Discussion: Citizen Group Membership

[DaveShack]

New discussion split off the "this thing of ours" thread. We had kinda threadjacked that citizen group's headquarters.

My original comment:
Citizen group membership should be open and visible to all.

 

[Gaidynne]

Citizen group membership should be open and visible to all.

There is support for a position directly contrary to this statement, and it is found in our duly adopted Constitution.

Article B - Citizens
A citizen is any member of the CivFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry. Membership in the user group specific to this democracy game is required in order for a citizen to vote.
All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
The Right to Assemble
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
The Right to Free Speech
The Right to Free Movement
The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
The Right of Representation
[Emphasis added]

The right to assemble can, and presumably must, also include the right to assemble in private. This would mean that Citizens could exclude others, whether those excluded be members of the government or simply other Citizens.

Similarly, the right to free speech strongly implies a right to speak privately.
A requirement that all speech be public (i.e. "open") would inevitably stifle the free exchange of idea which occurs most fully when one is allowed to speak his or her mind in private.

I anticipate some will argue that a "Forum Rule" is greater than our Constitution. In this case, I believe that opinion would be inaccurate as the Forum Rule obliquely mentioned by some in this thread is broadly worded and somewhat ambiguous. However, the rights protected by our Constitution are specific. Where the Citizens of our Nation have seen fit to protect specific rights, those protections should always hold sway over a more general statement of principal found elsewhere.

Respectfully submitted,

Gaidynne

 

[ice2k4]

Although the matter seems to have been cleared, and in no way has this citizen group violated neither constitution nor forums rules, thank you for your advocation.

Although I feel it is necessary to correct a small part of your argument, so others will not be misled. The forums rules by law are higher than the constitution and it's lower forms of law. The forum rule also umbrellas an issue which pertains to groups of members. Nobody's statement "Though Our Membership" was misinterpreted as "we only invite certain citizens as members" or something to that degree.

Gaidynne, I strongly recommend you run for Public Defender.

 

[mattwithanh]

There is support for a position directly contrary to this statement, and it is found in our duly adopted Constitution.

The right to assemble can, and presumably must, also include the right to assemble in private. This would mean that Citizens could exclude others, whether those excluded be members of the government or simply other Citizens.

Similarly, the right to free speech strongly implies a right to speak privately.
A requirement that all speech be public (i.e. "open") would inevitably stifle the free exchange of idea which occurs most fully when one is allowed to speak his or her mind in private.

I anticipate some will argue that a "Forum Rule" is greater than our Constitution. In this case, I believe that opinion would be inaccurate as the Forum Rule obliquely mentioned by some in this thread is broadly worded and somewhat ambiguous. However, the rights protected by our Constitution are specific. Where the Citizens of our Nation have seen fit to protect specific rights, those protections should always hold sway over a more general statement of principal found elsewhere.

Respectfully submitted,

Gaidynne

For sake of discussion i will play devils advocate:

I would disagree that the right to assemble and the right to free speech provide much of a basis for an argument against the rule that requires citizen group membership to be open to all and visible.

The rule in no way places any restraint on the ability for citizens to assemble, in fact one would argue that it promotes the right to assemble since with open membership anyone is free to meet with anyone else.

The argument that free speech is being infringed upon also unpersuasive since the rule does not require all speech to be public merely that citizen group membership be public. And even if the rule did require all speech within the citizen group be made public, the fact that people might hold their tounge since they know their words are made public is not an infringment of free speech. It is self censorship and there is nothing in the Constitution that implies that there is a right of privacy.

As for forum rules vs. Constitution rules, I have read somewhere that forum rules supersede Constitution rules. Regardless of that, I frankly don't see how the rights are very specific at all, much less any justification why specific rules should be followed over broadly worded rules. The forum rules are broadly worded for the purpose that it allows forum moderator considerable leeway for enforcment of rules that in place because they promote etiquette and order. Simply saying Constitution rules should be followed over forum rules when they contradict since they are specific is artbitrary at best.

Also as a matter of public policy membership should be open and public. Whatever argument can be made that rights are being infringed, keeping membership to citizens groups closed and private in no way promotes the advancement of our government, the sharing of ideas,

Now if you wanted to make an argument that citizen group membership should not have to be open and public its possible to argue there is that there is no right of equal protection in the Constitution. This leaves the door open for people to be able to freely exclude anyone they choose. But I doubt any judge would rule in favor of this argument even without examining whether it would violate forum rules due to all of the reasons i stated above.

