Public hearing for case 009: Off-topic discussion in ELECTION-thread

Gilgamensch · February 24, 2003, 10:53

Public hearing for case 009: Off-topic discussion in ELECTION-thread:

MrBaggins (H Tower) claim that off-topic discussion was hold in this threat and therefore disturbing the election-process.

The hearing will be closed on 27 February 15.00 GMT, please discuss.

miggio · February 24, 2003, 16:14

All I can say is YES!

although im not sure what to say yes to.

Frozzy · February 24, 2003, 23:42

Gilg, change the channel.

This is a pointless case. We can't do anything about it, the APP voted against Baggy because they... well... they're APP.

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 05:15

part of this has been discussed in this thread.

And Frozzy, I don't agree with, that it is pointless.
Parties are not part of the connie, so if it would be like you said, it would be even worse.

And yes, the court could have done something about (see above link)........

mapfi · February 25, 2003, 05:59

The constitution explicetely specifies in the FIRST article, the bill of rights:
3. Freedom of speech (snip) shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules.

The only grounds for ruling in favour of Mr Baggins's complaint would therefore be a violation of poly rules. The right to free speech is far more important than any other possible interpretation of parts of the con.

In discussion with our moderator, Locutus, he made it clear, that he doesn't see a violation of poly rules in that election thread.

So it boils down to the question if the court has the right to rule on the violation of Apolyton's rules, even coming to different judgement than ACS staff.

I say no. Members of the court are not ACS staff - they have no right to rule on ACS rules. It's like two different areas of jurisdiction. The court rules on game-related topics, while all site and forum related matters are handled by ACS staff.

I urge the court to turn this case down because it has no right to rule on the matter unless ACS staff sees a violation of poly rules.

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 06:18

OK,

I do it again:

ACS doesn not see a violation of there rules.

But as I mentioned in the other thread:

Quote:

As the election has to be started by the court (3Ia) and can make it's own rules (III4a) and can rule upon those (III4c) and we have (III1a) and as the main point (V1a):

Quote:

(a) The Court is empowered to oversee all elections and is empowered to resolve any election disputes according to the rules in this Constitution.

I don't see any reason, why people are saying it is not in the constitution. For me, it looks more like, that those who don't agree with should come back with an Amendment-poll.

I never got any reply on it......

And people claiming and only refering to Article 1 seems to be a little bit 'lazy'.

WE set our rules and now people don't want to follow them. Yes, we voted upon them and that's what we have to stick with. (unless using an amendment)

So, gents to come to another point:

Where is the court ruling over ACS? And you mentioned Locutus as our MOD, I have spoken with him as well, and he didn't like what happened there, but his point was more (please correct me Locutus, if I 'misquote' you):

It doesn't violate the ACS-rules, but it disturbes the thread and is not threatrelated and should be considered off-topic. This off-topic was actually not related to the thread at all (remember: ELECTION and not NOMINATION).

When I was 'talking' with him his suggestion would have been to 'split' this into two threads and no punishment. That was a 'solution' I would have liked to see. It would have not even violated you beloved Article 1.

And about your point it doesn't violate ACS-rules:

Quote:

XI) What can't I post?
Insults, flames, hatred comments, spamming, advertisements are an abuse of your priviledge to post and can result to a penalty

It is close to spamming or if you don't like this one, what about abuse? It can be interpreted in different ways.......
But again, we are talking about our game and we have the rules within the rules...........

To add another one:

Quote:

IX) Where do I post what?
Each forum has a specific topic. Only on-topic discussions are to be held in forums. Off-topic discussions can be held in the Off-Topic forum.

So any reply?

Devil of Truth · February 25, 2003, 06:32

Oh goodie! A witch-hunt! Burn, baby, burn!

This case reminds me of the book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell. A rule is set: “Freedom of speech … shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules” But then when the powers that be (or the influential elite) hears something they don’t quite like, they try to change it to something like: “Freedom of speech … shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules or is not on topic enough to suit our tastes” etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Goodbye freedom of speech. Can the court please draft a document about what is permissible to say, where and how it can be said, and when we’re allowed to say it. And please draw me little pictures too, because obviously I’m misinterpreting this whole freedom of speech thing. Silly me.

Oh, and one more thing – can I file a case against the court for perverting the ends of justice and denying me my basic rights as a citizen?

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Parties are not part of the connie, so if it would be like you said, it would be even worse.

