Discussion: Devoicing Actions

[Octavian X]

This is a rather interesting topic that was raised at the last turn chat. Strider was devoiced by Chieftess (see this post for details)

CoS E.8, currently states this:
De-voicing actions and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls will be investigated by the Judge Advocate

What procedure should the JA follow? Do we need to amend this standard?

Please, discuss!

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

Hmmmmm..while I would normally be against the devoicing of any citizen of Fanatika, I do believe this was necesary to reinstate some order into the chat. The t/c was rampant and something needed to be done.
Chieftess, as the designated player (and a mod) does not only have the authority, but the obligation of seeing the turn chat continue in an, if nor orderly, at least legible manner. If we are going to reprimand leaders who enforce the authority the very citizenry has given them, then I see no point in envesting them with said obligations. Chieftess, to me, acted in a manner acordingly to the position and obligation she holds.

Ehecatl Atzin

 

[Cyc]

Of course she did. CT drew a line, as her powers of DP allowed her to, and Strider stepped over it. He knew what he was doing and he knew what the DP was doing. After all is said and done, we will have our first "devoicing investigation" which can help us in the future, in cases where a person might be devoiced or kicked without rightful cause or consideration. This investigation should be done and we as citizens should be very thorough (if not harsh) on the procedures taken or followed. I am not saying that we should be critical of CT or Strider, this is just a game and no real harm was done. What I'm saying is that as a birthing of Judicial Procedure which can protect innocent citizens from over-zealous DPs or Mods, this investigation can help us understand what is right and what is wrong for this issue.

 

[Goonie]

Altough I agree with CYC here, I think there is a bigger problem then the Devoice. No one in that chat understood what was going on. We need a more structured T/C, in which every once and a while the DP gives a whole T/C recount for any new joiners or confused citizens. I believe that both Strider and CT had the best intentions in their actions. If we had just had a little summary, we might have been able to avoid this conflict altoghther

 

[Chieftess]

I stated exactly what was going on. The Turn Chat was getting chaotic, so I had to bring order to it. Both as DP and chat op.

 

[Shaitan]

The chats are very often chaotic and can be almost impossible to follow when going through the chat logs. Not only was CT justified with using the devoice but I encourage her to do it more often. There is absolutely no reason for a chat summary to be posted in the chat. If somebody comes in late and needs to be brought up to speed this can be done with a private channel discussion.

The actual chat channel needs to be restricted to the process of playing the turns.

 

[Chieftess]

And you'll find in the log that I even asked for someone to chat with Strider (and others) privately.

 

[Shaitan]

Maybe you should be able to assign somebody to fill in latecomers. Maybe add some responsibilities to the different departments. Military is responsible for keeping order in the chat (through private channel rebukes, not by yelling at people in the main channel). Domestic could be responsible for filling in latecomers. Something like that.

It is very difficult for the DP to police the chat because the DP is concentrating on playing the game, checking things for requests, etc. "Eruptions" also tend to start quickly and often when the DP is away running the game. The chaos that errupts in the chat makes all of the DP's responsibilities more difficult. Legitimate requests go unseen in the clutter. The chances of errors are also much greater because of it.

 

[Strider]

I agree with the action, but there was other's than me who was making more noise.... All I wanted to know is if I should vote.... We ran the same stupid spot vote 50 times and I didn't know if it was the same one or a totally differant one or what. I was trying to ask if I should vote again or not. Never got a direct answer out of anyone. To top it off I was sick and had to be rushed to the hospital last night.

 

[Falcon02]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Maybe you should be able to assign somebody to fill in latecomers. Maybe add some responsibilities to the different departments. Military is responsible for keeping order in the chat (through private channel rebukes, not by yelling at people in the main channel). Domestic could be responsible for filling in latecomers.

Military responcible for order... hmm.... at first I thought you were saying it was a current responcibility (never heard of it before, though I did it anyway, thanks to Dis' confidence to give me Op powers). Though, it tended to be public than private when I felt things were getting out of hand, also normally it's multiple people just "having fun" esp. while waiting for the in between turn silence to pass, that then gets out of hand and begains disrupting and distracting from the chat.