 

[Black_Hole]

For sake of discussion i will play devils advocate:

I would disagree that the right to assemble and the right to free speech provide much of a basis for an argument against the rule that requires citizen group membership to be open to all and visible.

There is no such rule, if there was I would be required to alert all of the moderators when I receive a new private message

The rule in no way places any restraint on the ability for citizens to assemble, in fact one would argue that it promotes the right to assemble since with open membership anyone is free to meet with anyone else.

It certainly does restrict that right. If the government of your country told you that you must disclose all of the people you meet with that definetly restricts your right to assembly

The argument that free speech is being infringed upon also unpersuasive since the rule does not require all speech to be public merely that citizen group membership be public.

What rule? The only thing even close in the forum rules is that if you post something that cannot be replied to by all, it is spam

And even if the rule did require all speech within the citizen group be made public, the fact that people might hold their tounge since they know their words are made public is not an infringment of free speech. It is self censorship and there is nothing in the Constitution that implies that there is a right of privacy.

The constitution says you have the right to assemble, so it implies you can assembly privately since it doesn't say otherwise

As for forum rules vs. Constitution rules, I have read somewhere that forum rules supersede Constitution rules. Regardless of that, I frankly don't see how the rights are very specific at all, much less any justification why specific rules should be followed over broadly worded rules. The forum rules are broadly worded for the purpose that it allows forum moderator considerable leeway for enforcment of rules that in place because they promote etiquette and order. Simply saying Constitution rules should be followed over forum rules when they contradict since they are specific is artbitrary at best.

Forum rules do suceed the constitution, but I don't think moderator opinions do

Also as a matter of public policy membership should be open and public. Whatever argument can be made that rights are being infringed, keeping membership to citizens groups closed and private in no way promotes the advancement of our government, the sharing of ideas,

Some of the best ideas have been made in private away from the risk of persecution

Now if you wanted to make an argument that citizen group membership should not have to be open and public its possible to argue there is that there is no right of equal protection in the Constitution. This leaves the door open for people to be able to freely exclude anyone they choose. But I doubt any judge would rule in favor of this argument even without examining whether it would violate forum rules due to all of the reasons i stated above.

DG judges don't rule on forum rules, they rule on the constitution. If the forum rules are being violated the moderators will step in, but judges shouldn't make decisions based off forum rules, thats the moderators' job.

 

[Gaidynne]

The rule in no way places any restraint on the ability for citizens to assemble, in fact one would argue that it promotes the right to assemble since with open membership anyone is free to meet with anyone else.

While the rule would not place any express restrictions on the Citizens' right to freely assemble, a requirement that membership in all groups be open and public would chill Citizen participation in some groups.

In fact, our Citizenry has already recognized that a requirement of public action may chill participation. Thus, it allows that votes in polls, such as elections, can be private. I argue that the same reasoning applies to membership and participation in Citizen Groups.

For example, many of our Citizens might be reticent about being publicly affiliated with a group that espouses a controversial viewpoint. One can easily imagine a time in our future when war against a neighbor is advocated by a Citizens' group. Unfortunately, not all Citizens will feel comfortable admitting to the world that they support such a movement, even if they wholeheartedly agree with the reasons behind it. Citizens might fear retaliation for their membership, in the form of public ridicule.

Also as a matter of public policy membership should be open and public. Whatever argument can be made that rights are being infringed, keeping membership to citizens groups closed and private in no way promotes the advancement of our government, the sharing of ideas,

While it may be true that sound public policy warrants transparency when it comes to membership in a Citizen Group, public policy cannot trump the protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Moreover, I respectfully disagree with your premise that allowing private membership in a Citizens' group discourages the sharing of ideas. I believe the opposite is true. More complete participation can be fostered by allowing Citizens to meet and exchange ideas in private.

The argument that free speech is being infringed upon also unpersuasive since the rule does not require all speech to be public merely that citizen group membership be public. And even if the rule did require all speech within the citizen group be made public, the fact that people might hold their tounge since they know their words are made public is not an infringment of free speech. It is self censorship and there is nothing in the Constitution that implies that there is a right of privacy

To be as brief as possible, I think your position here is incorrect for the same reasons I set forth above.

As for forum rules vs. Constitution rules, I have read somewhere that forum rules supersede Constitution rules.

I have seen others make this same claim, but have yet to see anyone support this position with an actual statement from the Forum Rules. Nonetheless, I believe that our online community needs a set of real world rules (e.g. Forum Rules) to ensure that we all behave properly towards each other. To that end, I agree that the Forum Rules must take precedence over any in game rules.

