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 12, 2019 23:01:46 GMT -6
And speaking of etiquette,refer to her properly as Dame Schivâ. I thought we weren't supposed to do that (and I also remember that if you do use the "Dama" title, you still use the first rather than last name) (Citation for both claims: talossa.proboards.com/thread/13245/forms-address ) Ian P is right here. The only people who actually call me "Dama Schiva" are monarchists who think that because I accepted Për la Naziun it makes me a beneficiary of Royal largesse and thus a hypocrite, thus they do it to pull my chain. You can actually call me "D:na Seneschál" right now, if you like.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Apr 13, 2019 5:02:19 GMT -6
Why not just a different Wittenberg? Sev could set one up as easily as Telecomuna (I think he did, actually). Yeah. Telecomuna was a clone of a full Wittenberg replication, with the extra forums deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2019 13:52:46 GMT -6
So yeah, ignoring V, why don't we just all agree not to implement Telecomuna, but instead to shift to the full replication of the boards as they are? We can do that with relatively little discord, it solves a lot of problems, and it doesn't risk much. All we'd need would be rules on how to implement moderation, which this bill provides as a broad scheme. I can just clip out the part about the agreement between the Seneschal and His Majesty.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2019 14:19:58 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 deletes Title J of el Lexhatx in its entirety, replacing it with the following: 1. The Chancery shall be responsible for providing an official internet message board or forum for the express use of Household, Government, or provincial business. The Secretary of State or their designated representative within the Chancery shall make all reasonable effort to maintain and make available this board for all offices of the Household, Government, or provinces that so request. The Secretary of State shall have ultimate discretion in the question of infrastructure, although he is highly advised to take the wishes of officials into account in their decisionmaking. Other boards shall be provided for socialization at the discretion of the Secretary of State or their designated representative. 2. Each officeholder or head of agency shall be responsible for monitoring any boards provided for their use, and reporting any problems to the Chancery as needed. The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary. This behavior is not defined in specifics, but shall include generally treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community. 3. This board shall include the necessary infrastructure to allow the Ziu to fulfill its functions, including proposing, debating, and considering bills and the posing of Terpelaziuns. This board will also provide a place for citizens to register their votes in elections. This board shall be known as "Wittenberg," and it will be considered the property of the nation as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2019 14:20:35 GMT -6
This is kind of a big change in the bill, and I'd love suggestions about the wording of J.2.
|
|
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 13, 2019 23:34:23 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 deletes Title J of el Lexhatx in its entirety, replacing it with the following: 1. The Chancery shall be responsible for providing an official internet message board or forum for the express use of Household, Government, or provincial business. The Secretary of State or his designated representative within the Chancery shall make all reasonable effort to maintain and make available this board for all offices of the Household, Government, or provinces that so request. The Secretary of State shall have ultimate discretion in the question of infrastructure, although he is highly advised to take the wishes of officials into account in his decisionmaking. Other boards shall be provided for socialization at the discretion of the Secretary of State or his designated representative. 2. Each officeholder or head of agency shall be responsible for monitoring any boards provided for their use, and reporting any problems to the Chancery as needed. The Chancery shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior on these boards when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary. 3. This board shall include the necessary infrastructure to allow the Ziu to fulfill its functions, including proposing, debating, and considering bills and the posing of Terpelaziuns. This board will also provide a place for citizens to register their votes in elections. This board shall be known as "Wittenberg." I'm not well at the moment and my brain meats are perhaps not functioning properly. But will this bill simply entitle the Chancery to set up a new Wittenberg, owned and operated by the State, to which Talossa will "move", leaving this current Wittenberg (property of the King) to be archived?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2019 6:33:05 GMT -6
It appears so, except the bill doesn't actually mention anything about "ownership". I'm not sure if that matters or not.
The Chancery will set up a new Witt and will be responsible for enforcing rules on it, while individual moderators for each sub board will report bad behaviour back to the Chancery for enforcement.
