Beric'ht Talossan: Issue 21, January 25th 2015/XXXVI

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

I have to say I don't understand Cutor's cartoon this time around.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Nah, it's a bit too obscure. Who's in the Napoleon hat?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm really glad that the paper is starting these great discussions!

Hey, I thinking of promoting the paper outside of Talossa, too. I know some micronationalists might be interested. Would anyone be willing to direct me to a good place to advertise in that regard?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jan 26, 2015 14:58:53 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

I have to say I don't understand Cutor's cartoon this time around.

Yeah I didn't get it either. The shoes,  what do those indicate? 

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Berich't Talossan: about as popular as non-RUMPers as The Sun is in Liverpool. Launched with goodwill, the increasing personal bile of its cartoons has burned a lot of it off and distracted attention from occasional good journalism.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. I was neither nagging nor, as you put it, "bitching". I was asked a question by a friend and reporter, and I responded honestly. I didn't run after you to hound you or anything, so please for the love of decency, calm your testicles. If it bothers you that much, I'll spend the next day off I get trawling through threads on Wittenberg to dig up old grievances and remind myself of what it was exactly that I thought you did wrong. The party election e-mail stands, as does springing the database on us - in an election implementing new changes, I thought and still do think, you ought to have been more cautious about it. I'll let you know when I have more for you, if you'd like? Or (and this is my preferred option), you can just accept that some people think things didn't go as smoothly as they might have. That's not to say you're not a good SoS (I really do thin you are - and an innovative one at that), but I urge caution in the future as I have done in the past. That's not at all as controversial as you make it out to be.

I also urge you not to continue using the word "bitching" - it's a tad sexist, not to mention wholly inaccurate in describing what actually happened.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

MPF, je propose pour des alternatifs un peu plus soutenus que bitching: "whining", "nitpicking".

Et je propose aussi pour tous les Talossains d'être un peu moins sensible à la critique!

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 26, 2015 17:48:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

MPF, je propose pour des alternatifs un peu plus soutenus que bitching: "whining", "nitpicking".

Et je propose aussi pour tous les Talossains d'être un peu moins sensible à la critique!

Thanks! These are both much better than what I used... I love the nitpicking one...

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. I was neither nagging nor, as you put it, "bitching". I was asked a question by a friend and reporter, and I responded honestly. I didn't run after you to hound you or anything, so please for the love of decency, calm your testicles. If it bothers you that much, I'll spend the next day off I get trawling through threads on Wittenberg to dig up old grievances and remind myself of what it was exactly that I thought you did wrong. The party election e-mail stands, as does springing the database on us - in an election implementing new changes, I thought and still do think, you ought to have been more cautious about it. I'll let you know when I have more for you, if you'd like? Or (and this is my preferred option), you can just accept that some people think things didn't go as smoothly as they might have. That's not to say you're not a good SoS (I really do thin you are - and an innovative one at that), but I urge caution in the future as I have done in the past. That's not at all as controversial as you make it out to be.

And my point is that this article was about my reform, and that dragging whatever problems occurred during the election is, in my opinion, an "attack"

Let me give you an example...

Imagine you are a police officer and you gave me a ticket for driving a little too fast, and that later, I am implicated in a road safety law overhaul.

Your quote would be like you saying: "MPF is always in a hurry, and I have proof! I gave him a ticket for speeding, so his road safety law is improvised like his driving is"

At least, that's how I see it...

As for the Database, you keep repeating that I dumped it on Talossa as if it was a fact, when I already explained what happened. Can you please read my explanation which I have repeated numerous times and which you evidently are ignoring?

I also urge you not to continue using the word "bitching" - it's a tad sexist, not to mention wholly inaccurate in describing what actually happened.

Yeah, you are 100% right, I apologize. My English did fail me. Whinning (a work I normally use) would have been better, but nitpicking (a word I never use) is even best.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Jan 26, 2015 16:07:59 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

Jan 26, 2015 14:58:53 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

I have to say I don't understand Cutor's cartoon this time around.

Yeah I didn't get it either. The shoes,  what do those indicate? 

Is it a shoeless admiral? Is Captain Crunch angry? So many questions, so few answers... heck, so few productive questions.

I am disturbed that the editorial policies of Beric'ht allow for contributor anonymity. The paper allows for Cutor and Mildew to have a public forum for voicing their opinions and complaints, and yet then cloaks (or allows them to cloak themselves) in anonymity that they may avoid responsibility for their opinions and statements. Mr. Mildew (which hearkens back to my derisive childhood nickname in elementary school) paints him/herself in the tradition of Charlie Hebdo. However, the editors and contributors of Charlie Hebdo were not anonymous. Though many of their cartoons were puerile, they (at the very least) stood by their statements.