Regardless of that, I frankly don't see how the rights are very specific at all, much less any justification why specific rules should be followed over broadly worded rules. Simply saying Constitution rules should be followed over forum rules when they contradict since they are specific is artbitrary at best.

A recognition that the specific is preferred over the broadly worded is a widely recognized legal principle and a matter of common sense. If our legislative body passed a law that prohibited persons from being "abusive" to one another, the law would be subject to constant debate about what abusive means. If on the other hand, the legislative body passed a law prohibiting vulgar language, the debate is radically reduced. Thus, where presented with two rules on the same subject, the more specific language must be preferred over the more broadly worded alternative. To do otherwise is to ignore that express statement of the rule making body.

For your consideration,

Gaidynne

 

[Lockesdonkey]

This thread looks like a goldmine for new Bar Association members...

(take the hint...)

 

[donsig]

You have your public polls. If some group wants to meet in secret then let them. It's not like we could stop them if they wanted to.

 

[GenMarshall]

No one should be denied membership in a Citizens Group.

 

[DaveShack]

No one should be denied membership in a Citizens Group.

I don't think we have any doubts left on this part. The question at hand is whether such membership should be allowed to be hidden.

Speaking as a citizen here...

Knowing who belongs to a citizen group is valuable information to me as a citizen. Assuming that a secret group's agenda will only be known by its leader's posts, how would we know if this is one person's opinion, or ten, or twenty?

 

[Hyronymus]

I don't think we have any doubts left on this part. The question at hand is whether such membership should be allowed to be hidden.

Speaking as a citizen here...

Knowing who belongs to a citizen group is valuable information to me as a citizen. Assuming that a secret group's agenda will only be known by its leader's posts, how would we know if this is one person's opinion, or ten, or twenty?

In my Initiative: regulating the revoking or amending of initiatives I therfor said that if a citizen group revokes/amends an initiative it should state its (political) interest. Only by being informed one can make the best possible decision, regardless of how other people think of that decision.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don't think we have any doubts left on this part. The question at hand is whether such membership should be allowed to be hidden.[/qoute]
To be personal, memberships should not be allowed if there is going to be some sort of secret conspiracy against a poster or a group of posters.

 

[Shattered]

To be personal, memberships should not be allowed if there is going to be some sort of secret conspiracy against a poster or a group of posters.

How are you going to determine that? Not displaying membership doesn't always mean that that group of citizens are harboring ill will towards their fellow comrades. To try and stop a group from assembling just cause their membership is hidden is just paranoia.

 

[GenMarshall]

How are you going to determine that? Not displaying membership doesn't always mean that that group of citizens are harboring ill will towards their fellow comrades.

That is true. However the Mods in the Demogame can keep an eye on the activities just to ensure that there are no ill harm and will towards their fellow citizens.

 

[ice2k4]

Either way, the originial discussion came from Cosa Nostra, which is more of a roleplay group than anything else. Nowhere does it state a political agenda. So let's define citizen group first. Because I can easily call a banana an orange, and it doesn't make it so. (I think I used this point in another thread.) Threads that have the title citizen group, do not nessecarily conform to the idea of a citizen group. (What if I attached the words citizen group to something that acted like a political party? Surely it wouldn't be a citizen group.)

 

[donsig]

Speaking as a citizen here...

Knowing who belongs to a citizen group is valuable information to me as a citizen. Assuming that a secret group's agenda will only be known by its leader's posts, how would we know if this is one person's opinion, or ten, or twenty?

By their poll votes? I honestly don't care who votes for what as long as we have fair polls and live by the majority rules idea. I also honestly don't care if a bunch of no-brain citizens want to get together and blindly follow another no brain citizen. Why not make the democracy game more and more like real life. Look at who we have for a RL Chieftan in the good ole US of A.

 

[Shattered]

Hahahahaha!! Good point there donsig.

 

[Hyronymus]

This question suddenly came to my mind: why would a citizen group want to gather in scecrecy?

 

[fed1943]

It's a secret, cannot be told.

 

[Hyronymus]

Well, I was playing the devil's advocate and all I can think off (but maybe I'm odd) is because you have intentions you wish not to show to the other citizens. In a democracy game, what could such intentions be? We have the freedom of speech so you don't have to be afraid to be muted. Sure, not everyone will agree with all ideas/intentions but you cannot (and shouldn't) please everyone.