View Topic

I was actually very surprised to see a PnG being considered by anyone, let alone the Storting. Who are these people?

I also think it would be a good idea if those with a personal history with Gov abstained from voting. Specifically @Pengu and @HannahB.

EDIT: Also, Weissreich, you have mentioned that you would instead wish for some other action to be taken that's less extreme than a Revocation. It would be unwise to proceed if we don't explore this avenue properly. I'm afraid I'm out of ideas on the subject, so do you have any ideas of how this may be done?

I'll readily admit that it's hard to decide on a more suitable punishment that retains the severity and gravitas of a Revocation in terms of its impact (hopefully) on Gov's behaviour without removing him from the community entirely. I was considering the idea of forum or thread-specific bans, but if we go about removing Gov from areas of the site where he's active we're really not giving him much reason to stay and nor are we really doing much less than revoking his access to those areas.

The idea I hit upon that holds most water in my eyes is, again, a probation. In some ways, I think Wintreath was somewhat unprepared for dealing with people who cause issues for other members of the community - we've got all the rules in place, but aside from IRC probation/temp-ban/ban and then citizenship revocation followed by PnG, we've not really got much in the way of stages of punishment.

What Gov's done is by no means any less severe in my mind for wanting something slightly less drastic in terms of consequences for his actions, but I think we should also look at this as a chance to tighten up our punishment procedures for any future misdoings by members of the community.

A forum probation of a certain duration, during which Gov is restricted from posting in certain areas or from posting more than X posts in certain areas per day (something along these lines) and is otherwise on his final warning before his citizenship is revoked may work better than a straight up "Right get out, but we're leaving the door open so you know what you're now missing out on" approach.

As I said, it's tough because Gov's got away with much in the past, and progressively heavier punishment hasn't been seen to work, but I feel taking this intermediary step before a revocation will provide the ultimate last chance - if he cocks it up, he loses his citizenship and any chance at regaining it, because he'll have broken the final iotas of trust this community has in him. I doubt I'd push for such measures in any other scenario, but I do feel we need to take into consideration Gov's (admitted or otherwise) issues when deciding punishment. It's not right to remove a person from a community they enjoy for behaviour they aren't 100% in control of.

That said, we'd need a confirmation and assurance from Gov that he'd actually stick to it. That's why I'm so in favour of an exhaustive Act either way - less chance for him to argue against it should it ever eventually come to pass.

I don't think that that's very enforceable. Plus, we need to send a strong message, be cruel to be kind. A temporary ban has been proven to not work with regards to Gov. Something more drastic is needed, a half measure won't cut it.

I also think it would be a good idea if those with a personal history with Gov abstained from voting. Specifically @Pengu and @HannahB.

While normally I would agree with this, I think for this in particular that'd be a problem.

Being as you drafted the bill, you're going to be expected to abstain from voting from on it, at least that's normally how it would be expected in a revocation.  Since Barnes is the Speaker, he's also going to be expected to abstain.  If Hannah and I are also expected to abstain due to personal history...which pretty much everyone on here has with Gov, that means that only Laurentus, Point Breeze, and Weissreich are going to be the only ones that technically should be allowed to vote.

Hannah and I have a history with Gov, yes.  But we're not going to be like, say Chanku.  I, and I doubt Hannah either, want anything more than for Gov to understand the gravity of what he does.  I don't support a PnG or anything that extreme at the moment, despite my reservations that I believe a revocation won't be enough to get him to understand.  But like I said in my platform, I'm willing to work as a team with the rest of the storting and follow the direction that you guys believe is best, which if that's simply a revocation, then that's fine.

@Weissreich: The problem with a probation is that as you already know, that was instituted already in IRC before his ban even happened.  In retrospect, a revocation is the next best thing because while it strips him of his citizenship, he's still allowed access to the forums and he has a chance to regain his citizenship if he's on his best behavior.  In reality, a Revocation is pretty much like the forum's version of an IRC probation simply for that reason, since he has a chance to get his citizenship back.  And likewise, if he continues after his revocation on his path or gets worse, then we'll probably be having more talks at that point and not sooner than that.

I also think it would be a good idea if those with a personal history with Gov abstained from voting. Specifically @Pengu and @HannahB.

While normally I would agree with this, I think for this in particular that'd be a problem.

Being as you drafted the bill, you're going to be expected to abstain from voting from on it, at least that's normally how it would be expected in a revocation.  Since Barnes is the Speaker, he's also going to be expected to abstain.  If Hannah and I are also expected to abstain due to personal history...which pretty much everyone on here has with Gov, that means that only Laurentus, Point Breeze, and Weissreich are going to be the only ones that technically should be allowed to vote.

Hannah and I have a history with Gov, yes.  But we're not going to be like, say Chanku.  I, and I doubt Hannah either, want anything more than for Gov to understand the gravity of what he does.  I don't support a PnG or anything that extreme at the moment, despite my reservations that I believe a revocation won't be enough to get him to understand.  But like I said in my platform, I'm willing to work as a team with the rest of the storting and follow the direction that you guys believe is best, which if that's simply a revocation, then that's fine.

@Weissreich: The problem with a probation is that as you already know, that was instituted already in IRC before his ban even happened.  In retrospect, a revocation is the next best thing because while it strips him of his citizenship, he's still allowed access to the forums and he has a chance to regain his citizenship if he's on his best behavior.  In reality, a Revocation is pretty much like the forum's version of an IRC probation simply for that reason, since he has a chance to get his citizenship back.  And likewise, if he continues after his revocation on his path or gets worse, then we'll probably be having more talks at that point and not sooner than that.

