What is an impeachable offense?

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Oni --

With regard to the cultural misperception of norms, I said "often find" not "always find". I also have several very good British friends, although I do admit a preference for folks from the northern part of the Isle.

I also don't think that I ever called Ash a "liar." If I ever did, please tell me where. I specifically said that I found no evidence of corruption -- and I would consider lying to qualify as a kind of corruption in this context.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":e4y7c61u]I am familiar with rule 3-5, and I think that I have responded to the concern and have shown why I do not think that I have violated the rule. The rule prohibits "abuse or personal attacks." I have not engaged in any such thing. I have engaged in personal anaysis of officeholders and officeseekers as a matter of policy. I have done this personal analysis when taking up the policy in general -- rather than when taking up an argument I am trying to refute. Nothing in the rule prohibits this process.[/quote:e4y7c61u]

You ignore this part:

[quote:e4y7c61u]When disagreeing with another poster make sure that your response takes issue with the arguments rather than with the person behind them,[/quote:e4y7c61u]

which necessarily amounts to a prohibition on adverse discussion of character at all (since "taking issue with the person" is prohibited). Also, what about any statement about a person's character that is averse is anything other than a "personal attack"? Note that the word is "attack", not "insult".

You also ignore the point that you implicitly acknowledge, when you write,

[quote:e4y7c61u]As Justice points out, and Ash responds, we have here a cultural clash -- not just between ideas of free speech, but between the idea of whether these forums are just like other forums such that general rules of netiquette apply, or are these forums "public forums" of the C.D.S., in which free political speech rules apply. I think that we have some hybrid here,[/quote:e4y7c61u]

that the "general rules of netiquette" entail that adverse statements of character are prohibited, then seek to argue that the "general rules of netiquette" are, at least in part, inapplicable here because you want to be able to criticise the character of public officials. Indeed, the dichotomy that you outline above would be superfluous and meaningless unless you did acknowledge that. However, you then go on to claim that there is some sort of "hybrid" here that is the thing that permits you to make the character criticisms that you want to make. The clear statement in the forum moderation guidelines, however,

[quote:e4y7c61u]Article 3: NETIQUETTE

The usual guidelines apply for posting to a public discussion forum on the internet,[/quote:e4y7c61u]

can leave one in no possible doubt that the first of the two poles in the dichotomy unambiguously prevails, and that the general rules of netiquette do, indeed, apply. That being the case, it follows that you must be wrong about the "hybrid", and therefore all the consequences that you were claiming flowed from that. Since it was quite clear that you were claiming that one of the things that flowed from it was that you considered yourself free to make posts that are critical of the characters, rather than the arguments, of others, it must also follow that that conclusion is a false conclusion, and that the true position is that such conduct is indeed prohibited, however much that you would like to engage in it.

[quote:e4y7c61u]Further, with regard to your claim that my prediction that a separate CN culture will emerge has been discredited because it has not emerged in the last two months -- what? First, two months is not actually that long.[/quote:e4y7c61u]

It is in SecondLife: most people only hang around SecondLife at all for six months. Two months is a third of their entire lifetime.

[quote:e4y7c61u]Second, we have not actually done all that much to encourage such cultural formations (I think that the elections -- which now will occur in two sims -- may well begin a sim differentiaion process.) Third, I didn't actually predict that different cultures would emerge -- I merely said that they might emerge and would be a good thing if they did emerge so that we should not impose policies that suppress that emergence.[/quote:e4y7c61u]

Actually, you did predict it as being something that was likely to happen, and this is the first time that you have mentioned that it is something that you think ought be positively encouraged (for entirely unspecified reasons: what possible use would there be in encouraging separateness for its own sake?). Your original argument was that, since significant cultural differences, based on the themes of the sims, were very likely to emerge, each sim should have a constitutionally-entrenched right to self-governance to avoid repressing the citizens' separatist yearnings.

[quote:e4y7c61u]Fourth, I think that there are signs of some cultural differentiation, such as the Roman embassy in Rome, the discussion of Saturnalia vs. Christmas]the increasing use of the CN baths for things that just aren't done in tight-laced Neufreistadt. Give us time; we are humans, we will act like humans.[/quote:e4y7c61u]

Why do you consider these to be cultural, rather than merely thematic differences? Why do you think that this means that the [i:e4y7c61u]residents[/i:e4y7c61u] of each sim respectively have their own cultures, as distinct from the proposition that the residents in both equally ask themselves "now, where is the best place to do this"? And why do you assume that "acting like humans" entails that the sim in which one is resident having a significant impact on one's understanding of what one's in-world culture is? Some people, including Gx. Dimsum, who is usually an ally of yours in these debates, has even questioned whether there is a distinct culture in the CDS.

[quote:e4y7c61u]I think that much of the current debate concerns different cultural standards -- for civility in speech if for nothing else. I think it is uncivil to dismiss arguments out-of-hand, or to respond by mere reference to past arguments as if they settled the matter (which they obviously did not do, or at least were not considered sufficient by the auditor, if the auditor continues to challenge the points made), or to claim privileges and respond with pique then they are questioned. Ash apparently thinks that it is uncivil to challenge the personal characteristics of public officials.

