Discussion: Devoicing Actions

[Shaitan]

But why force an automatic investigation? When the person that got "forcibly calmed" doesn't give a hoot then why make unnecessary work? Is it an offense against the citizenry en masse so the "victim's" desires in the case don't matter? Anybody can request an investigation, not just the person who got silenced. If absolutely nobody sees a silencing as improper then there is no point in having an investigation.

 

[FortyJ]

First off, I don' t think that this type of investigation needs to follow the course of a full-blown Public Investigation, unless the Judge Advocate sees good cause for expanding the investigation. The JA could simply review the chat log and determine if the devoicing action was improper or suspect. If so, then he or she could call for a formal PI on the matter.

Simply requiring the JA to review these instances seems prudent as the individual being devoiced may be unfamiliar with the rules of the game and not be aware that he or she has rights that are protected.

The fact of the matter is, that all elected positions (if done properly), require some work by the person holding the office. A cursory investigation of a devoicing action to determine if a formal Public Investigation is required is a small thing to ask of our Judge Advocate.

 

[Cyc]

Again, I agree with 40J. The upper echelon shouldn't be afraid of having their actions reviewed by a public office. If they haven't done anything wrong, then there's nothing to worry about.

If the JA posts a review of the situation, listing the particulars and the actual portions of the chat log just prior to the devoicing, along with his opinion on the matter and asking for public comment, that should suffice. We don't need to go to a full Public Investigation unless the JA deems it necessary, because of his view of the situation as compared to the standing laws or because of public outcry. It's simply a matter of documenting the occurance so that it can be compared to other devoicings in the future and in the past. We need to monitor these events just to see where we stand in the thick of it.

There is nothing wrong with this course of action. It is in the Constitution to protect the citizens of Fanatika. If we allow the upper echelon to remove it at will, what does that say about our society?

 

[Shaitan]

I guess my main objection to the auto investigation for devoicing is that we don't do this anywhere else. The only thing we rate as important enough to warrant monitoring by the JA is devoicing in the chats? That's bunk. The truth of the matter is that this rule came from disorganizer's original charter for running the chatroom back in DG1 and was carried through as-is from there.

While it may be true that some people may not know their rights regarding devoicing, that is true for every other right and privilege as well. I see no need for this one aspect to stick out and have special rules for it when the general rules cover the situation perfectly.

 

[Cyc]

And that's one of the main reasons we need the automatic review, Shaitan. Because you, as one of the most powerful people in the CFC DG world, and others in your sphere of influence don't feel it's necessary to monitor yourselves. That is bunk.

The reason a rule like this only exists for the t/c is because the t/c is a unique part of the game. It is "live" as compared to the forums, which can be moderated at a slower pace and are pretty much permenant, unless a Mod deletes a post. The truth of the matter is that this rule came from DG1 because it is a good rule and helps protect the rights of the innocent from the power mongers of the game. And you're right there are general rules that cover the situation perfectly. They state that if a person is devoiced, then the incident is brought up for investigation.

 

[Shaitan]

The general rule is that if somebody is put upon they can request a PI. In fact it is not restricted to the victim. ANYBODY can request a PI if they think that somebody is devoiced improperly. There is no need to have proper actions investigated unless somebody views them as improper.

You may also note that the requirement is for the JA to investigate. There is no call for that to be public, for the results to be posted or for the JA to file a PI even if they determine that it was an improper devoicing. As I said before, this rule was taken from one version of the rules to another, ignored and not considered at each step. That is why it does not even function in its current form.

I have absolutely no problem with being monitored and I have yet to identify a circle of power mongers. If the power mongers could be identified for me I would greatly appreciate it. As a mod I should like to keep a careful eye on such dangerous characters.

Barring that, I will continue to regard the auto investigation as useless, redundant and wasteful legislation that's entire purpose is to protect people from a phantom conspiracy that exists only in the minds of 1 or 2 people.

 

[Cyc]

Sheesh! Of course the JA's investigation is Public. It's a Public Office. A posting by the JA is required as proof of Judicial review. Public comment on the matter should definitely be rquested by the JA so as to keep a finger on the pulse of the Nation. We also need to monitor the Judicial Branch in this regard. Are they doing their job? Are they letting the rich and powerful off too easy? Are they trying to slide things under the table or sweep them under the carpet? Your starting to sound a little paranoid, Shaitan. Let it go. We're talking about one thread here, a meanial task done by a Government branch that could use something to do besides polish their door knobs. Why are you so anti-watchdog?

 

[Shaitan]

I'm not anti-watchdog, Cyc. I'm pro-uniformity. The uniform rules handle the situation so let them do it. If you want the JA to police the leaders then it should be done comprehensively and sensibly.