Ooh golly! There’s goes my freedom of association too.

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 06:42

Thanks DoT for this remarkable peace of work you delivired..........really worth reading it.[/irony]

Also nice try taking my quote out of context.........

And the rest is ........ the rest........

Devil of Truth · February 25, 2003, 06:58

Thanks. I try. [/zero-irony]

This is a game. Not Ally McBeal. Can we play now? Please.

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 07:31

DoT, no discussing about this, but we have set our rules, so we should follow them, some people complained according to the rules. So we should act accordingly........Otherwise, why we set those rules?

I participate, because of it, not against it. But sometimes people don't 'realise' that even as it is a game, you still need to follow rules. They always want to bend it as they wish..........

Sorry if I seem to have attacked you personaly, but it starts to really annoy me.........

Plus, some people think I am against freedom of speech, but I am not, I just want to keep it thread-related........

Devil of Truth · February 25, 2003, 09:07

No problem Gilg.

We’re all passionate about this DG, and we all approach it from our own perspectives and experiences. Me? I don’t tolerate the erosion of civil liberties (even if they are only a figment of our collective imaginations.

) I apologise for dwelling on semantics, but “thread related” and “off topic” is not the same thing.

I would be the first to agree that the election thread discussion was not “thread related.” However, if the court hereby decrees that they will police every thread to ensure conformity and keep things “thread related,” then not only will they be very busy, but they’ll soon condemn every citizen to the sin bin. That sounds about as much fun as a vasectomy by a blind feminist.

I’m still not convinced that it was off topic though. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Have a poll. Ask Locutus to air his views. Let the citizens judge.

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 09:48

Now we are getting somewhere

OK, you agree that the 'discussion' in there wasn't thread-related, this would mean it is doesn't belong there. correct?

But this would mean off-topic. (again semantics

)

I have no intention to police every thread, no way.........., but at least for me and other's that was 'over the top'. Everyone is ~~spamming~~ posting some off-topic stuff.

Our CTP2 community is normally civilised (even as we haven't discovered it yet

), but for me:

1.) it was off-topics
2.) didn't follow the rules (set by ourselves)
3.) they possible influenced the outcome of the election.

And by the way: Even if the court would have ruled (all judges saying Yes) it is a violation, it would have never ment a violation of article one, they could have filed a case or opened a resolution-poll (or even an amendment-poll) or even just open another thread to change it. But again all what happened was off-topic posting in an ELECTION-threat.

And for Locutus: It isn't really enough to say, that he did mentioned something about this/similar behaviour? (ELECTION: MoI)

Quote:

In times of elections people will want to express their support for a particular candidate and sometimes one or two words are enough to get your point across. So I'm willing to tolerate the occassional one-liner (it's not like I never posted any myself), as long as things don't get out of hand (blatant spam certainly isn't tolerated). I agree with the people who argue (here or elsewhere) that this thread is pushing the limit.

For the future, everyone (the people who posted here but everyone else as well) should consider himself warned...

But why do people only want to leave it to the MOD? The problem there is, if it hits ACS, people will have serious problems. That shouldn't happen.

MrBaggins · February 25, 2003, 11:17

There are actually two freedom of speech issues involved.

1) The freedom to discuss the nomination issue. Its true that the parties protesting the situation should have the freedom to discuss said issue. The constitution provides them a place to do so. That place is NOT specified to be the election thread.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed... but that guarantee does not apply to every thread, anywhere.

2) The arguement in the election thread, for all intents and purposes became a filibuster:

Quote:

m-w.com

2 [2filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice

This actually denies freedom of speech, by perverting the electorial process.

This was something akin to activists of a person who didn't get nominated standing in the polling station, and having an arguement with polling officials, whilst the voting is underway. Its highly innappropriate.

Freedom of speech is important, but its also important to manage how the electorial and voting process is managed. Otherwise... how valid are the polls, and why should we bother having them?

MrBaggins

Devil of Truth · February 25, 2003, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
OK, you agree that the 'discussion' in there wasn't thread-related, this would mean it is doesn't belong there. correct?

Good point. I can live with that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
But this would mean off-topic.

No. Wrong. The discussion may not have been related to the thread, but it was certainly not off topic. It can only be classified as off topic if they were discussing the nasty, red, throbbing carbuncle on MrBaggins’ b*tt… or something like that. Instead, they were (in a very-roundabout-pushing-the-limits-kinda way) discussing the election and electoral process. On topic. Not related.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
I have no intention to police every thread, no way.........., but at least for me and other's that was 'over the top'. Everyone is ~~spamming~~ posting some off-topic stuff.

