Bureaucracy Filter

[Ulrika Zugzwang]

I saw these in SC forum:
[quote:2z58k9m6]V) Charges against Kendra Bancroft for violating the constitution by
conspiring to prevent the SC from exercising their constitutional
prerogative of closing a forum.[/quote:2z58k9m6] You've really got to stop interpreting other people's perfectly normal actions through your bureaucracy filter. The stilted legalese makes the project look like a parody of real government. What's really shameful is how those who are "enemies of the state" or "terrorists" (more output from the bureaucratic filter translated simply as "people who don't do what we want") have a different set of rules applied to them than those who are a part of the oligarchy that controls the city.

[quote:2z58k9m6]VIII) Possibility of opening an unmoderated discussion group in our
forums possibly named "Ulrika's cage".[/quote:2z58k9m6] This project has taken on the anger (and personality) of the members remaining in power and thus become mean spirited, spiteful, and petty.

Give us a break and stop playing lawyers on TV and start being humans, eh?

~Ulrika~

[Dianne]

well.. there is this bit at the end of the post that you left out.

[quote:3uh0kb7q]"...Please note that very likely not all agenda items will be addressed. The first minutes of the session today will examine each of these issues to see if they are indeed the SC's job to discuss (many aren't). [b:3uh0kb7q]Some points on the agenda might simply be "non-issues"; they're just there because some citizens asked us [/b:3uh0kb7q](directly or indirectly) to emit a statement on them."[/quote:3uh0kb7q]

Since an agenda like this is usually indicative of a six hour meeting, my hope is that many of these fall into that category.

It would be better to judge the SC by the actual transcripts of what they say and the actions they perform than this.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Ulrika — why do you care at all?

Why do you persist in your rhetoric? I would have thought that you had better things to do with your spare time. Doesn't "Port Neualtenburg" keep you busy enough? The last time I checked, there was supposed to be an ongoing rave party there — aren't you not a bit concerned about your own projects?

Think a bit about your [i:3esxb6lq]true[/i:3esxb6lq] motivations, take a deep breath, and let it go. There is so much fun to be had doing constructive things in Second Life. Why don't you experiment that for a while? A quarter million users cannot be all wrong, can they?

I know you love to play the "forum games" — an intellectual challenge for some, where you earn "points" by "winning" on threads where one has posted some clever argument — but you're missing [i:3esxb6lq]these[/i:3esxb6lq] forums' purpose completely. This is not a "game forum" — you have LL's own for that, or you can set them up by yourself if you wish — where you manipulate opinions to have people publicly acclaim you as a "thread winner" or some similar accomplishment. It might shock you, but not all people in the world "play forum games" (this is as shocking to many as, for instance, people calling Second Life a "game" just because it's 3D — completely dismissing the notion that an architect's software platform is probably also 3D and not a game at all...).

These forums are just [i:3esxb6lq]discussion[/i:3esxb6lq] forums, nothing more and nothing less. Learn that not [i:3esxb6lq]all[/i:3esxb6lq] forums in the world work like the ones you're used to. And respect the people that don't wish to play the "forum game" with you — have fun with your favourite forums where you're able to "play games", and let us in peace with our own.

---

In any case, the SC is just [i:3esxb6lq]considering[/i:3esxb6lq] for discussion some of the items on the agenda. Many citizens have voiced their opinion that many items never make the agenda at all; no matter how little bearing these might have to the SC's task, it's our purpose to review all items submitted to the SC for review. If they are pertinent or not is to be discussed later.

[Ulrika Zugzwang]

Ignoring the personal criticisms as red herrings, let me instead restate my point.

It's as if everything that upsets you must be rephrased in a fashion that makes it sound like a crime against a nation's sovereignty. Ulrika is a "terrorist" who is in "exile" for her "crimes." The description of your removal from the forum is even more absurd, stating that Kendra was "violating the constitution by conspiring to prevent the SC from exercising their constitutional prerogative of closing a forum." If you get stung by a bee will while digging through its hive will you charge it with violating the bill of rights by conspiring to prevent an official from exercising their constitutional prerogative to eat honey?

Stop using nationalistic euphemisms (doublespeak) to describe things which upset you. Instead, put on your agenda "let's commiserate on how Kendra took the forum away from us after we tried to take it from her and failed publicly." Your over-the-top dystopian bureaucracy and its application to everyday struggles has made a joke of the entire concept of user-run government.