Basically, abandon Telecomuna and this old Witt and just move onto a new Witt run by the Chancery.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2019 6:39:07 GMT -6
Another effect of the bill would be that Wittiquette, as we know it, would be gone. The bill specifies that the Chancery (SoS or delegate) will maintain a minimum level of acceptable behaviour, but doesn't specify what that is. It leaves it open for a list of rules to be written separately, I think.
|
|
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 14, 2019 16:48:43 GMT -6
As to "ownership", I have no qualms with the idea that the King/Head of State represents Talossa to the outside world, and therefore has a right to be named as "owner" of Talossan property for the purposes of international law. As long as "Witt XIII" (is that the number now?) is administered by the Chancery or some other non-political, non-Royal body within Talossa, then I am minded to support this bill.
I just thought I must be losing my marbles if I was reading that the leader of the RUMP supported moving to a new Witt not run by the King, but I don't look gift horses in the mouth.
|
|
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 14, 2019 17:17:32 GMT -6
Forgot to add. The new Witt must also be state-funded, i.e. funded from the State Treasury, not maintained at the private expense of some citizen who will then be its effective owner. There is of course nothing to stop patriotic Talossans donating to the State Treasury for this purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 14, 2019 20:48:45 GMT -6
I'm not assigning ownership in this bill to His Majesty because it would be unjust to require someone to own and be responsible for something over which they had literally no control. For the purposes of administration, the Chancery may make whatsoever assignment of technical ownership they wish. Given the macronational legal atmosphere in the wake of SESTA/FOSTA this year and GDPR implementation last year, and given the potential problems that arise from some folks misunderstanding the nature of Talossa and its laws, that's not a small matter. Who pays for it seems immaterial to me given all of this, and it seems unwise to put a requirement that the government pay for it into law. I can foresee several situations where we'd want to have someone else be able to jump in and carry us for a month or two.
Added a brief guide for the Chancery to impose some order on things, defining bad behavior: "This behavior is not defined in specifics, but shall include generally treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community." I feel like this can't be sharply defined, since we won't be able to agree on a definition. At least two senators would probably object to a rule against excessive profanity or personal abuse, since they wish to be able to engage in that when they think it's justified. So this was the best thing I could think of. Alternative suggestions would be very much welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 15, 2019 6:25:54 GMT -6
... it would be unjust to require someone to own and be responsible for something over which they had literally no control... Forgive me for taking a cheap dig at you, but this is such an American thing to say In a constitutional monarchy that's exactly how it's meant to be. The Crown Estate (or an equivalent) owns the national infrastructure while the government exercises financial and executive control over it.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 15, 2019 6:34:52 GMT -6
Added a brief guide for the Chancery to impose some order on things, defining bad behavior: "This behavior is not defined in specifics, but shall include generally treating others in a manner that respects Talossa as a community." I feel like this can't be sharply defined, since we won't be able to agree on a definition. At least two senators would probably object to a rule against excessive profanity or personal abuse, since they wish to be able to engage in that when they think it's justified. So this was the best thing I could think of. Alternative suggestions would be very much welcome. I think leaving it open is the best course. Like you say, if we try to build consensus on a set of rules then we'll still be working on this bill months from now. How would things work in practice if, say, the Cosa wanted to adopt its own set of rules though?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2019 7:50:37 GMT -6
... it would be unjust to require someone to own and be responsible for something over which they had literally no control... Forgive me for taking a cheap dig at you, but this is such an American thing to say In a constitutional monarchy that's exactly how it's meant to be. The Crown Estate (or an equivalent) owns the national infrastructure while the government exercises financial and executive control over it. That's true. But in the UK and many other constitutional monarchies, the crown has no possibility of facing legal repercussions for the same. Sadly, at this time Talossa and its vehicles of state lack sovereign immunity.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 15, 2019 10:59:20 GMT -6
Forgive me for taking a cheap dig at you, but this is such an American thing to say In a constitutional monarchy that's exactly how it's meant to be. The Crown Estate (or an equivalent) owns the national infrastructure while the government exercises financial and executive control over it. That's true. But in the UK and many other constitutional monarchies, the crown has no possibility of facing legal repercussions for the same. Sadly, at this time Talossa and its vehicles of state lack sovereign immunity. This isn't entirely accurate with respects to the US.
|
|