éovart Andrinescù]

I'm impressed by the rhetorical slight of hand where Facebook groups to which the gentleman is not invited are dubious hives of possible corruption, collusion and other forms of badthink against said gentleman; but on Wittenberg, all speech MUST be unregulated! Except where it upsets the gentleman, of course.

The real irony of this point is that a good 30–40% of the posts on the FreeDems Facebook group mention Mr Davinescu by name, often in the form of tactical "tips and tricks" on how to deal with him, including employing the very same gaslighting tactics that AD himself stands accused of, e.g. "Never take anything AD says in good faith." So there's that.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

All this is true, apart from the use of the term "gaslighting", which indicates to me that you don't understand what the term means.

Hmmm. I can no longer see you on the membership list. Does that mean you quit? Did you quit because you consider that our collective responses to AD are somehow improper?

[Éovart Andrinescù]

I'm sure I don't know. I don't presume to understand your motivations. I wouldn't want to be labelled a "narcissist" or some other pop-psychological term.

What I know is this: I see a lot of double-dipping, where AD is publicly called out for gaslighting people, and then privately members of the FDT are exhorted (by the party leadership, no less!) to gaslight and provoke AD, to never take his criticisms in good faith, etc. I happen to think AD has a point about censorship (relative to Talossa, i.e. summarily moving posts around and altering them). Maybe it's easier to label people as devils than it is to engage with their ideas, even when the implications of their criticisms might be uncomfortable, or cause the government to lose face?

Edit: Proposing a party-wide tactic of just ignoring all of AD's posts and literally pretending he doesn't exist like children might do on a schoolyard strikes me as kind of gaslighting, but hey, I'm not a psychologist and don't claim to be.