Incidentally, you put in at least one comment in each of your statements to cast aspersions on my character and intentions and dismiss my arguments for unrelated emotional reasons. You imply that I am paranoid, part of a conspiracy, and a powermonger. This does not reflect well on your debate skills. This particular tactic is tried by every freshman debate student except the ones that make the team. On a personal note I would appreciate it if you would stop slandering me and concentrate on the facts at hand.

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by Shaitan
If the power mongers could be identified for me I would greatly appreciate it. As a mod I should like to keep a careful eye on such dangerous characters.

Now, Shaitan.... You won't know who's in the circle of power, unless you're in the circle of power...

I must wonder what criteria we should use to deem a rule worthy of change or removal from the 3 Books. Certainly if a rule proves detrimental to the good of the people, then it should be changed or removed. If a rule was confusing or seemingly contradictory to another rule, that rule too should likely be changed. But, should a rule be changed or removed simply because it requires an official to perform a task automatically, even though that task can be requested of that official by any citizen?

For example, CoL.A.6.B states "Any citizen can request that a departmental leader post a poll that lies within that leader's responsibilities." Should we therefore remove all instances of rules that require a departmental leader to post polls? I think not. But let's get back to the other two reasons for changing the rules.

This rule charges the Judge Advocate with the responsibility of investigating all potential abuses of power by the DP (specifically, a devoicing or failure to utilize a citizen spot vote). I cannot see how this is detrimental to the good of the people, nor can I find another rule in contradiction to this rule. I think the rule is just fine in its current form.

Of course, my personal opinion won't amount to a hill of beans if the majority of the citizenry wants it changed.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by FortyJ

Now, Shaitan.... You won't know who's in the circle of power, unless you're in the circle of power...

Hmmm...does that mean Cyc's in the circle? He's admitted to knowing of the powermongers...

Seriously though, we also need to remove rules that are unnecessary, redundant, add needless complexity to the rules, and don't contribute to the game play, flow or enjoyment. This auto investigation rule fits every one of those.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Shaitan

Hmmm...does that mean Cyc's in the circle? He's admitted to knowing of the powermongers...

Seriously though, we also need to remove rules that are unnecessary, redundant, add needless complexity to the rules, and don't contribute to the game play, flow or enjoyment. This auto investigation rule fits every one of those.

I don't know about you, but this discussion is quite enjoyable to me. Of course.... This is coming from a sickly 13 year old who's fainted 6 differant times in an hour....

Edit: Thanks Shaitan.... Now whenever I need to send a PM to myself I can just click on my name!

 

[Octavian X]

I believe my intent was misintpreted with my proposal. I intended to clarify a Public Investigation was not to be used, but a much simpler 'JA looks into the matter, and makes a ruling' type of thing. I wanted to give someone the chance to clear his/her name, and to provide for the protection of our basic right to free speech.

What I'm aiming for was something like...
Bob gets devoiced by an operator. He feels as if what he had done had did not warrant such an action. He goes to the Judiciary with his complaint. The Judiciary looks into the matter, and rules amongst itself.

My fault is one of unclearness. I simply wish to remove an auto-invesitgation clause, and prevent the sparking of frivlous, full-blown PIs with the use of a substantially smaller investigation.

 

[FortyJ]

That's precisely what I feel this rule would prevent, Octavian.

The rule does not say that the Judge Advocate will conduct a Public Investigation of these occurences. It only states that he or she will investigate the matter. It implies that a "full-blown" Public Investigation would only occur if the JA deems it necessary.

And I'm not entirely sure how this rule detracts from the flow of the game either. If the automatic investigation reduces the number of PIs, it would seem to enhance the flow of the game.

<><><><>

If Bob is devoiced by an operator at the instruction of the DP during a turn chat, he has the right to request an investigation of this action. However, if he does not request an investigation and such action goes unchecked or unchallenged, we would be establishing a precedent for said actions.

Therefore, the Judge Advocate investigates the matter on behalf of the nameless, faceless individual who may or may not be subjected to this action in the future. If the JA finds no fault in the devoicing action (ie. the action was warranted - the "victim" was unruly or incessantly disruptive during the chat, etc...), he or she should post a summary of this finding in the Judiciary thread.

If, on the other hand, the action is dubious or potentially unfounded, the Judge Advocate initiates a Public Investigation of the matter. Pleast note that the Judge Advocate is not ruling on the matter, he or she is simply stating that the action needs further review by the entire judiciary and should possibly be voted on by the citizenry. The case may still be dropped due to lack of merit or eventually dismissed.

Certainly the time spent in this cursory investigation would last much less than the time we have spent debating the rule itself. I think the rule serves to protect the citizens from undue abuse of power and preserves the smooth flow of the game by potentially reducing the number of frivolous Public Investigations that would surely result from these devoicing actions without the existence of this rule.