Love the Enthusiasm, Not Sure About the Implementation
Edana Savage
I've been hearing this breathed amonst my brethern of late. In light of all that has happened with the departure of Grainne and Digits, I think it isn't a bad idea.
Donnovan has proposed an "Anti Bullying, Sexism, and Racial Discrimination Proposal". You can read more.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-anti-bullying-sexism-and-racial-discrimination-proposal-915679/1/20
I love the spirit in which this has been brought forth. As I understand there is already something like this in the works and a lively discussion is happening in the forum.
http://ieforums.hobbittown.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=310
After reading through all the comments, the conclusion is that making this (in its present form, anyway) into law would be a nightmare to enforce. There are mechanisms in place to report abuse, and the administration has the power to enforce punishments.
I think the first step is to define what bullying, sexism, and racial discrimination is. What constitutes free speech, freedom of expression? And what would be considered discriimination and harassment?
Personally, I think harassment is the bigger issue. If the offending person is going to be an ass enough to say inflamatory things then so be it. I don't have to listen to them. But if the same person constantly harasses me in such a way that it damages my character or causes so much distress that I am forced to leave, then THAT is the real issue. And that is what we need to prevent.
Freedom of speech is a fine thing, but to slander and defame another citizen in such a vicious way, is not acceptable in any circumstance. So what do we do?
As I understand, we do have a judicial branch. If the case meets the criteria set forth by the law as it is written by the Congress, then they go before the justices. The Plantiff will present their case and the Defendent will present their side. Then a ruling will be given out and an appropriate punishment will be rendered.
Now as far as punishment goes, this is where we are limitied. The Administrator is the one that can enforce certain kinds of punishment such as restricted gameplay, monetary punishments, etc. The only punishment we can offer is through societal means. We can bann them from participating in forums. We can keep a registry of offenders that can be updated as needed. One time offenders have the opportunity to redeem themselves through appropriate restitution to the victim. But if they are convicted a second time, they are permanently flagged.
We can't prevent people from associating with such individuals, but we can limit their access to our forums and we can inform any who come to our shores who these individuals are and why they are on this list.
This punishment should be reserved for the most heinous of offenses. I will leave that to our elected officials to hash out the details.
Most of what I have written above was pieced together through what I have read on the forum and from Donnovan's article, with a few bits that I added. I like to give credit where credit is due. 😉
Please, go visit, get engaged, participate. Let your Congressperson know what your views are on the subject.
It is clear that something needs to be put in place. How it will end up, is yet to be determined.
Comments
I think you bring up a very important issue which hasn't been addressed previously in the article or forum thread you link to.... that is the question of defamation of character. On this question enforcement would be much simpler... a statement by the adjudicating body that the words complained of were slander or not.
That would allow people to clear their name when others have accused them of something which would lower their standing in the eyes of the right thinking members of society.
Defences available could be honest mistake or journalistic privilige.
It would be an option of last resort. And its effectiveness would depend on the judging body (presumably the Supreme Court) being accepted as fair, objective and neutral.
*erep acting wierd today*
Just a quick correction:
The original proposal is by Congressman Jebbs. I'm merely bringing attention to it.
Duly noted. Thanks for the correction, Donnovan.
My apologies Congressman Jebbs! Please forgive me!
Edana, I have also amended my article to include proper credit (and oversight on my part)
I think the first step toward state sanctioned support is passing of legislation implementing Censure.
For those not familiar with the concept here is a brief definition;
[Censure is a procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior. When the president is censured, it serves merely as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of presidency, nor are there any other particular legal consequences. -Wikipedia]
{Authors note: use of the word "president" is in no way meant to convey misconduct by the current CP}
For the uninitiated this should not be confused with the concept of censorship, different words, different meaning.
That there is no direct effect to the offender but only an official condemnation of their acts would be fitting in-game and not overstep the authority of the government in regards to Game Mechanics.
Censure could be handled by the supreme court after a vote in public Dáil so as not to take away from more pressing congressional duties.
It would send a clear message by the government that the offenders actions are not supported and would be an efficient way for the government to show support for wronged citizens, if only in a moral manner.
Censure.
Ok. So we have the consequence, but we haven't defined what would constitute such a consequence.
How bad must it be before someone is censured?
Really get your message across and post it six times! 😛
At least I'm not the only one getting the delay for comment posting.
I think that the supreme court should decide each case on an individual basis. A record should be kept of all discussion between justices. This way, a plantiff can cite precedent.
Obviously there should be guidelines. The ones in Jebbs proposal are good, but the length and severity of the sentence should be decided individually.
LOL! @ Theus I know! I kept going back to see if I could see them and I couldn't. It's all fixed now.
@ Tomas. Right. It should be decided on a case by case basis. But the Congress has to give them someplace to start. Jebbs proposal needs to be fleshed out a bit more and I think they will have it.
Excellent summation Tomas!
I hear the person who wrote this hates babies. How can anyone believe the words of a baby hater?
Ha just kidding, couldn't help myself. Great article!
Thank Octavius. I'd appreciate it if would now come over and clean up the coffee I just spit all over my keyboard. :/
LOL! I needed a good laugh. 😉 I'll have to find a way to get you back now. You know that right?
ha take your pot shots miss Edana, I am prepared : ) Even for your savage nature.
Pot shots?! Pot shots?! Ooooh. You are gonna get it now! 😉
You won't know when or where, my dear Octavius. But it WILL happen. 😃
baby haters.rofl.know a few of dem meself.
*throws wet sponge at Donovan*
savage be name, savage be nature.good.
😉