I wouldn't be to sure considering that it's HannahB that is really pushing for a PnG declaration within the UH.

Also, if this act passes because of the vote of the two of you then it really would look bad.

Lastly, I'm not intending on abstaining. Am I supposed to?

I wouldn't be to sure considering that it's HannahB that is really pushing for a PnG declaration within the UH.

Also, if this act passes because of the vote of the two of you then it really would look bad.

Lastly, I'm not intending on abstaining. Am I supposed to?

Wait what! I in no way support a PnG.

I am a bit iffy on the revocation at all, though lean more to it as a necessary evil.

I believe you are referring to what I said about people talking to me. But because someone comes to me and asks me to bring something up; doesn't mean I agree with them, though I do believe their opinion is important.

I don't think any member of the Skrifa should be asked to withhold their vote, I was thinking of doing so anyway, I do not think that it's something that should be publically asked of a representative.

I wouldn't be to sure considering that it's HannahB that is really pushing for a PnG declaration within the UH.

Also, if this act passes because of the vote of the two of you then it really would look bad.

Lastly, I'm not intending on abstaining. Am I supposed to?

Wait what! I in no way support a PnG.

I am a bit iffy on the revocation at all, though lean more to it as a necessary evil.

I believe you are referring to what I said about people talking to me. But because someone comes to me and asks me to bring something up; doesn't mean I agree with them, though I do believe their opinion is important.

I don't think any member of the Skrifa should be asked to withhold their vote, I was thinking of doing so anyway, I do not think that it's something that should be publically asked of a representative.

I think North is referring to this statement:

So I am going to ask everyone (as I have been asked) if we are going to revoke his citizenship, why not go for PnG as well?

Since it makes it sound like you're supporting the idea of a PnG at the same time.

I have had it brought up with me by several people that a ban would be necessary as merely revoking far from removes the problem, he can still post on the forums and be a nuisance. Note that this isn't my view, but I wouldn't bring it up if it hadn't been expressed to me by multiple people whom I trust.

So I am going to ask everyone (as I have been asked) if we are going to revoke his citizenship, why not go for PnG as well?

I was asked to bring up a question, and I did so; I'm glad it's clarified now, but I thought it was clear at the time.

I also think it would be a good idea if those with a personal history with Gov abstained from voting. Specifically @Pengu and @HannahB.

While normally I would agree with this, I think for this in particular that'd be a problem.

Being as you drafted the bill, you're going to be expected to abstain from voting from on it, at least that's normally how it would be expected in a revocation.  Since Barnes is the Speaker, he's also going to be expected to abstain.  If Hannah and I are also expected to abstain due to personal history...which pretty much everyone on here has with Gov, that means that only Laurentus, Point Breeze, and Weissreich are going to be the only ones that technically should be allowed to vote.

Hannah and I have a history with Gov, yes.  But we're not going to be like, say Chanku.  I, and I doubt Hannah either, want anything more than for Gov to understand the gravity of what he does.  I don't support a PnG or anything that extreme at the moment, despite my reservations that I believe a revocation won't be enough to get him to understand.  But like I said in my platform, I'm willing to work as a team with the rest of the storting and follow the direction that you guys believe is best, which if that's simply a revocation, then that's fine.

@Weissreich: The problem with a probation is that as you already know, that was instituted already in IRC before his ban even happened.  In retrospect, a revocation is the next best thing because while it strips him of his citizenship, he's still allowed access to the forums and he has a chance to regain his citizenship if he's on his best behavior.  In reality, a Revocation is pretty much like the forum's version of an IRC probation simply for that reason, since he has a chance to get his citizenship back.  And likewise, if he continues after his revocation on his path or gets worse, then we'll probably be having more talks at that point and not sooner than that.

I wouldn't be to sure considering that it's HannahB that is really pushing for a PnG declaration within the UH.

Also, if this act passes because of the vote of the two of you then it really would look bad.

Lastly, I'm not intending on abstaining. Am I supposed to?

Why would it look bad?  The last revocation I did and spearheaded, I voted against for reasons of fairness to Gov.  Again in retrospect, we all have history with Gov, and 5 of us here are Riksrad.

At some point we have to stop worrying about image and just focus on the topic.  The topic is whether we feel as a group that a revocation is the right way to go.

And since it's a revocation bill that you brought forth and you're choosing to be the public face to take all of the backlash from Gov, it could be seen as equally bad from another perspective if you were to participate in the voting.

Alright, I see your point. I'll probably abstain.

And I'm sorry for misinterpreting your words, Hannah, it sounded like you were pushing for PnG like Lumenland was.

I was approached by a citizen who expressed concern about how much time we are giving Govindia for a statement. They want us to give him a time limit to come up with a statement. May I have my colleagues thoughts?

Is there anything he could say that is going to change our minds?

Let me answer for myself.

No.

So should we give him as much time as possible or should we just ignore him in your opinion, PB?

Probably not going to change my mind either, but due process and all that.

I think a time limit is good: 48 hours after this bill has been extended.

So that gives him a total of 4 days already, that he had to speak his mind.

Does that sound reasonable to all involved?

Sounds reasonable.  I think he should get the entire length of the bill, which he's not really utilizing...once again.  <_<