After reflection, some points got lost in translation (and I accept my part of the responsibility here).
Afford me a moment to clarify--
(1) Disagreement with me does not
de facto render anyone a liar. My contention was with adopting John's viewpoint wholesale.
(2) John's post reads as follows:
V —
For some time now, every single post you have made includes an assertion — or what would be read by someone unfamiliar with the facts as an assertion — that I have in some way questioned the OrgLaw's provision that someone can be expelled from Talossa only by the unanimous action of the Uppermost Cort. Which is untrue. I don't think I can expel anyone; I don't even think that you think I think that.
I have, over and over, said that *of course* I have no power to expel anyone from Talossa. You say, over and over, that I think I do. You are being dishonest; this is somewhat disheartening, and does not serve constructive discourse. Stop it, please.
— John R
I replied on April 12, 2019 at 10:35 p.m. EDT (a full 48 hours later), as follows:
John,
No. When you took it upon yourself to suspend my account, you effectively expelled me from Talossan life with only you as the arbiter of when that expulsion should be lifted. Again, you broke the Organic Law. So again, you're lying.
You continuously question the authority of the courts and its jurisprudence from the proclamation crisis. You continuously assert that Wittiquette gives you powers in excess of our Organic Law. And you maintain that only you can lead Talossa.
John, you're a liar. You lied in this post just as you lied with your nonsense about equal protection/due process.
I no longer think you have any good intention left in you. You're lashing out because I'm openly and without concern floutong my contempt for you clinging to power. You're a cancer to this country. We'd all be better once you realized it.
So John, stop it. You're a liar. You're consumed with your own ego. And you are a cancerous stain on Talossa.
I. Don't. Relent. To. Liars.
Welcome to free speech, John. I won't let you gaslight me and I won't let you King Ben me.
I'm not going anywhere. Get used to it.
Talossa's Faithful Servant,
V
John accused me of being dishonest regarding the line in my signature. He is calling me a
liar, but he simply is not using the word
liar. For me to lie, I must intentionally advance a fabrication of the truth. It has been my position, as articulated in the pending case before the UC, that his action in suspending my account, regardless of the reason for the action, resulted in an "effective expulsion." I have consistently maintained this argument since that occurrence. I have consistently maintained that he acts as if he is above the Organic Law. For him to accuse me of being dishonest, of intentionally fabricating my perception, is a blatant lie. He knows my position; we have a court case pending about it. For him to accuse me of lying about the very thing I perceive is his perception when he knows entirely my thoughts on the matter is his intentional fabrication of the truth.
(3)
Glüc da Dhi interjected as follows:
I think it's pretty obvious that XVI.12 refers to loss of citizenship, not temporary loss of access to an internet forum. Am I a liar?
At the time, most Talossans seemed to agree with the action. Other have argued the Ziu should temporarily ban members from the hopper when needed. Are they all lying?
My response was harsher than, arguably, it needed to be. And in the fray, I allowed myself to be caught up in the spin. Instead of responding to clarify my position, I responded to Glüc's framing of the issue. That is on me. But I will now explain--I do not think that those who disagree with me are lying. That was knee-jerk on my part. I agree that XVI.12 likely would be understood as a loss of citizenship, but that's not really my point. And Glüc's question is nonresponsive to my comment to John. I said by suspending a person's access to Witt, it has the effect of expulsion. As I explained thereafter, yes, a person can still vote, but they are otherwise precluded from engaging in the actual only tangible medium to be an active citizen of Talossa. One may choose to not have a Witt account, and some certainly do, but that is a choice of theirs. That is not imposed on them by someone who is imposing their concept of propriety onto others. To trying to mitigate that by painting Witt as merely "an internet forum" I think puts one's toes on the line of not critically thinking about the impact of suspension, especially when there is, at this moment, no real means for recourse.
Nevertheless, if one understands that XVI.12 refers to loss of citizenship and not access to an internet forum, does that make them a liar? No.
If one believes that the Ziu should be able to temporarily ban a member when appropriate, does that make them a liar? No.
If one does not recognize the importance of Witt and free access to it as the only actual means by which one can engage Talossan life in a meaningful way and, thus, depriving one of that access effectively expels them from Talossan life, does that make them a liar? Not per se, but I think it puts their toes on the line.
To that end, I will apologize to Glüc for calling him a liar in my response. I could have taken a moment to better explain the nuance of my position. I do not, however, apologize to John. He is lying, namely about my position.
(4)
Ian Plätschisch interposes a comment that me calling Gluc a liar is not helpful. I must concede that he is right without reservation. Again, it is on me for not clarifying the nuance of what I consider a lie and what I don't consider a lie.
Ian Plätschisch has my apology in that regard.
(5)
Ian Plätschisch then asks if I could, in good conscience, recommend that people immigrate to Talossa. I detest this argument because it changes the serious nature of the dispute. First, unequivocally, I would encourage anyone to apply for citizenship of Talossa at any time. Second, it is not my responsibility to make Talossa a fun place. Fun is subjective. Some people find fun in the language; some people find fun in the politics; etc. I cannot interpret my positions and arguments in a light of how someone else may or may not perceive of fun. Third, to answer Ian's question directly--I cannot, however, encourage one to immigrate to Talossa without them having a full understanding of Talossa. That means the good and the bad. I honestly think John is bad for Talossa. He did good work years ago; but past good deeds do not create mulligans for subsequent abuse of power. An immigrant should know the full picture to make an informed decision.
