Terpelaziun for the Seneschal

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

S:reu Seneschal:

The Distain of this government has vowed as a personal policy that he will begin ignoring Wittiquette Rule #11, which asks everyone to respect Talossan-language pseudonyms. Given past events involving extremely objectionable Talossans, and out of mutual respect and understanding, our nation has abided by this custom for as long as modern cybercitizenship has existed. People like Dame Miestra have requested this custom be observed, for example, out of a concern for Talossa -- in her case because she feared what one persistent enemy of hers might do to the country to try to get at her. Others believe that Talossa could be misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued, causing harm to their professional careers.

The Distain has declared he will no longer respect this rule or this custom with reference to people he dislikes. Worse, he has also repeatedly -- over and over -- used other personal information he has about my family as a weapon in conjunction with my English-language name. I expect he will, in fact, engage in both practices in this thread (since he is motivated by malice). This is often known as "doxxing" on the Internet -- joining together some aspect of someone's online identity with their offline identity with the intention of causing harm to that person.

We all know a lot about each other, and even when we virulently disagree with each other, we must be able to live together as a community. Accordingly, these declarations by your assistant are disturbing to me.

My question is this, then: is it the official policy of this government that the private forum of Wittenberg has been nationalized and that, accordingly, enforcement of Wittiquette constitutes censorship in some way?

Or perhaps more broadly -- and I can create a second Terp if asking two questions here is too much, it's not a problem! -- is it the stance of this Government that we can freely "dox" people, for example by disclosing the information given during immigration proceedings to which we are all privy?

Tagging: Ian Plätschisch

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Lulz. The information you publically used to associate yourself with the online forum is not doxxing. I did not have to fish for it.

Again, you're misrepresenting the facts. And again, you only want to enforce rules of decency when it helps you, but stand against adhering to those rules yourself.

That said, if you want an honest debate, you can still have one. If your issue truly is wording, and you would vote for a bill accordingly, then draft a sample bill that you would support. You don't even need to Hopper it. But if, as I'm stating, all you're doing is distracting, then your arguments aren't authentic.

That said, according to Ben-Ard, there's a hat theory or something. The bill is by a private MC, not from the Government. So great job at misusing TERPs.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

S:reu Distain, am I to understand that this reply has been delegated to you by the Seneschal, or is your reply in addition to the one mandated by law?

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Neither. What is your statutory predicate that only the designee may respond to a TERP?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

None, but you are one of the most powerful people in the government and might have been designated to answer my question. I just wanted to know whether or not you had been delegated to do so.

Since you have not, I will continue to wait for the Seneschal to reply. Thank you.

[Ian Plätschisch]

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENESCHAL

Esteemed Túischac'h,

I come now to answer the questions posed by the esteemed MC Davinescu.

With regard to the member's first question, the Government acknowledges Wittenberg is private property. However, per the Organic Law, the Hopper, wherever it may be found, must be a public forum. Thus, it is implicit that Wittiquette is advisory rather than binding within the Hopper even if it is binding on other parts of Wittenberg.

With regard to the member's second question, a priority of this government is to ensure that Talossa is a place where everyone feels comfortable participating. Therefore, instances of "doxxing" would be discouraged, and to the extent that the Distain could have engaged in such behavior, the matter has been dealt with internally within the Cabinet.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

A follow-up question, if I might (with thanks, as always, for the professionalism and courtesy of the Seneschal):

The law explicitly provides that the government must provide a public forum, Telecomuna, where public and unfettered debate may occur. Given that this is the law, and Telecomuna does indeed exist and works (as your Government has said earlier in the term), then on what grounds could the Government claim further jurisdiction to nationalize and make the rules for a private forum?

I am grateful that the practical aspects of the issue are resolved, and you have my gratitude (and that of my family, and of a bunch of other Talossans). But one Cabinet officer's spanking aside, I think that the issue does still lurk. If Wittiquette is just not binding, then we're one outburst away from the problem returning. I would suggest that it would be great if the Government could affirm that it will continue to expect its members to all uphold Wittiquette, while Telecomuna is implemented seriously.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Telecomuna does indeed exist, although it is not quite ready for use (it is my understanding that the Senator from Benito is in the process of putting on the finishing touches). Regardless, the Hopper still exists on Wittenberg for the time being, which means Wittiquette can't be binding there even if Wittenberg as a whole is private (which it obviously is).

The Government will consider adding a clause to its Code of Conduct requiring Ministers to abide by the regulations of Wittiquette regardless of forum.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I disagree that the use of a privately-owned Witt by public officials entitles them to nationalize it and assume control. But even ceding that this is indeed the case, the Secretary of State is explicitly stated in the OrgLaw to be in charge of "administering" and "supervising" this public venue, "[w]ithin the bounds and rules imposed by law, tradition, and reason." I'd argue that the Secretary of State is permitted to enforce certain basic rules of decorum that fall within those bounds and rules. For example, should a legislator post a bill that was entirely racial epithets, defamatory language, or homophobic slurs, I'd assume the Secretary of State would and should reject and delete the bill. Repeatedly in the Organic Law, the SoS is placed in a position to monitor and facilitate the legislative process, and some element of control is necessarily implied.

Regardless, I think reasonable people can disagree on this, and for now I will be content with the status quo ante. Thank you once more!