more reform suggestions thread

[seahobbit]

Quedéir said:

Is your intent for those people to go through the "normal" channels of reacquiring citizenship? If not, I think that giving the person more time to think about it may be better. If so, then more time wouldn't be necessary.

It may be a good idea to put something in there about how one can retract their renunciation before the 24 hours is up.

I am not changing nothing about the 24 hours, this is ALREADY law, people can already retract their renounciation within 24 hours. What I am doing is removing the "acknowledgement" of the SoS and adding amnesty/clemency by the King up to 30 days. These 30 days can preclude unnecessary administration when someone renounce his/her citizenship in anger or frustration.

Marc Moisan, C.D.

[seahobbit]

Quedéir said:

Let's see...I'm trying to draw a parallel between verbally fighting in public, and verbally fighting on a message board. It's not an issue of censoring, it's about the greater need (in life as well as on this board) for public order. In real life there are penalities for that sort of disturbance, and I'm saying it should be so here as well. It's an accountability issue for having the right to speak freely.

Yes, but what exactly are you trying to accomplish, in other words: If I start attacking you verbally what happen, you'll make it law that Pete has to remove my access. If that is the case, Q., you can expect a lot of opposition from me on that. As I stated before, I have no quarrel, with Pete or anyone else he assign as moderator to do just that on whim; it is his board, he decides. But, I can't support any legislation that would attempt to decides what is or is not acceptable "free speech", that would also IMO be inorganic.

Marc Moisan, C.D.

[Lord Q]

Marc said:

I am not changing nothing about the 24 hours, this is ALREADY law, people can already retract their renounciation within 24 hours. What I am doing is removing the "acknowledgement" of the SoS and adding amnesty/clemency by the King up to 30 days.

Right, but if I remember correctly, it specifically states that in the OrgLaw, whereas your replacement section does not.

If I remember correctly.

[Lord Q]

Marc said:

Yes, but what exactly are you trying to accomplish, in other words: If I start attacking you verbally what happen, you'll make it law that Pete has to remove my access. If that is the case, Q., you can expect a lot of opposition from me on that. As I stated before, I have no quarrel, with Pete or anyone else he assign as moderator to do just that on whim; it is his board, he decides. But, I can't support any legislation that would attempt to decides what is or is not acceptable "free speech", that would also IMO be inorganic.

Again, it's not about the content of the speech. It's about being responsible for what you say.

Here's a scenario: Citizen A and Citizen B get into a nasty flamewar. This being a single forum, it's virtually impossible to ignore it. So, A and B are "arrested" for disorderly conduct and lose Witt access for 24 hours (the equivalent of being thrown in jail). They are then charged for it, and it goes to trial, where I envision in the vast majority of cases, "time served" would be sufficient. Meanwhile, they can choose to play nice once they are able to post to Witt again, or they can get into another flamewar. In this case, they would be "arrested" again, and "put in jail." They're charged, and if the verdict is guilty again, the Cort can sentence them to something reasonable, say 48 more hours.

This is, of course, subject to approval from Pete. It's his board, and he can do as he wishes with it. But if he decides that it truly is a "public" board and he just takes care of it, then we can draft laws.

You can say whatever you wish, as long as you pay the piper. That's not a restriction of free speech, and it is completely organic.

[Lord Q]

And of course, if laws were drafted, they would have to be reasonable. Give the admin/mod power to restrict access for 24 hours; anything beyond that would have to come as part of sentencing from the Cort.

Something like that, at least.

[seahobbit]

Quedéir said:

Again, it's not about the content of the speech. It's about being responsible for what you say.

That quite look like censorship to me... which means it would be inorganic as it goes against the 2nd Covenant which clearly state that censorship shall never exist in Talossa.

Your point could be debatable if either citizen A or B would press charges against the other, but you can't restrict their access without the approval of the board owner just because the insult each other.

Censorship, is this what your government stand for. Does the MN actually want to remove freespeech?

Seriously, Devin, the day your proposal go through will be the day I am through with Talossa. You want a dictature fine, but I will not stand for it.

Marc Moisan, C.D.

[Lord Q]

Marc, I'm sorry you continue to see it that way, but this step is by no means dictatorial or inorganic.

First of all, it is not arbitrary. The legislation would have to be spelled out to ensure fairness.

I have made the analogy that Witt is Talossa's "town square," i.e. most public place. I know for a fact that in the US, public verbal arguments disrupt the peace, and that is unlawful. Cops either ask for the parties to disperse, and if they do not, then they are arrested.

The Second Covenant states that while censorship will never exist, it does indeed allow for abridging thought, opinion, etc. in case of public order.

The First also allows such limits if they can be justified by a free and democratic society. It can.

