|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 22:36:34 GMT -6
It boggles my mind that "Fuck you" is more offensive to people here than Alex actively defaming me. Like, some of you seriously need to take a close look at your morals and ethics, especially Alex.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 23:30:26 GMT -6
Ah yes, he can't believe his ears that anyone could cons'der him rude: "How dare that villain tell the truth! He makes me use that language lewd!
"It's just like when that lady sneer'd -- At least, I'm sure she would have soon -- That's why I socked her in the nose, Lest I end up quite a buffoon."
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 23:37:58 GMT -6
You're basically the Talossan version of the U.S. alt-right. You're basically Richard Spencer. The neo-nazi rhetoric is overlooked because its dressed in the drag of so-called civility. And the one who call the neo-nazi the trough he is be damned for not engaging the neo-nazi with civility. This is the pique moral bankruptcy and pure fraud that you're perpetuating on Talossa.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 23:41:16 GMT -6
You're basically the Talossan version of the U.S. alt-right. You're basically Richard Spencer. The neo-nazi rhetoric is overlooked because its dressed in the drag of so-called civility. And the one who call the neo-nazi the trough he is be damned for not engaging the neo-nazi with civility. This is the pique moral bankruptcy and pure fraud that you're perpetuating on Talossa. "That man's a Nazi," he cried loud, "because he made me sad with facts! I feel it so it must be so. So now go and fetch me my axe. "Everyone who criticizes Must believe all quite the same Therefore all spite is justified Including chanting of his name. "He said mean things about my bill, And I really do not like him, So all behavior's justified, I've no choice but to slash this limb! "I can see in his very heart It's a special power I got So I can do whate'er I like And with guilt my soul won't blot."
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 23:51:49 GMT -6
You can call me rude, crude, uncouth, or vulgar. But I do not deceive. My "fuck you" is honest. You know where we stand. You do nothing but lie. So go ahead. Because, when this passes, at least I was honest. I'd rather be known for my lack of decorum in calling out your fuckwittery, than be called dishonest. You're back on my ignore list, Alexandreu Davinescu. And I hope that you one day find the ability to be truthful.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 3, 2019 0:02:39 GMT -6
You can call me rude, crude, uncouth, or vulgar. But I do not deceive. My "fuck you" is honest. You know where we stand. You do nothing but lie. So go ahead. Because, when this passes, at least I was honest. I'd rather be known for my lack of decorum in calling out your fuckwittery, than be called dishonest. You're back on my ignore list, Inability to Control Myself. And I hope that you one day find the ability to be truthful. "O my punch is truly honest," He said, smiling a kindly smile. "To tell the truth, you should thank me... Come come, stop spitting up that bile. "You know where I stand, that's a fact. (Right now, it's by your shallow grave.) That's all too rare in this dark world, Where almost every man's a knave. "Not all of them, you understand," He said, tamping down the cold earth. "But somehow all that disagree, I find deserve this same berth."
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 3, 2019 0:10:25 GMT -6
Moving on the from The Ballad of the Poor Judge of Moral Equivalence, and returning to my point: if guidelines about behavior are not explicit, then we'd be turning the Tuischac'h into one of the most powerful posts in the government. The ability to shut down debate, censor, and otherwise police behavior is a pretty huge deal. In most elected bodies, an entire committee handles that. In New Zealand, it's the Standing Orders of Parliament, which specify it thus:
409 Contempt of House (1) The House may treat as a contempt any act or omission which— (a) obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions, or (b) obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of the member’s or officer’s duty, or (c) has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result. (2) In deciding whether or not to treat any act or omission as a contempt, the House may consider— (a) the conduct of any person taking part in parliamentary proceedings: (b) the nature of any action taken against any person on account of that person’s actions when taking part in parliamentary proceedings.
410 Examples of contempts Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 409, the House may treat as a contempt any of the following: (a) the breach of one of the privileges of the House: (b) deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition): (c) serving legal process or causing legal process to be served within the parliamentary precincts, without the authority of the House or the Speaker, on any day on which the House sits or a committee meets: (d) removing, without authority, any papers or records belonging to the House: (e) falsifying or altering any papers or records belonging to the House: (f) as a member, failing to declare, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, any financial interest that the member has in that business: (g) as a member, knowingly failing to make a return of pecuniary and other specified interests by the due date: (h) as a member, knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary and other specified interests: (i) as a member, requesting without any reasonable grounds that the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament conduct an inquiry into another member under clause 16 of Appendix B: (j) as a member, receiving or soliciting a bribe to influence the member’s conduct in respect of proceedings in the House or at a committee: (k) as a member, accepting fees for professional services rendered by the member in connection with proceedings in the House or at a committee: (l) offering or attempting to bribe a member to influence the member’s conduct in respect of proceedings in the House or at a committee: (m) assaulting, threatening, or intimidating a member or an officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty: (n) obstructing or molesting a member or an officer of the House in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty: (o) reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House: (p) misconducting oneself in the presence of the House or a committee: (q) divulging the proceedings or the report of a select committee or a subcommittee contrary to the Standing Orders: (r) publishing a false or misleading account of proceedings before the House or a committee: (s) failing to attend before the House or a committee after being ordered to do so: (t) failing to obey an order of the House or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker: (u) intimidating, preventing, or hindering a witness from giving evidence, or giving evidence in full, to the House or a committee: (v) refusing to answer a question as ordered by the House or a committee: (w) assaulting, threatening, or disadvantaging a member on account of the member’s conduct in Parliament: (x) assaulting, threatening, or disadvantaging a person on account of evidence given by that person to the House or a committee: (y) knowingly making reference to a matter that is suppressed by an order of a New Zealand court, contrary to the Standing Orders, in any proceedings of the House or of a committee.
