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 »

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

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

We really are sick and tired of your insults, diatribes and total lack of any understanding of what the CDS in particular, and 2L in general, are all about.

I, for one, will utterly ignore your outbursts from now onwards. They are beneath contempt.

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":1tsj6734]Beathan,

We really are sick and tired of your insults, diatribes and total lack of any understanding of what the CDS in particular, and 2L in general, are all about.

I, for one, will utterly ignore your outbursts from now onwards. They are beneath contempt.[/quote:1tsj6734]

[i:1tsj6734]I'm[/i:1tsj6734] not sick nor tired of Beathan's responses to Ash's questions. Michel, you've taken a disappointing turn recently from a thoughtful and independent poster to "defender of CDS ideals," which as I have posted elsewhere I am not sure exist at all, or if they do exist they aren't defined solely by the will of you, me, Ash, or Beathan; all relative newcomers to the community.

It seems very reasonable, in a thread about what makes an impeachable offense, and the judge whose seat is in question repeatedly replying flippantly and proudly, that a clear description of the concerns be laid out. If citizens don't have the right to criticize public officials for their public behavior, that would make our community less free rather than more free than the mainland anarchy.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Gxeremio,

I am sorry to disappoint you. I shall try harder to improve.

It is not criticism per se I object to; it is the manner in which it is done that I have issues with. In any case, I am hopful that the level of discourse during the upcoming campaign will be of a more elevated nature.

Let's hope that those who report on it will also observe the required standards of neutrality and objectivity not only in form, but also in substance.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":1uzqb0z3]It seems very reasonable, in a thread about what makes an impeachable offense, and the judge whose seat is in question repeatedly replying flippantly and proudly, that a clear description of the concerns be laid out. If citizens don't have the right to criticize public officials for their public behavior, that would make our community less free rather than more free than the mainland anarchy.[/quote:1uzqb0z3]

Gxeremio, you well know that the forum moderation guidelines prohibit criticisms of character. That is a common feature of most web forums. It exists to promote civility in discussion: its need is most evident here. Furthermore, you will note that a forum moderator has officially warned Beathan for his misconduct.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":20iognss]
Gxeremio, you well know that the forum moderation guidelines prohibit criticisms of character. That is a common feature of most web forums. It exists to promote civility in discussion: its need is most evident here. Furthermore, you will note that a forum moderator has officially warned Beathan for his misconduct.[/quote:20iognss]

In this thread? Where?

I understand that it is and should be against the rules to derail a discussion by criticizing someone's character instead of their arguments. However, when the discussion is precisely about the character of an official, and whether or not he should be impeached, why shouldn't that discussion be allowed on a public forum? One thing that makes this forum different from the typical web forum is that it is a place where people intereact with and talk about their government leaders. If someone posted, "Bush is an idiot," and President Bush happened to be a user of that forum, do you think Bush should appeal to the moderator? I should hope not! If our forum rules are not clear on this point, perhaps they should be amended.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

What an interesting idea of what public discourse really means... It is not simply because one has the right to say anything one wishes that one is ethically justified in doing so -especially when one is a member of a community purporting to share certain norms, values and aims...

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":9tmi0r6f]In this thread? Where?[/quote:9tmi0r6f]

[quote="Pat":9tmi0r6f]You're sailing very close to the wind here in terms of personal attacks. Could you please restrict your comments to other posters' opinions and proposals rather than attempting to analyse their motives and mental condition? Otherwise this thread is really going to go nowhere fast.[/quote:9tmi0r6f]

[quote:9tmi0r6f]I understand that it is and should be against the rules to derail a discussion by criticizing someone's character instead of their arguments. However, when the discussion is precisely about the character of an official, and whether or not he should be impeached, why shouldn't that discussion be allowed on a public forum? One thing that makes this forum different from the typical web forum is that it is a place where people intereact with and talk about their government leaders. If someone posted, "Bush is an idiot," and President Bush happened to be a user of that forum, do you think Bush should appeal to the moderator? I should hope not! If our forum rules are not clear on this point, perhaps they should be amended.[/quote:9tmi0r6f]

The rules state:

[quote:9tmi0r6f]3.5: When disagreeing with another poster make sure that your response takes issue with the arguments rather than with the person behind them. Abuse and personal attacks will not be tolerated.[/quote:9tmi0r6f]

If you do not like them, it is not for you to complain at those who invoke them.

Last edited by Ashcroft Burnham on Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

I am reminded of the Soviet era joke. The American says to the Russian that "ours is a free country, I can stand outside the White House and yell 'the President of the United States is a complete idiot' and nothing will happen to me." The Russian replies, "ours is also a free country, as I can stand in front of the Kremlin and yell 'the President of the United States is a complete idiot' and nothing will happen to me as well."

