the Reign of Terror has began.
While I agree people should not be able to reach my post count by all means necessary, I don't think the Initiator was designed for this kind of policing. I think it should be up to the Liason to suggest to bring spam down a notch if that's what we all agree with.
The Ecclesia opted to give the Citizen-Initiator the responsibility to moderate debate in the Ecclesia, but obviously if the Ecclesia doesn't want that provision interpreted this way I'm happy to respond to input or to abide by clarifying legislation. That's what democracy is all about. I've addressed this issue because several other citizens were irritated by the spammy and frankly disrespectful behavior of a particular individual, Bustos, in the Ecclesia yesterday. I'm happy to have a discussion about it but until the discussion concludes and a consensus is reached either by simple discussion or by legislation, I'm interpreting the Citizen-Initiator's responsibility to moderate debate as a responsibility to take action against spammy posting in the Ecclesia.
I'm not at all sure what role Citizen-Liaisons would play in this as they are primarily cultural positions appointed by the Citizen-Delegate. They don't have any legal responsibilities in the Ecclesia. It would seem much better to have debate in the Ecclesia moderated by the elected office responsible for that than by appointed positions that are responsible for something else.
Obviously, this requires some degree of subjectivity, hence the verbal warnings before asking for a forum warning increase. I'll try to be fair and lenient with this and, again, the last thing I want to do is curtail real discussion so please, by all means, contribute.
To be honest, I'm hoping that just addressing the spam issue will put a stop to it. We shouldn't need either judicial mediation or administrative warning to not spam the Ecclesia. So I'm hoping this just serves as a general reminder to be more respectful of other citizens and none of this will actually be needed.
Well stated. I approve of these intentions and agree that myself and any who holds my title after have no business moderating anything aside from cultural events. Perhaps we should draft a formal policy of conduct within the Ecclesia to definitively rule on the sorts of behavior that our Initiator would moderate? I mean by law we currently have no standing ordinance prohibiting spam within Ecclesia debate.
The Citizen-Initiator Act explicitly provides that the Citizen-Initiator will moderate debate in the Ecclesia. Identifying what they believe to be disruptive spam and taking steps to mitigate absolutely falls under that purview, and I'm glad Cormac is taking his new position so seriously. It may make sense for an issue if it arises to be dealt with by a Citizen-Mediator, but I don't think it's appropriate ground for the Citizen Liaison.
As for what qualifies as spam, I don't think there's anyway we'll be able to write that into a formal policy. It's a judgement call which I trust Cormac and future Citizen-Initiators will be able to make on a case to case basis and should be kept informal. If they make a call people disagree with, the Ecclesia in its supremacy can always override them or replace them if they're stubborn about it.
(http://wiki.taijitu.org/w/images/b/b3/Liason_seal.svg)
GUYS! DON'T SPAM! BE COOL!
(http://wiki.taijitu.org/w/images/thumb/9/95/Rainbow_seal.svg/569px-Rainbow_seal.svg.png)
LET'S ALL PLEASE JUST GET ALONG
It is about as relevant as judging women's intellectual capabilities by the size of their titties.
It is about as relevant as judging women's intellectual capabilities by the size of their titties.
My 12th grade PE teacher did that, it was pretty accurate.
I am pretty sure he was just getting a rise out of you, he is in general a great champion of egalitarian ideals and I very much doubt any seriousness to the post above. As for the post count, do you refer to that which is tracked near our names or the bit in this post?
I am serious as in that's actually the way he gave grades, the biggest the boobs higher the grade, we were all very upset, even girls would comment about it. I hated 2 out of 3 of my high-school PE teachers...one did basket evaluation with 3 shots on the basket, we even protested. I think this last one was a complete perv, he'd even chitchat with the "prettiest" students.
As for the count, I got it that we are somehow ranked according to the totality of posts on the forum, so, yes, I suppose that means the count that is tracked near our names. I don't mind the count per se, only that it leads to some title, like "Forum god" or some such.
I was only upset because you seemed to endorse that with your "pretty accurate" statement.Oh, the "pretty accurate" was how we found too obvious anybody with less than a cleavage was getting lower grades than they deserved and the ones with bigger cleavage and didn't do much in PE got awesome grades. Everybody noticed.
As for the count, I got it that we are somehow ranked according to the totality of posts on the forum, so, yes, I suppose that means the count that is tracked near our names. I don't mind the count per se, only that it leads to some title, like "Forum god" or some such.
Oh I see what she means, yes I believe maybe we should get rid of that, give more useful info, like NS nation.
Getting rid of both the count and the "Forum god" rating might ease the spamming urge.