|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 20:10:53 GMT -6
The Witt Moderation Act Whereas a lot of Talossa-doing happens on Witt, and it is often the public face of our country, and
Whereas Witt is an internet forum, and while Talossans are the most extraordinary people on the Earth, sometimes things can get out of hand, and we do need a small group of people empowered to bring it back in hand, and
Whereas it remains private property, and so the best path forward is one that is cooperative and pragmatic, and
Whereas it's probably no longer a good idea to split up the increasingly-quiet Witt into other boards, and
Whereas basically we just want pretty obvious and common-sense moderation, but done under the rule of lawTherefore the Ziu hereby requires that the Seneschal of the Kingdom of Talossa, or his appointed delegate, negotiate an agreement with His Majesty the King to establish a process whereby crudeness, spam, doxxing, trolling, and other unacceptable behavior may be managed on Wittenberg in a timely and decisive manner and with recourse to judicial appeal. This agreement shall take a form which can be jointly agreed-upon by the Ziu and the King, and will include the following principles: - Some form of popular approval of moderators, typically by allowing institutions with dedicated boards to select their own.
- Some manner of appeal to the courts in case of wrongful moderation.
- A clear set of principles which all Talossans shall obey while using Witt
- Amendments to the agreement shall require joint agreement by both parties.
- We don't want to institute weird new bureaucracies or anything too baroque, so keep it short and simple.
Furthermore, Title J of el Lexhatx shall be deleted and none of its provisions shall be in effect.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 20:13:33 GMT -6
This is the best idea I had to cut through the issues we face (the king owns the thing; we want to have moderation but we want it to be accountable, etc). An agreement struck by the Seneschal and approved by the Ziu to give color of law and -- most importantly -- a proper appeals process to moderation issues.
This should be relatively simple, and we all honestly know what needs to happen. It also would allow most of the other discussed solutions to take place (like Miestra's and Etho's) within its broader provisions. And this is a pretty pragmatic solution that can be done in like a day.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 20:14:41 GMT -6
This is also deliberately not added to the code of law. It's a direction requiring the Seneschal to do a thing once.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 3, 2019 11:56:35 GMT -6
I am going to Clark this. I think it is the simplest and clearest way forward -- every institution governs its own board. This is already actually set up this way, in fact! It would solve the ideological issues, allow for personal accommodation of anything unforeseen, and would not split up our diminishing national dialogue into multiple places.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Apr 6, 2019 7:22:11 GMT -6
Whereas it remains private property, and so the best path forward is one that is cooperative and pragmatic Indeed, Witt is the private property of Proboards, who've already established rules for Forum Decorum: support.proboards.com/page/rules#gi2 Title J of el Lexhatx shall be deleted and none of its provisions shall be in effect. Subtle. Like two bills in one. I can't support this.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 6, 2019 8:15:43 GMT -6
Title J of el Lexhatx shall be deleted and none of its provisions shall be in effect. Subtle. Like two bills in one. I can't support this. It was not intended to be subtle. I have been publicly and frequently saying that I think Telecomuna is a bad idea at this point; as this bill says, "Whereas it's probably no longer a good idea to split up the increasingly-quiet Witt into other boards." Etho's bill and at least one other also would repeal J. Witt activity is down about 50%, and something like 2/3 of that takes place on the official boards rather than the social ones. At this point, separating the official boards from the social ones is likely to just diminish even more of the social interactions, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 11, 2019 12:22:22 GMT -6
Since the Seneschal has said she also doesn't like the idea of splitting the two boards, hopefully she will support this plan.
|
|
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 Apr 11, 2019 19:55:22 GMT -6
I'm not going to vote for the repeal of Title J unless the Minister of STUFF agrees with that. I'm being guided by his vision, in line with my general philosophy of "if someone wants to make something happen in Talossa, I'm not going to get in its way without a damn fine reason".
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 11, 2019 20:31:18 GMT -6
Splintering our already limited activity even further is a damn fine reason not to do something, I think. But okay. Hopefully a majority of the Ziu will disagree. If not, then we (well, a somewhat smaller number of us, anyway) will have to try to live with the consequences. Maybe it will be fine.
|
|
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 Apr 11, 2019 21:25:13 GMT -6
AD: we need people to be ACTIVE in Talossa
Sev: gets active setting Telecomuna up
AD: not like that!!!
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 11, 2019 21:32:57 GMT -6
AD: we need people to be ACTIVE in Talossa Sev: gets active setting Telecomuna up AD: not like that!!!The question of Telecomuna shouldn’t simply be settled by saying “well, it must be good because someone is doing it.” Even if it does represent activity now, it would be quite bad if it led to a long-term decrease. I’m not saying it will or won’t, just that the concern should be addressed and not brushed off so dismissively. How does the incoming Government plan to address the effects that splitting between two boards could have on activity?
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Apr 12, 2019 4:28:23 GMT -6
The folks who keep insisting on the splitting of the boards having a deleterious effect on overall activity, you keep saying "could." It "could" happen. Do you have anything solid to demonstrate that this might be an actual problem?
Personally, I see a board split as opening a window for Talossan journalism. When everything is a one-stop shop (ie. all on one board), what more does a newspaper add to the mix? The paper is posted to the same board where the thing itself happened. But scattering mean that there's a job for who would gather the info into one place.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Apr 12, 2019 4:41:36 GMT -6
How does the incoming Government plan to address the effects that splitting between two boards could have on activity? Are you concerned that MZs will fail to show up for work at the relocated Chambers, or that they won't drop by here to participate in the social and cultural aspects?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 12, 2019 8:38:26 GMT -6
The folks who keep insisting on the splitting of the boards having a deleterious effect on overall activity, you keep saying "could." It "could" happen. Do you have anything solid to demonstrate that this might be an actual problem? If we move forums, it seems likely we're going to lose some of the people who still have accounts here and check in at long intervals. We've had several citizens -- very prominent ones, in fact! -- who have taken a break from looking at Witt on the order of months or even years, but who then return to be productive members of our community. Some of these sorts of folks, even a majority of them, will re-register and get involved again. But others won't jump the additional hurdle, and they'll just never bother. We probably need to move forums anyway, so this might not be applicable here, though. I'll just note that if we move to two different forums (a new Witt and Telecomuna), then it'll be slightly worse. But most of the most active Talossans are pretty interested in government stuff. This is pretty solid fact. There's not a lot of language stuff, media stuff, social stuff, etc. There's certainly some, and all together it might even be called a "lot." But I think a solid supermajority of Talossan activity these days is related to governance or elections. So naturally, Telecomuna is going to get a lot more posts than Witt. In fact, with less reason to visit Witt, the discrepancy seems likely to get worse. This is true. But it also actually emphasizes my point. Yes, I guess we would be creating a new reporting opportunity for journalists, since it would be less easy to participate in a one-stop-shop of Talossan community activities. But the basic idea there -- make it slightly harder to participate, so journalists have something to do -- doesn't seem viable. I'm not looking to be some sort of doomsayer here. This isn't going to be some sort of crushing blow to the country. It might even be fine. I just think it's most likely to make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 12, 2019 8:40:27 GMT -6
AD: we need people to be ACTIVE in Talossa Sev: gets active setting Telecomuna up AD: not like that!!!Respectfully, I am trying to engage in good faith on this. Please take these concerns seriously, rather than mocking them. You are my Seneschal and the head of government.
|
|