We seem to have a collision of cultures clashing with the interpretation of the rules prohibiting "personal attacks". Under U.S. First Amendment law the Supreme Court concluded in [url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4:1qywrzty]New York Times v. Sullivan[/url:1qywrzty] that where a public figure sues for defamation, the public figure must prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", interpreted to mean that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. This doctrine allows considerable room for the criticism of public figures such as elected officials.

But Ashcroft's interpretation of the forum rules on "personal attacks" leads us to the CDS version of the Soviet joke: we are free to loudly proclaim that the President of the United States is a complete idiot.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

My interpretation of the forum rules here is based on their actual words, and an understanding of common netiquette: in a web forum, one must never criticise another's character. What else could a prohibition on "personal attacks" mean? What else could the reference to "tak[ing] issue with the argument, not the person" mean? The moderation guidelines expressly refer to common netiquette. The point is that, in order to prevent a breakdown in civility, debates on the forums must be kept impersonal. That seems to me to be a very sensible rule.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

It is not the freedom to do so that is in question. No one will be stopped from yelling whatever they like in-world, in front of the Rathaus of Court House.

Rather, it is the ethical nature of such comments made in written form that the forums seek to regulate. As a law professor you will, I am certain, seize the import of this subtle distinction.

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

Post by Beathan »

As Justice points out, and Ash responds, we have here a cultural clash -- not just between ideas of free speech among our RL cultures, but between the idea of whether these forums are just like other forums such that general rules of netiquette apply as usual, 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.

As part of that, and in answer to Michel's request inworld that I pledge to confine my posts to matters of policy, I want to state some general principles that I apply when posting. I think I do confine my posts to policy -- and that I do not engage in gratuitous personal attacks or "flaming."

These posts are a public forum for the C.D.S. -- and are very different from other forums on the web for that reason. People get into flame wars on forums elsewhere for reasons entirely confined to the forums. These flame wars are made worse by the virtual certainty that the flamers will never actually have to interact with their targets. This made the flaming particularly brutal and nasty -- and caused rules to ban or discourage flaming to develop.

However, the circumstances that support rules of netiquette do not apply here (at least do not completely apply here). These forums have features that make them different from other online forums. First, these forums are used by citizens of the C.D.S. to influence the government of the C.D.S. This is an important concern -- and one that means that these forums are not self-contained, so the discussions in them are not self-contained. A poster's character is not just a matter of the tone and tenor of their posts -- it also affects his inworld behavior and, if he is an office hold, his discharge of his office.

Further, we can interact inworld with the people who post here. For the most part, we do. Part of that interaction is through the medium of C.D.S. government. Some posters have positions of inworld importance and power, other don't, and are just citizens. I think this makes a huge difference in the very rule concerning posts about character. We have two different groups of people -- people with the ability, through governmental force and the exercise of an office, to influence or harm other people, and people who don't. The rules concerning how we evaluate these two groups should be very different.

The private character of a citizen does not matter very much. Certain aspects of the character of a public official also do not matter very much (those that do not make them especially able or unable to perform their office well and properly, such as whether Ash entertains cute blondes in courtroom chambers). However, some aspects of the character of public officials directly affect how well people serve their offices. These aspects of character are properly matters of public concern -- and it is proper to include a discussion of them in discussions about policy more generally.

I have refrained from things I consider gratuitous personal attacks. I have not engaged in deep character analysis of anyone who is not a current officeholder or prospective officeholder. Further, in criticising current or prospective officeholders, I have tried to use measured language. I have never called anyone "a complete idiot" or a "shallow thinker" or "a prick." Rather, I have tried to describe the behavior through a more thorough analysis that reveals and highlights, rather than merely names, the point of concern. If my character descriptions have landed, they have landed because of their analytic thoroughness and, I think, their accuracy -- and not because they resemble anything like traditional flaming. Thus, while I agree that I have, on times, sailed dangerously close to the wind -- I do not think that I have ever sailed into it.

Policy matters when doing government, as we are doing in the C.D.S. People matter when doing policy -- both because the policy exists for the purpose of serving the People and because individual people are responsible for developing and implementing policy. Personal character matters when evaluating policy as it really exists -- because policy only exists through and for people. I have not yet -- and I will try to never -- make shallow personal attacks (of the kind found in flame wars) on these forums, but I will also never forget the personal aspects of policy, and I will not shrink from drawing attention to those personal aspects when discussing the policies they further, warp or impede. I think such shrinking from the personal aspects of policy harms both the People and the policy.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
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":2fanfdn9]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.[/qu0te]

There are two quite separate questions: (1) whether the rules of netiquette do, in fact, apply; and (2) whether you would like them to apply.