I do also agree devoices should be allowed more freely (on a temp. basis, as a sort of warning or a way to get the "culprits" to all know they've gotta stop). I've really never done a devoice during a chat for preciesly that reason, I don't want the hassel of what essentially amounts to an auto PI. And thus even if I would devoice them for only 10 secs. or so, to regain order, I'd still get the auto-PI and would likely be proved justified as I believe CT was. I think the "auto-investigation" should only be invoked if the devoice lasts over 1 minute or so.

 

[Shaitan]

We should probably remove the auto investigation altogether. If the devoiced person (or whoever else) thinks it was unfair or unwarranted they can request an investigation of it.

 

[eyrei]

I was in and out of the chat, and I had no problem understanding what was going on...

 

[FortyJ]

Preliminary Opinion - This matter may well wind up before the High Court, so I want to state clearly that this is only my personal opinion and not intended as a ruling on this matter.

When the Designated Player devoices a registered citizen within the demogame turn chat, he or she is restricting that citizen's right to free speech. To deny someone free speech within either the forums or the #demogame chat room is to deny that individual the right to participate in our government. As such, these actions should never be dismissed lightly.

We should not eliminate the right of the Designated Player to devoice disruptive individuals during a turn chat. The DP must be allowed to preserve order during the turn chat so that productive participation, discussion and debate may take place.

However, such actions should be scrutinized carefully to ensure this authority is never abused. Our current law states that all devoicing actions will be investigated by the Judge Advocate. A request for such investigation is not required. It is automatic and should remain so.

Our officials should be empowered with the authority to preserve order, but proper checks and balances dictate that any such use of this authority should be scrutinized in order to protect us from our own government.

<><><><>

On a different, yet slightly related matter, there is no provision, nor should there be, that requires the DP to update the people with the events that have transpired from the beginning. Chats can be fairly chaotic as it is. If the DP were required to provide detailed history to every latecomer who asked "wait a sec..." or "what's happened so far?", we would consistently see more hours than turns in our turn chats.

 

[Chieftess]

@Strider - I did give you a direct answer. I even said "Ok, let's do this one again." (again being the keyword). <grammar teacher mode>Strider, when you read the contents of a sentence, look for keywords. Even if you don't understand what's being asked, knowing these words will help you to understand the meaning of them. </grammar teacher mode>

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Chieftess
@Strider - I did give you a direct answer. I even said "Ok, let's do this one again." (again being the keyword). <grammar teacher mode>Strider, when you read the contents of a sentence, look for keywords. Even if you don't understand what's being asked, knowing these words will help you to understand the meaning of them. </grammar teacher mode>

Ok...... Uh... Even though that's the word that confused me..... Again here means that were doing it all over again .

 

[Goonie]

I say we start a new position called Chat Whip. He enforces order along with the military department and brings late comers or the merely confused up to date.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Strider


Ok...... Uh... Even though that's the word that confused me..... Again here means that were doing it all over again .

Right, so you vote again. Vote a 2nd time.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Chieftess


Right, so you vote again. Vote a 2nd time.

and when I asked if I should everyone said no.... with a few yes's......

 

[Octavian X]

Considering this, I propose the following change:

From:
CoS E.8. De-voicing actions and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls will be investigated by the Judge Advocate

To: Should a citizen feel that a Citizen Spot Poll was wrongfully ignored, or that he/she was de-voiced, kicked, or banned needlessly, he may request an investigation of the action.

This change would make the automatic investigation obsolete, yet leave room for investigations where necessary.

If we can get some agreement and a council member to sponser, we're all set.

 

[Cyc]

Personally, Octavian, I think that's a bad idea. I agree with 40J. We do need to look after the rights of our citizens. This investigation should remain automatic. I remember when donsig got devoiced or kicked or both (can't remember). Unfortunately, I missed that portion of the turn chat and felt really bad about being uniformed of the whole matter. We need a watchdog clause in the t/c rules to kept everything above board, and this includes not only Moderators, but those who are popular enough to take the helm as President AND those who are lucky enough to wrestle that wheel from the hands of a missing DP. There's no telling who could get to be DP in any point in any game. Don't mess with the rules if they aren't broken Octavian X. We citizens need to stand guard over the t/c's.