Who gets to choose what is spam? You? The court? The citizens? Okay fine. Define spam then. In my understanding, spam is junk. Spam is something you don’t want; a waste of time and bandwidth.
So does that automatically make all one-liners spam? No. What about all threadjacks? No. What about the posters whose grasp of the English language is restricted to “good job,” or “all your bases are belong to us?” No. Not to me anyway – but I can guarantee you somebody else may think differently. You see, one man’s spam, is another man’s pork roast. So leave it to the Mod.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
1.) it was off-topics
2.) didn't follow the rules (set by ourselves)
3.) they possible influenced the outcome of the election.

1.) No it wasn’t.
2.) What rules? That silence is golden? The rule that you can say whatever you want as long as you don’t say it out loud.
3.) Rubbish! That’s circumstantial at best. If they argued about it in another thread, would that not have influenced it just as much? What amendment would we be debating then? “Don’t lip the nominees.” That’s a shortcut to changing our civilisation’s name to The Banana Republic of Lumeria.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
And for Locutus: It isn't really enough to say, that he did mentioned something about this/similar behaviour? (ELECTION: MoI)

Tsk, tsk. Now you’re the one quoting out of context. Using that quote is like saying cats are animals and dogs are animals. So cats are dogs. The spam in that thread was nothing like the spam in the thread under discussion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
But why do people only want to leave it to the MOD? The problem there is, if it hits ACS, people will have serious problems. That shouldn't happen.

I agree. We don’t need the trouble. But you CANNOT allow one poster to control another’s freedom to post! There is no quicker way to let an autocrat suck the life out of the game.

Devil of Truth · February 25, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Freedom of speech is guaranteed... but that guarantee does not apply to every thread, anywhere.

Uh

. Yes it does. As long as it complies with Apolyton’s rules.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The arguement in the election thread, for all intents and purposes became a filibuster:

Fine. So would using a different thread have made any difference? I doubt it. The operative word here is choice. Those that chose to read the entire tired argument in said filibusting thread, would in all likelihood also choose to read the argument if it was posted in a different thread. By arguing that it affected any people because it was there, is like saying that all people are brainless buffoons, just itching to rush out and buy a new pair of Nike shoes because the TV commercial is advising them to just do it. As a marketing manager, I could only wish that were true.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Its highly innappropriate.

This I can agree on.

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 12:01

OK, DoT:

first thanks for the good reply (better then some other stuff I've seen).

But also a 'said' point, where are your 'facts'. I quoted every passus about what restricts it. You just take my arguments build around it appart. And by the way English isn't my mothertongue either.

OK, let's leave beside the semantic-stuff (non-thread-related=off topic or not).

The reason why I included ~~spamming~~ I am not sure if some people were noy just doing this.

For you reply to my points:

1.) see above
2.) Which rules did they follow? The thing is somebody (actually 2 persons) followed the rules, filed a case, based on our rules. I presented 'facts' proving they are right. And the only thing (till before) I heard was: NO THAT'S not true you are violating Article 1. That is rubbish..........

For Locutus quote: I said for this/similar. But again, that is not the point here. We agreed to 'live' according to our rules. We 'empoured' a court to overlook possible problems.
Now people don't like something and they just want to ignore the rules, they agreed upon.

Then I can only say:

Long live Anarchy

mapfi · February 25, 2003, 13:57

Our constitution is a written document and as any written text is therefore open to interpretation. This is the court's work to do. Interpretation is however something that has to be done carefully. This is why we have a public hearing, to see if the public agrees on some sort of interpretation and if it doesn't, then always the less invasive solution should be taken. For me, freedom of speech is something very important on this forum. So it may be the case, that the election was disturbed in a inappropriate way, nevertheless since it didn't violate ACS rules it should stay the way it is.
The rules we all agreed on are the forum rules ehich are overseen by ACS staff and our con which is handled by our court. What you are proposoing Ralf, is that the court takes power to rule over ACS rules too and make it's an interpretation of the constitution that is highly questionable. I call that power-hungry dictatorship if you call the opposite anarchy.

Gilgamensch · February 26, 2003, 04:52

OK, now I gonna say it in another way:

The whole thing started out of people not reading the connie or not understanding it. And now they are trying to defend themselve with the ACS-rules even as they agreed onto our DG-rules. (to be precise, not all of them.....)