(1) is answered conclusively by the [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 3:2fanfdn9]forum moderation guidelines[/url:2fanfdn9]:

[quote="The forum moderation guidelines":2fanfdn9]
Article 3: NETIQUETTE

The usual guidelines apply for posting to a public discussion forum on the internet. They can be broadly summarised as follows:

...

3.5: When disagreeing with another poster make sure that your response takes issue with the arguments rather than with the person behind them. Abuse and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

...
[/quote:2fanfdn9]

[quote:2fanfdn9]First, these posts are a public forum for the C.D.S. -- and are very different from other forums on the web. People get into flame wars on forums elsewhere for reasons entirely confined to the forums. These flame wars are made worse by the virtual certainty that the flamers will never actually have to interact with their targets. This made the flaming particularly brutal and nasty -- and caused rules to ban or discourage flaming to develop.

However, the circumstances that support rules of netiquette do not apply here (at least do not completely apply here). These forums have features that make them different from other forums. First, these forums are used by citizens of the C.D.S. to influence the government of the C.D.S. This is an important concern -- and one that means that these forums are not self-contained, so the discussions in them are not self-contained. [/quote:2fanfdn9]

Despite your proclamations to the contrary, it is quite evident that such a rule is necessary here from the very incivility that has, in fact, arisen on the forums, especially when the guidelines have been ignored. I may note that your track record in predicting cultural phenomena is so far very poor: where is that separate Colonia Nova culture that you predicted two months ago? For that reason, there is good reason to be sceptical of your claims that relate to culture especially when they are unsubstantiated by any evidence for their empirical propositions (the claim, for example, that the fact that there is a possibility that people will have to interact with each other in a virtual world will in fact have the effect of preventing destructive flame wars, is wholly unsubstantiated with any real evidence in practice, and amounts to no more than groundless speculation).

[quote:2fanfdn9]We can interact inworld with the people who post here. For the most part, we do. Further, part of that interaction is through the medium of C.D.S. government. Some posters have positions of inworld importance and power, other don't, and are just citizens. I think this makes a huge difference in the very rule concerning posts about character.[/quote:2fanfdn9]

That an official's character may need to be discussed does not entail that these forums are the appropriate place to do so.

[quote:2fanfdn9]I have refrained from things I consider personal attacks.[/quote:2fanfdn9]

There is evidently a very considerable distance indeed between what you consider to be personal attacks and what really are personal attacks.

[quote:2fanfdn9] If my character descriptions have landed, they have landed because of their analytic thoroughness and, I think, their accuracy -- and not because they resemble anything like traditional flaming. Thus, while I agree that I have, on times, sailed dangerously close to the wind -- I do not think that I have ever sailed into it.[/quote:2fanfdn9]

Resemblance to "traditional flaming" (in so far as there can meaningfully be said to be a traditional method of flaming) is irrelevant: the point in question is that, in a debate on a web forum, it is wholly wrong to criticise a person's character as opposed to the things for which the person is arguing.

And what exactly do you mean by "landed" here? Either what you write is a criticism of character or it is not: whether you believe that your own criticisms are accurate or not is neither here nor there.

Do you take joy in being spiteful to people? Also, do you ever plan to stand for public office of any kind in the CDS?

[quote:2fanfdn9] I will also never forget the personal aspects of policy, and I will not shrink from drawing attention to those personal aspects when discussing the policies they further, warp or impede.[/quote:2fanfdn9][/quote:2fanfdn9]

Even if doing so on a web forum is in breach of forum moderation guidelines?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ash --

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.

I am reminded of the catchphrase of an anthopologist I used to date. She would always tell me "the medium is the message." Well, in government, it is often the case that the person is the policy. At least, the policy is so entangled with the person carrying it out that it makes no sense to talk about the policy abstracted from the person. Such discussion is a discussion of the policy, not the person, even though it looks like and involves a discussion of the person.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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."

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

[quote:atvde8e8]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.)[/quote:atvde8e8]

For myself, I've never found this to be true. Some of my best friends are American. Although it is, I suppose possible they find me repressed and pompous, but are too polite to mention it.

[quote:atvde8e8]Ash apparently thinks that it is uncivil to challenge the personal characteristics of public officials.[/quote:atvde8e8]

In fairness, I think what Ashcroft objected to was being described as a potentially insane liar, who was engaged in a conspiracy to turn the CDS into his own private empire.

Now, of course, if you believe that to be the case, you should say it, and I'll defend to the death your right to do so.* But I think you may have to accept that you can't remain civil at the same time.

*Although possibly not your right to do so in these forums.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”