Is that the sound of impending censorship I hear?

~Ulrika~

[Dianne]

While you may have a point about the (sometimes) reliance of government officials on "beaurocratese," realistically it's something that happens in almost any government anywhere and something you have heartily engaged in yourself from time to time. Specifically when you were actually a member of [i:3tsp7a9j]this[/i:3tsp7a9j] government.

Ironically, you are also the [i:3tsp7a9j]originator[/i:3tsp7a9j] of all three "bureaucratic" terms you quote in reference to descriptions of yourself and your recent history (a [i:3tsp7a9j]terrorist[/i:3tsp7a9j] who is in [i:3tsp7a9j]exile[/i:3tsp7a9j] for her [i:3tsp7a9j]crimes[/i:3tsp7a9j]), AFAIK. You are the one who framed the debate in these bureaucratic governmental terms (heck you are one of those four or five people that created the government in the first place), but now you complain about it. Then when someone responds to you not in kind, but in exactly the way you [i:3tsp7a9j]say[/i:3tsp7a9j] you want, you side-step that post entirely?

It is also baffling to me that you choose a heartfelt personal plea from Gwyn, (with no such bureaucratic language in it at all), to further this argument of the bureaucracy filter, or are you really just ignoring her post?

There is no validity to your argument at all.

You are seem to me to be (as usual), just using it as a springboard for some insulting remarks and "over the top" colourations of your own. Anyone can see that re-phrasing that SC Agenda item about Kendra "un-bureaucratically" does not equate with:
[quote:3tsp7a9j]"let's commiserate on how Kendra took the forum away from us after we tried to take it from her and failed publicly."[/quote:3tsp7a9j]
It's just another opportunity for insult from you as is your want.

In regards censorship, there really is none here but if you continue to make your posts more about insults than factual debate or discussion and continue to not answer the replies you get (like the one from Gwyn above), but instead merely restate your insulting remarks, then the thread might be locked. When you joined the forum you agreed to the rules, and the rules (paraphrased) are simply that we have a civil debate about actual issues.

If you don't want to do that then don't come here. Simple.

[Ulrika Zugzwang]

More ad hominem distractions without a single thought on why members of the group make such heavy use of nationalistic euphemisms (doublespeak). How about some analytical introspection instead of excuses. I cannot be the source of and excuse for all your problems, now can I?

Let's just keep it simple. Can you see how the excessive doublespeak in the following sentence sounds a bit absurd: "charges against Kendra Bancroft for violating the constitution by conspiring to prevent the SC from exercising their constitutional prerogative of closing a forum"? Even worse, is that it presumes that the SC has a "constitutional prerogative" to shut down a forum, which as far as I know (as I wrote much of the constitution), it does not. (Then again I also thought the Universal Bill of Rights was universal.)

So we have excessive doublespeak combined with an unsupported supposition stated as fact. I know, let me guess. You'll state that I used to do it, therefore you are excused from the responsibility of acknowledging it might be a problem. Or maybe not. Maybe this time someone will answer the question without somehow involving me in the answer.

~Ulrika~

[Dianne]

[quote="Ulrika Zugzwang":2tjiqphl]More ad hominem distractions... [/quote:2tjiqphl]

[quote="Ulrika Zugzwang":2tjiqphl]... Let's just keep it simple. Can you see how the excessive doublespeak in the following sentence sounds a bit absurd: [b:2tjiqphl]"charges against Kendra Bancroft for violating the constitution by conspiring to prevent the SC from exercising their constitutional prerogative of closing a forum"[/b:2tjiqphl]? Even worse, is that it presumes that the SC has a "constitutional prerogative" to shut down a forum, which as far as I know (as I wrote much of the constitution), it does not. (Then again I also thought the Universal Bill of Rights was universal.)... [/quote:2tjiqphl]Okay,

as requested, without reference to you as an individual....

No.