(6) I asked a simple question that was never answered - "Given the divisive figure that (John) is, does remaining King trump Talossa's well being?"
(7)
Glüc da Dhi then states that it is hard to think that I still think John is lying given the difference between expulsion and a temporary Witt ban (after supposed continued verbal abuse in clear and repeated violation of forum rules). Glüc concedes that I think that I think John is wrong, but not how I think he or Glüc is wrong. I think this fully addressed above and throughout the thread. But let us not forget, I have long argued that there is no real substantive difference between the substance of what I and others say on Witt, I have pointed out that many except to the manner in which I say it. I find that to be hypocritical. Even after it was pointed out that John called me a liar, and for 48 hours, neither Glüc nor Ian called him out on that, and that they only interjected after I used the word
liar, they still have not called John out for doing essentially the same thing I did.
I do think John is lying/lied, and I think his lying is why we are having this current contentious debate. While I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction, I still cannot help but think that this is not really the manner in which I debate, but personal. Given that the attack on the
liar allegation has only been levied at me, notwithstanding that John did just that, and that there still is not a single comment from either as to this, it's become patent that certain Talossans aren't honestly seeking to moderate discourse to make it civil, but simply seeking to silence someone they don't personally like.
Now, to digress, I would also point out that I suspect that some who oppose Telecomuna, and the separation of a State forum for the conduct of government business, only do so for political gain and not for, as they purport, because of low citizen participation. For instance, they argue that many are turned off to politics and want Talossa to be fun by focusing on other aspects. Then how exactly is removing the political side not a boon to that? Next, if the politics have become has toxic as they claim, let's not overlook that my alleged "abuse" has really been restricted to the political forums. Why not allow them to become State run in a separate fora? I think it's becoming obvious that those who argue against the separation really want voters to see the so-called toxic nature of our politics to score political points. To put another way--many voters may likely agree with a certain party, but would be less likely to support them if others are able to spin how members of a certain party engage in debate. This is another example of bad faith conduct.
(8)
Glüc da Dhi argues above that Witt suspension does not fully preclude someone from being represented in the Corts, or voting, etc. But that's a bit disingenuous. I literally had to find someone to post my petition on my behalf, and even then it was a maybe if a justice would respond in time. Further, being banned form one debate on Witt means, essentially, being banned from all debates until the suspension is lifted. We should not overlook that it took the some time to figure out how to unsuspend my account. And for a significant period of time, I was precluded, by Cort order, from posting outside of the Ziu or the Cort. I could not actually engage in Talossa life on Witt for a fair period of time. I honored the Cort's order. Others, however, don't.
----------
The reason I post the foregoing it to better outline the actual debate for clarity. I do not think that Glüc and Ian are liars because they necessarily disagree with me, and, as I've already said, I own my fault in jumping to that and not taking a moment to explain. I do think Glüc and Ian have made it personal in imposing on me a set of standards that they don't hold the others to. And I do think comments here have evaded the point I have been making--the effect of an action informs the intent of the action. (I note, we should not overlook some simple facts--John suspended my account for conduct that occurred in the Ziu; he deprived me of access to every other forum because of conduct in the Ziu. The Cort's order allowed me only access to the Corts and the Ziu.)
I will explain this through what intent means from a US legal perspective. It is not, necessarily, the actual motive behind one's actions, but whether one could be substantially certain that a result would occur from an action. Take the seminal case that every US first year law student learns- a young boy wants to get the attention of the boy sitting in front of him in a class, so he gives a little kick to the boy's leg. The boy in the back did not know that the boy in the front had a vein disorder. This kick caused the boy in the front's vein to explode. So (and not going into common-law elements of battery), the question is, did the boy who kicked have the intent to make offensive contact with the other boy? The answer is yes. We can be substantially certain that kicking someone will cause them harm. So the motive, only to get another person's attention, is irrelevant, because we know that this conduct can cause injury (note this is a civil law and not criminal law case).
I bring this up because, can it be said that it was not John's intent to expel from from Talossa? Yes, of course. But would John be substantially certain that suspension would not result in an effective expulsion? The answer is no--given how integral Witt is to basic Talossan life, depriving someone of access to Witt, and disappearing for a few days, requiring them to seek someone out to petition the Cort, and then the Cort limiting the reinstatement to limited boards, even though those boards had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged transgressions that caused the suspension (bit of irony there), is, effectively, expulsion. You deprive the person of a meaningful way to engage in Talossan life. Further, John could be substantially certain that by suspending my account for alleged transgressions in the Ziu, it would preclude me from all other aspects of Talossan life and the many forum on Witt. To wit, the Chatroom is "everything goes," so my comments would not have been out of place there. But I was deprived of access to that.
So yes, I do think John, having been explained this before, is lying when he says I am being dishonest for representing what I firmly believe is the end result of his action--for what I believe he had the intent to do.
I end on this point--for those who reference "ProBoards" terms of service, let us not overlook the Chatroom, where anything goes. That is, we already implicitly say those rules won't be enforced (unless Proboards does) there; so we're not exactly adhering to them.