As PM, PUBLIC ORDER is my first priority. A bill like this will not censor anybody. It will not remove or suppress anyone's speech. Whatever anyone says will be heard, although if it goes against public order, then there would be consequences.

Let me make this very clear to you, Marc: That is not, and never will be censorship, no matter how much you keep saying it is. I have used dictionary definitions and the OrgLaw to prove it.

I will NOT be driven out of this country because someone wants to engage me in a flame war. If something like this doesn't pass, then *I* will be the one leaving.

[seahobbit]

Quedéir said:

First of all, it is not arbitrary. The legislation would have to be spelled out to ensure fairness.

I would need to read the Bill of course, but the way you explain it... Bullshit!

I have made the analogy that Witt is Talossa's "town square," i.e. most public place. I know for a fact that in the US, public verbal arguments disrupt the peace, and that is unlawful. Cops either ask for the parties to disperse, and if they do not, then they are arrested.

What would you consider flame war? Is what you had in mind occured in Wittenberg in the past. If so then once again I oppose it because IMO nothing that has been written (although I could have gone without some) is worth censorship.

The Second Covenant states that while censorship will never exist, it does indeed allow for abridging thought, opinion, etc. in case of public order.

The First also allows such limits if they can be justified by a free and democratic society. It can.

Well, that is for the Cort to decide if they ever do!

As PM, PUBLIC ORDER is my first priority. A bill like this will not censor anybody. It will not remove or suppress anyone's speech. Whatever anyone says will be heard, although if it goes against public order, then there would be consequences.

Will critising someone be considered against the "public order"?

Let me make this very clear to you, Marc: That is not, and never will be censorship, no matter how much you keep saying it is. I have used dictionary definitions and the OrgLaw to prove it.

Forbidding someone to be heard is censorship.

I will NOT be driven out of this country because someone wants to engage me in a flame war. If something like this doesn't pass, then *I* will be the one leaving.

No, better drive others out then.

Marc Moisan, C.D.

[Lord Q]

Marc said:

I would need to read the Bill of course, but the way you explain it... Bullshit!

I admitted that I may not be making myself clear, but the analogy I use is correct.

What would you consider flame war? Is what you had in mind occured in Wittenberg in the past. If so then once again I oppose it because IMO nothing that has been written (although I could have gone without some) is worth censorship.

There's that word again, and it is not being used in its correct context. I don't deny you your opinion on the matter, but go through more than one, and maybe you'll change your mind.

Will critising someone be considered against the "public order"?

Of course not, and you should know better than to suggest that. Will protracted heated arguments that aren't accomplishing anything except making others feel uncomfortable? Yes. THAT is what I'm talking about.

Forbidding someone to be heard is censorship.

Yes, and not once have I said that this is, or ever will be, part of the proposal.

You are mixing things up. Censorship requires that objectionable speech never see the light of day. Censorship does not occur after the fact. What I'm saying is that there should be penalties for continued disregard for fellow citizens as it occurs on Witt. That is not censorship.

No, better drive others out then.

Better that NOBODY be driven out, EVER again.

[seahobbit]

Devin, If you think that what you are proposing will end the exodus of citizens, you obviously have no clue why so many are leaving.

Did you read the rebublican declaration? Did you talk to them? Did you read my report? Did you read Ron's renounciation?

The idea is to come up with a way to resolve issues including the Uppermost Cort. Your proposal will only send people that are trying to voice their concern away from the Kingdom. If the Uppermost Cort would have done their job timely, the arguments would not have escaladed the way they did. I don't pretend to have all the answer, I just know that what you are suggesting is wrong and will only make things worst.

Marc Moisan, C.D.

[Lord Q]

Marc said:

Devin, If you think that what you are proposing will end the exodus of citizens, you obviously have no clue why so many are leaving.

Marc, not once did I say that. NOT ONCE. It is a STEP, not the END.

Did you read the rebublican declaration? Did you talk to them? Did you read my report? Did you read Ron's renounciation?

Yes to all.

The idea is to come up with a way to resolve issues including the Uppermost Cort. Your proposal will only send people that are trying to voice their concern away from the Kingdom. If the Uppermost Cort would have done their job timely, the arguments would not have escaladed the way they did. I don't pretend to have all the answer, I just know that what you are suggesting is wrong and will only make things worst.

*sigh* Why is it that you are making this sound like the only thing that I've been doing for two weeks? I know what the damn idea is, it's just that this is getting a lot of attention because you and I have different opinions on the matter. That does not for one second mean that I wasn't paying attention about the other reform items.

Even if the Cort had ruled on anything, do you really think that would have stopped either Chris or Ben from keep up the shenanigans? It would not have. Even if Chris had won, Ben would still have been all over his ass, and what happened would still have happened.