Well, this is just a matter in different cultural taboos. (British people, and Europeans generally, often find Americans crass, loud, boorish and belligerent; Americans often find British people to be repressed, reserved, prim or pompous.) Unfortunately, we happen to have incompatible taboos. That is a problem that always arises in multicultural discourse. My response is to privilege speech -- to respect the "bad" speech coming from the member of the other culture and to insist, as a condition of discourse, on similar respect. Otherwise, if we have to confine ourselves to the narrow range of mutually acceptable speech and speech methods, we will find that we have very little to say.[/quote:e4y7c61u]

My response to any cultural clash is first to look to the locally-specific rules that could break the tie. In this case, we have such a rule: section 3 (and particularly subsection 5) of the forum moderation guidelines. As stated above, in this particular case, that conclusively answers the point in favour of a general prohibition on character-adverse postings.

[quote:e4y7c61u]With regard to whether I will serve in any CDS office, I do hope to do so someday. Right now, I think that Diderot is the Simplicity Party RA candidate. I might run for a second seat in the RA if the Simplicity Party picks up a second seat. I am also very interested in reforming the Guild, as either a Constituitional Branch of government, or as a nongovernmental group. I am also interested in the S.C. and the kind of issues and discussion the S.C. engages in. I am also interested in dispute resolution -- as an arbitrator or mediator -- and I do have a very different approach to deciding cases, or assisting in settlement of cases, as a neutral than I have as an advocate or political operative. However, I will not carve out a formal niche for myself -- and will continue as gadfly unless and until I am deemed worthy, by the other citizens in the CDS, to do something different.

However, I assure you that I am not a hypocrite. If I do ever hold public office in the CDS, I will not object to being the target of attacks based on my behavior or character insofar as those things are relevant to my office. I will also not object to being the subject of amateur psychoanalysis. As I am fond of saying, "turnabout's fair play."[/quote:e4y7c61u]

So, to answer my previous question, how would you like people to see your character?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Beathan":31k0nqrx]Pat --

Both points are well-taken and noted. I will moderate my future posts accordingly. However, the tone and tenor of my private correspondence with Ash is even worse than the public exchanges, so I very much doubt that a private message would have been useful.

Beathan[/quote:31k0nqrx]Beathan, you appear to accept in this post that you should avoid personal attacks but then go on to defend them by saying that it's okay if you're attacking the character of a government official. This is a novel interpretation of our rules on forum posting and I'm not sure it's one that will stand :).

I think there are other reasons though, apart from "it's against the rules", for avoiding the use of character-based arguments and amateur psychoanalysis to discredit an opponent in a debate.

[list:31k0nqrx]Firstly, it really doesn't take us very far forward. One poster accuses the second of 'megalomania', the second accuses the first of 'attention deficit disorder', then we get 'narcissism', 'god complex' and 'penis envy' in short order. Frankly, it's only a slightly more intellectual version of 'your momma so fat...'

Secondly, it ruins the tone of public debate. There are a great number of our citizens who are avoiding these forums (and who are discouraged from posting here) because of the negative tone that has developed and the level of personal attacks that have escalated in recent months. We are all responsible for this and we are responsible for putting it right. Refraining from personal attacks would be a good step forward.[/list:u:31k0nqrx]

I'm sure I could come up with more if I think about it, but frankly, I don't think I should have to. As forum moderators, I think the SC has always preferred to guarantee the maximum freedom of speech while trying to maintain a civil public discourse. After all, we are all adults and should be capable of civility while having a robust debate at times. The problem with trying to bend the rules on personal attacks is that civility (and reason) quickly goes out of the window.

Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

Beathan, I didn't mean to suggest you'd used it as a term of abuse. I do, however, presume that you think Ash is lying about his intentions for the judiciary project.

For example, on a number of occasions you've said things like:

[quote:v82hyrq5]With regard to Cicero "losing his head", I trust that I too will receive the unique honor of havng my head displayed in the forum should the judiciary triumvirate triumph over our more noble egalitarian and democratic impulses[/quote:v82hyrq5]

[quote:v82hyrq5]Apparently even Ashcroft recognizes it, as he has, as noted by Prok, taken his imperial ambition to the Mainland. [/quote:v82hyrq5]

Since Ash says his image of the judiciary is the conventional democratic sort - i.e. required to follow the laws set down by the RA and liable to impeachment if they step out of bounds, it must follow that you think he's lying about that.

Also, you say that:

[quote:v82hyrq5]Further, I have pointed out that your strident opposition to the Rules of Justice, in which opposition you have clearly indicated that you believe that it would be impossible and foolish to attempt to apply the rules (clearly implying that you will not engage in any such attempt), amounts to a dereliction of your judicial duties.[/quote:v82hyrq5]

Assuming (and I did assume), that when he took up his judicial post Ash promised to follow the law it must follow from this that you think he lied.

Again, I'm not saying that you don't have a right to say he's lying (and indeed, from other forum posts, some other people seem to agree with you). Where the best place to make such an accusation is, is another question.

Of course, if you don't think Ash is lying, I'm delighted. It's always nice to find common ground.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”