But in practice, it's usually only a blend between faithful adherence to these guidelines plus party politics.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 3, 2019 8:35:18 GMT -6
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 3, 2019 14:57:43 GMT -6
Well, okay, you've made a very good case for a Standing Orders of the Hopper to be enforced by either the Túischac'h or the SoS, I honestly don't care which - but currently the Túischac'h does nothing and the SoS does too much. Is that what we'll go with?
There's a lot of complaint about "censoring debate", but what you and V are doing right now is not debate. It's trolling on one side and angry yelling on the other side. This does nothing for Talossan politics but drag it down, on both sides. It does not contribute anything to the issues of the day. It needs to be brought under mutually agreed control.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 3, 2019 20:57:19 GMT -6
Come on, Miestra. You know it's not like I seek him out or start off taunting him. Read through this thread. Read through most threads where he and I disagree. It almost always begins with him picking a fight. I mean the guy actually sued to try to secure the right to dox me, just out of sheer petty nastiness! You and I might disagree and get short with each other, but you have typically been at least somewhat circumspect when irritated, and I resort to rhyming quatrains. There's a difference.
Again, I'm very interested in this proposal, but you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's going to mean your Distain will be blocked from legislative discussions on a regular basis.
Anyway...
I agree that the SoS maybe shouldn't be doing this, and I'd be on board with the Tuishac'h. I also agree with V that this would probably require an OrgLaw amendment. Beyond that, I reiterate that the rules about this need to be quite clear. They don't have to be very specific, but they must be clear. Maybe we could start by trying to define the things you wish to have banned? Vulgar language is pretty clear, but how would you define the other practices?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 6, 2019 14:28:48 GMT -6
All right: totally new approach.
WHEREAS in most nations, responsibility for keeping order and civil debate in the Legislature is a function of the President/Chair/Speaker of that Chamber;
AND WHEREAS in Talossa, most debate on occurs not in the formal chambers of the Ziu, but in the Hopper;
AND WHEREAS the Hopper has degenerated into a kind of "Wild West" atmosphere, with MCs baiting, trolling and abusing each other;
AND WHEREAS this is unseemly;
AND WHEREAS the Mençéi has established good rules for debate among Senators, but nothing similar exists for the Cosa as yet;
BE IT ESTABLISHED by the King, Cosa and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that: a new section H.6.8 shall be added to el Lexhátx:
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 6, 2019 15:58:37 GMT -6
I think you mean added to el Lexhatx? But this makes a lot more sense, good idea.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 22, 2019 23:29:54 GMT -6
Because a notorious bad-faith spin doctor is deliberately mischaracterising what happened in this thread: I am satisfied with the last text and thus I don't feel the need to participate more until it comes time to Clark it. I have not abandoned it.
But I reiterate the bad faith of the people who screamed and whined that the Túischac'h should not have power to just kick someone out of the forum without abiding by a stringent set of rules set in advance, and then support the King doing just that. It shows that the problem is not unaccountable power for some people, but someone who's not their buddy having any power at all.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 23, 2019 7:49:47 GMT -6
Well, you didn't Clark it and we moved on to other things, so I think I can be excused for thinking you had moved on. It's a shame, because we could have passed this. Perhaps the Seneschal (who is still officially Seneschal) could issue a PD, and the king could affirm it before accepting the resignation?
I'd be happy to spell out the difference between your initial proposal and the royal enforcement of Wittiquette: the king is someone I trust who has used his power exceedingly sparingly in this regard. I do not worry that he will attempt to abuse this power, and I know that checks exist against his capacity to do so. But a politically-elected leader would represent the majority in power, and so we're accordingly giving the government the ability to set all the rules of at least the Cosa.
I don't see any alternative at this moment, so I guess I can support it, but we shouldn't ignore this fact. V is a senior member of Government and a leader in his party, despite his behavior -- is it likely that he's going to start setting rules to limit himself or sanctioning himself for violating them?
Look, can you promise me you're going to make him stop this behavior? Screaming fits of vulgarity, talking about my family, doxxing me (like in this very thread, in a post you "liked")... it just can't go on. No one wants to be in a place where a political opponent can act this way without consequences, but V has suffered none. He's still in power in his party and as one of the most powerful members of the Government. And you want to change the rule so that the majority coalition -- which has done nothing to stop him -- will now be able to abolish the existing rules?
EDIT: Apparently the Government and the FDT object so much to V's behavior that he will now be Seneschal, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 23, 2019 8:01:56 GMT -6
I continue to take no position on the merits of the bill, but I would very much disagree with any action being taken by Prime Dictate. Implementing a decorum rule for legislators should be decided upon by legislators rather than executive fiat.
|
|