I cannot see excessive "doublespeak" (defined as purposely obfuscatory language), in that sentence. With apologies to Diderot, where it says [i:2tjiqphl]"constitutional perogative"[/i:2tjiqphl] I would likely have put [i:2tjiqphl]"... prevent the SC from exercising their prerogative to close the forum based on their constitutional mandate to monitor and police the self-same forum."[/i:2tjiqphl] I do not agree however that either of these constitute "doublespeak." They both mean roughly the same thing and the meaning was at all times clear to me. My wording would have been much longer of course and often I am criticised for just such excessive length and wordiness in my communications. I do it however because I like to be exact and I like to use enough words to rule out every single other possible interpretation of the statement. Interpretations such as you have made.

The goal of ruling out all other possible interpretations of a passage is, in fact, the very thing that leads to excessive wordiness in bureaucrats and government officials. To argue that they should stop doing so is to argue that they should stop doing their job.

So in summation, you may be able to make arguments of lack of clarity or precision, or conversely if you analyse my mutterings you can certainly accuse me of verbosity or perhaps overstatement. All of these things however are done in a [i:2tjiqphl]sincere attempt to communicate a specific and honest message[/i:2tjiqphl]. There is no "doublespeak," no attempt to confuse or mislead and no dishonesty as you are suggesting.

And BTW yes, ... I am entirely aware of the irony of typing a long verbose post full of 100 dollar words like "obfuscatory" in response to your accusations of doublespeak.

I find it hilarious.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Just to clarify (again) — during the course of the SC's work, we get all sorts of requests and demands for clarification, some written in specific ways, others more loosely ended; some are probably things that the SC doesn't care to address, others are possibly badly worded, and others have excellent intentions, but the SC may not have anything to do with it (ie. incorrect assumptions on what the SC should or should not clarify).

However, just because a request is 'strangely' worded (not all citizens have English as their primary language), deliberately or not, this doesn't mean that an issue should be ignored by the SC. In some cases, the strange request may indeed contain something worthwhile to discuss and analyse, although at first sight it might be dismissed.

So we don't judge requests for clarification if they're weirdly written; the worst that can happen is that their discussion is postponed because there is not enough information on a specific subject. This sadly happens quite often; 4-hour long meetings after a week of preparation might very often not be enough.

Finally, the right of any citizen to express themselves in whichever terms they like, in public or private (the sim is a Mature one!), as long as it's not intended to defame publicly a citizen or a clear case of hate speech, is guaranteed in the City. So, if one doesn't like "nationalistic euphemisms" and "doublespeak", that's fine; it's one's right to dislike how people write, and to publicly claim that one doesn't like a particular style. However, one's right to dislike "nationalistic euphemisms" is at the same level as the right of others to use their favourite writing style in their requests to the SC. Personally, I don't rewrite other people's requests to fit them to a specific "style".

I understand that for many it is frustrating that things take so much time, and that the SC is apparently "wasting" time on what seem to be unimportant issues. Actually, we strive to give a fair share of time to [i:3vhsk2sl]all[/i:3vhsk2sl] issues. An unimportant issue for a citizen might be a crucial one to the next citizen. Unless the procedures change (which they might — nothing is written on stone), the SC will try to give [i:3vhsk2sl]any[/i:3vhsk2sl] request a fair share of attention.

As to the constitutional prerogative to shut down a forum, opening or shutting down forums are forum moderation tasks, and official City forums are indeed the prerogative of the SC to moderate. Until that task is amended or changed by further legislation — always a prerogative of the RA! — it's the SC's sole duty to exercise forum moderation, something which should have been clear by now.

[Ulrika Zugzwang]

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":29z20p9t]As to the constitutional prerogative to shut down a forum, opening or shutting down forums are forum moderation tasks, and official City forums are indeed the prerogative of the SC to moderate. Until that task is amended or changed by further legislation — always a prerogative of the RA! — it's the SC's sole duty to exercise forum moderation, something which should have been clear by now.[/quote:29z20p9t]Out of curiosity, in the train wreck that has been the SC over the past few months, have you ever admitted even privately that selfish and shortsighted actions have been detrimental to the reputation of this project? I mean, I read defensive and deflective statements like the one above and wonder if you realize that your own personal inability to admit fault is at the core of many of your project's obvious problems.

Just as a quick example, using your quote above, I think that it's an enormous leap to think that "forum moderation" grants one the power to eliminate an entire channel of communications, let alone deleting dozens of newly created threads to stifle dissent, yet this analysis never appears. Instead you provide a thesis without support followed by a snide comment -- something that has become your calling card over the past few months.

~Ulrika~