The cartoonists of Beric'ht enjoy rubbing the ZRT's face in my sock puppetry. However, I would submit that their anonymous writing is not significantly different (legality aside) from my own actions of the past couple years. The sock puppets of the Quarter- Hundred Ruse permitted me to say literally anything (whether I thought it or not) and put it in the mouth of a detached figure, thus shielding myself from possible fallout of holding said opinion or espousing said outlook. This is, I believe, called trolling and it is wrong. On an ethical/moral level, it is possibly more wrong than the identify fraud (though much less illegal) I committed and was convicted of.  What no fine or public service can wipe out is the lack of trust engendered by my actions. At current, Cutor and Mildew can function anonymously and thus bear no responsibility for things that they say. This flies in the face of journalistic ethics, and I would encourage the editor of Beric'ht to rethink this policy.

Plus, we don't know who to contact in order to ask "Ok... what the heck IS that?"

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and concerns about our policy of accepting anonymous contributors. I have generally not defended the content or opinions of either the paper's columnists or its cartoonists, since my goal is to provide a platform for the exchange of ideas and promotion of dialogue, in addition to our mission of reporting the news and growing our culture. But I think that I should probably say a few words about why Beric'ht Talossan has a policy of accepting contributions from anyone willing to contribute regularly, regardless of popularity, politics, or anonymity.

First of all, let me reiterate that policy, so it is clear: Beric'ht Talossan exists to report on the news and events of modern Talossa for today's readers and for posterity, to promote Talossan culture's growth within our borders and to the wider world, and to provide a platform for the free and fearless exchange of ideas. Our commitment to this mission has helped us grow from a small knot of three contributors to our current staff of fifteen extraordinarily talented individuals from all across the political spectrum, united by their desire to have fun reporting the news and spreading the culture and promoting their ideas. The dedication and skill of our team at the paper (and podcast) is truly humbling, and I believe it has only been possible because of some of our rules.

Anonymous contributions are accepted because otherwise threats and intimidation might make it impossible for the cartoonists to continue their work, especially when their opinions are unpopular or controversial. I could elaborate, but I will instead point to the famous words of Justice Stevens of the United States Supreme Court, who put it well in "MCINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION" when he said:

Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. ... On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.

In the Western world, there is a very long tradition of publishing controversial ideas under a pen name, to protect one's reputation from association with one's ideas, or one's ideas from association with one's reputation. Candide was published under the nom de plume "Monsieur le docteur Ralph," while The Federalist Papers were published by "Publius." Political cartoons began as almost exclusively anonymous, and continued that way through most of their history, perhaps because they can be so powerful and so inflammatory.

I have personally gotten an anonymous threat for publishing the paper ("You will regret corrupting so many people"), and I have many times seen how someone can become a designated target for expressing an unpopular opinion, so I feel very sure that the paper's policy is the right thing to do. Posterity supports it, as well as good sense, and we need a place to air unpopular ideas without fear of retribution.

You have drawn an interesting parallel between your own actions and those of anonymous cartoonists. But there are very important distinctions. In the first place, your sockpuppets were not anonymous - very much the opposite, in fact, since they were specifically and legally identified as being discrete and real people. No one is under the impression, I hope, that there are citizens named Eric S. Mildew or Elo Cutor: they are known to be pseudonyms, and no one is engaging with them in the good faith belief that they are real. I agree that it was probably the betrayal of trust that was worse than the crimes for which you were convicted, and that is impossible when everyone is aware that these cartoonists are submitting anonymously.

After carefully considering your arguments, and after referring around the Web for the ethics of publishing pseudonymous work (very different than anonymous sourcing, incidentally) including the opinion of the Society of Professional Journalists, I conclude that it is better for the paper and better for the country if Beric'ht Talossan maintains its policy of accepting regularly submitted pseudonymous work, barring only libelous or unpublishable material. If you have any questions for our pseudonymous contributors, please refer them to me, and I will relay them and any responses faithfully. Would you like me to request an explanation of the cartoon in question?

[Óïn Ursüm]

My interpretation of the cartoon: empty shoes = me, because I didn't get anything done as AG, Napoleon = Admiral Tim, suitcase = Epic da Lhiun.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jan 27, 2015 13:55:32 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

My interpretation of the cartoon: empty shoes = me, because I didn't get anything done as AG, Napoleon = Admiral Tim, suitcase = Epic da Lhiun.

Ah, that makes sense. 

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jan 27, 2015 14:23:00 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

Jan 27, 2015 13:55:32 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

My interpretation of the cartoon: empty shoes = me, because I didn't get anything done as AG, Napoleon = Admiral Tim, suitcase = Epic da Lhiun.

Ah, that makes sense. 

So you have big shoes to fill with such heavy case-work. But, the job does come with a cool hat.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Sir Alexandreu,

I agree that legally and perhaps ethically, pseudonymous works are an acceptable policy. However, I do also feel that some of the cartoons indeed border on libelous or slanderous. I would urge you as editor to not accept works that are of that caliber. If a cartoonist or even a journalist were contributing slanderous or libelous material anonymously, it would not be much of a stretch for someone who feels aggrieved to pursue legal action against the paper itself. Humor (even low humor) only goes so far.