No political arguments = Happier Talossa?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It's pretty clear that you don't know what "gaslighting" means, or that you're using it in a VERY different sense than I do. The Free Democrats do not use gaslighting tactics, defined as "deliberately lying to confuse people and make them doubt their own perceptions", we never have, and I don't know why you have to add that when your shocking exposé about "Free Democrats discuss AD's manipulative tactics and how to counteract them" has made a sufficient splash.

Also, that's a new definition of "double-dipping" as well. If you mean "hypocrisy", then that's a perfectly cromulent word.

[Éovart Andrinescù]

I'm fine with calling it hypocrisy. Tis the sport to have the enginer hoist with his own petard.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Proposing a party-wide tactic of just ignoring all of AD's posts

The fact that I have been replying to AD today should indicate to you that your comprehension of that thread might have been wrong.

BTW, to drag the thread back on topic: this is precisely the kind of thread that should be Domed - not because Eovart or myself are doing anything wrong (though a fine line is being trodden), but because we should give ordinary Talossans without "beef" a way to easily ignore this stuff if it doesn't add to their enjoyment.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

One more point: I oppose the idea of abolishing the Chat Room because I think it's good for there to be a "Talossans-only" discussion forum. A group needs to have an internal space for discussions if it is to develop a healthy culture. The citizens-only fora in Penguinea were where all the good things happen; and as GV says in the History Project, private forums were crucial to allow the free debate which led to the end of KR1's tyranny.

Also, how about bringing back a forum along the lines of the old Republic's "Landing Pier" - a subforum open to Friends of Talossa as well as citizens, so we can get input from the outside world?

[Eðo Grischun]

One more point: I oppose the idea of abolishing the Chat Room because I think it's good for there to be a "Talossans-only" discussion forum. A group needs to have an internal space for discussions if it is to develop a healthy culture. The citizens-only fora in Penguinea were where all the good things happen; and as GV says in the History Project, private forums were crucial to allow the free debate which led to the end of KR1's tyranny.

Also, how about bringing back a forum along the lines of the old Republic's "Landing Pier" - a subforum open to Friends of Talossa as well as citizens, so we can get input from the outside world?

+1 for landing pier

[DNVercaria]

I don't think it's wrong to have protected spaces like the Chat Room, but I wonder why it should be neccessary to hide fun things like (e.g.) the Talossan Top Twenty away from publically visible spaces.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

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.

Also by people who thought that posts that weren't sent to the Thunderdome should have been.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

Also by people who thought that posts that weren't sent to the Thunderdome should have been.

Either way, the 'Dome moderator (or any moderator of Witt at all?) has got to have nerves of steel, total faith in their own judgement, sheer apathy towards attempts to work the refs, and political impartiality. It would be a perfect job for a properly retired politician or judge who wants to stay active but really doesn't GAF about contemporary debates.

[Baron 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.

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

This conversation appears to have taken quite a dramatic turn last night. This does help make sense of a lot of recent behavior.

[Açafat del Val]

My two cents: It's not censorship unless we're deleting, editing, or hiding ("shadowbanning") people and their posts. Merely moving a thread, or parts of a thread, to a new location does not constitute censorship.

I think that a reintroduction of the Thunderdome is well advised and, rather than move an entire thread, a moderator should move only the grossly inflammatory posts.

AD, if you're worried, you should exercise those legislative muscles of yours (you did write El Lexhatx, after all) and write up a draft of a bill regulating the standards for which some posts get moved. Otherwise we'll just have to trust the moderator's judgement :)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

AD, if you're worried, you should exercise those legislative muscles of yours (you did write El Lexhatx, after all) and write up a draft of a bill regulating the standards for which some posts get moved. Otherwise we'll just have to trust the moderator's judgement :)

I'm a citizen expressing their concerns to the legislators and leaders of the country.  I am no longer a legislator and haven't been in office in quite some time now.  It's actually a bit worrying how often I hear, "fix it yourself" from the people elected to run things!  I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think Talossans should be able to voice concerns about problems even if they're not legislators.

Anyway, I think it's already been exhaustively established elsewhere that the intended function on Witt is that each board is supposed to have their own standards/rules, and that they then request action from the Chancery if those standards are violated.  I know it's the party line now that there should be a moderator who chooses what is acceptable speech in a given conversation, but that's not the law.

[Açafat del Val]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Açafat del Val]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, that does seem like a helpful article for you.

You suggested I write a law establishing "a bill regulating the standards for which some posts get moved" and I pointed out that there's already a law which has each board's authority (Dean of the College, Mencei, etc) writing the rules for their board and requesting any action from the Chancery to moderate.  That's pretty much the opposite of a red herring, since it's a direct and topical response.

So yeah.  Thanks.

[Açafat del Val]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

I'll dance with you all night, if you'd like. Just know that I sorta have two left feet.