Yes, great.........when you don't like it, run back to your big brother and hope he'll defend you..........

Plus I haven't seen any 'proper' argumentation from the people not agreeing with it. Only the reference to the ACS and even their I brought up other 'links'.

mapfi · February 26, 2003, 07:29

The first one to say I'd have done the nomination differently was me and I certainly know the con, I just interpret it different then you. But the question here is whether the discussion in the thread violates our constitution. I'm convinced it doesn't. Neither was the discussion completely off-topic, nor would the court have the power to even rule over such a matter.

Quite frankly, I find it disgusting the way your turning the discussion now. Because your arguements don't stick your trying to defame people here and in the other thread. That's unworthy of a judge.
I've made my opinion clear, this is the last word you'll hear from me on this matter.

Gilgamensch · February 26, 2003, 07:46

And again the same blabla............

No proof or whatsoever.

I am bringing in proof and what do I receive, nothing in return, just empty words..........

And on top of it, those claim I am turning the discussion into something.........

Interresting point of view...........

Devil of Truth · February 26, 2003, 10:32

Mapfi

I doubt anybody could say it better.

I’d really love to stay and debate this until the end of time; but it’s damn near impossible to defend a case when the court has already ruled against you… besides Copacabana beckons.

Thanks Gilg and MrB for a good debate.

Long live freedom of speech!

Gilgamensch · February 26, 2003, 10:36

And again a good post.

And by the way, where has the court already decided?

All what we need................

H Tower · February 26, 2003, 12:45

Hmm, the thing Gilg and DoT are really debating here is teh meaning of the phrase "Off-Topic."

I'd like to include my own thoughs upon this of course

I believe the topic of a thread is related to the topic of the thread, NOT the topic of the fourm. By this definition, the nomination banter is off topic, and should have been moved to another thread. While it is related to the election, it was innapropriate to debate a possible scandal while a candidate is trying to geta message across to the people. It would be like me debating witha good friend the finer points of ways to fund public schools on a state level and how property taxes keep the poor poor and the rich rich while sitting in a room where two US presidential candidates were debating school vouchers. We would have gotten our asses booted out of the room.

I find it a shame that two of the people I respect the most here have turned to petty insults

DoT: in the off topic forum very rarely do we discuss "the nasty, red, throbbing carbuncle on MrBaggins’ b*tt"

Or anyone elses for that matter

Seeing as how several people are at extremes on this issue, and no one is going to be convinced, I want to get some feedback on a ruling I'm going to suggest in judges chambers. Do nothing. But for different reasons, this case rotted on the shelf for too long before being brought up, the thread in question should be languishing on page 6 now except for Dale bumping it yesterday. In the future however, such talk that is not imediately related to the election should not take place there. The irregular nomination deserved a thread of its own where people could fully spend their attention on it instead of trying to pay attention to election campaigns as well in the same thread.

Think of it as a code of conduct ruling for the future. Election threads are only for campaigning, debating the merits of each candidate and exressing support. Other threads, of course are still open for evolving into whatever they do.

MrBaggins · February 26, 2003, 13:12

A decision Solomon would have been proud of, and my thoughts exactly, too.

The thread is irrelevent now... but the principal won't be in future.

MrBaggins

H Tower · February 26, 2003, 13:22

btw, DoT, do you mind if I quote you in my sig?

"nasty, red, throbbing carbuncle on MrBaggins’ b*tt"

Gilgamensch · February 27, 2003, 03:48

Actually H Tower,

I am kind of sorry about it, but hearing all the time the same useless stuff (more or less except DoT in the beginning) makes me tired.

On top of it:

A thought which went through my had last night:

If somebody of those would violate the ACS-rules, will they come to us and start arguing: We have been granted freedom of speech in our connie, now do something against that ACS has banned us!

Your point which you mentioned I was trying to debate all the time, but nothing came from 'the other side'.

Also another example (espacially for our American fellow's):

Their constitution is granted them the freedom to carry firearms/guns. But again in certain states/cities their are restricted from it. Have you ever seen anyone filing a case against, saying you are restricting our basic rights? Also, as far as I know, you are not allowed to carry automatic weapons.

But again, we will not see any proper debate/discussion about it.........

Gilgamensch · February 27, 2003, 11:22

public hearing is closed.