Content Bills

[Tom Paine]

Okay, as Helios editor I feel I have some competance as regards content on this forum. As such I'm going to propose some nice, drastic changes to the way it runs that should have very little impact on individual journalists, middling impact on the Editors, and massive impact on gig, our present Content Manager.

Bill for the Freedom of the Presses

Heretoforth, the Content Editors will have license to print anything that does not breach any of the following:
*The law of the national bodies of the United States of America and the united Kingdom, especially as regard copyright law;
*Nondisclosure agreements, such as that enforced by staff;
*The Terms of Service, whatsoever they may be, of this site.

The staff will only prevent content being put up or take it down if it breaches one of these conditions, on a majority vote of the Hex, or at the behest of the owner (in this last case, no more than the owner's edict is required); any such action shoud then be explained to the Curia.

This guarantees, essentially, the right of the content staff and journalists to write (or whatever) matters which are controversial, so long as they stay within set rules, and such controversies could include matters of changing the ToS. I think it'd be beneficial to us, basically.

Next, about the content manager (yes, two Bills, one thread, bad form etc...); I'd like to see that as a position with a voice and vote in Hex, with oversight over the Editors and the ability to fire them, and a certain hands-on hands-off ratio in terms of Content such as my own Helios.

Content Bill

The Content Manager heretoforward shall have the ability to view Hex and retain one (1) vote on it; however he shall have only such moderator and administration priviledges as Hex sees fit to grant him. He shall have the power to hire and fire editors at will, and to advise that they hire and fire specific members of their staffs, but of themself cannot hire or fire any journalist unless he is also an editor, and even then they will remain a journalist. They have no power to order an editor to take down an article or similar except on direct authorisation by the Hex

This tries to set out what I see as the responsibilities of the Content Manager and his rights/powers in order to strike a balance so that he/she does not tread on editors' toes, as it were.

Fire away, and let's stop navelgazing, maybe...

Changes from V1.0:
Emboldened part added.

[gigagaia]

Trying to get rid of me already, I see, even before the official announcement! *Fired!*

I support.

[Perikles]

I support too.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

supported except for this bit

The staff will only prevent content being put up or take it down if it breaches one of these conditions or on a majority vote of the Hex; any such vote should be then ratified by the Curia.

There is no point putting into legislation things which can't be enforced.

We could change it to:

The staff will only prevent content being put up or take it down if it breaches one of these conditions or on a majority vote of the Hex; any such vote should then be explained to the Curia.

[Tom Paine]

Should be is not the same as must be; I'm attempting in that instance to establish a guideline, no more, really. If i was tryng to enforce a rule it would be must be. I feel it should be explained anyway, no exceptions!

[Professor420]

I support wholeheartedly.

[Romanos]

I support this bill.

[Spiff]

what was it that motivated the 'Bill for the Freedom of the Presses'? I think some background information is needed before its a justified inclusion to the Syntagma. I see the intention but i don't see the motivation as to why it is required.

Aside from that - the 'ToS' have always stated that the rules of the forums are always determined by the site owner and his representatives, so to say "you cannot remove this article because its controversial, it has to breach the ToS" would never be exactly true, since the ToS are whatever the site owner wants them to be for any situation.


Similarly in the Content Bill, what is the motivation for proposing the content manager have access to the Hex forum - i don't see the motivation behind this. As a Senatorii you'll appreciate the need to seperate the contents of the staff forums from the site in general (with regard to infraction discussion, moderation policy etc), in short the Staff should decide who views the Staff forums, not the Curia.

[Sétanta]

Yeah, Spiff brings up a good point. The ToS are completely at the whim of the owner. If the article is detrimental to anything as imb see's it, then the ToS can be changed accordingly. They aren't set in concrete, even though I doubt imb will tamper that much. Heck, porn could be allowed if the owner changes the ToS accordingly. I think the idea is fine, just the practibility is what hinders it. I am all for the freedom of the presses, but TWC's most basic rules (ToS) are controlled by one man.

Heck, I support anyways, it is just something to keep in mind. The Content Manager of course needs to be ratified by Hex AND the members of the Content Staff, that way there is no outsiders for the Content Staff and no mistrust between Hex.

[Professor420]

Aside from that - the 'ToS' have always stated that the rules of the forums are always determined by the site owner and his representatives, so to say "you cannot remove this article because its controversial, it has to breach the ToS" would never be exactly true, since the ToS are whatever the site owner wants them to be for any situation.

I think you are correct, to a degree. Technically, yes, the owner can change the ToS to whatever he wants. If there is some stuff he didn't like, he could, feasibly, edit the ToS to remove the content. But how long would this be able to continue? This is the pendulum of civil liberties; when they are taken away to a certain point, the pendulum swings back. If the owner behaved in such a way as to keep amending the ToS to silence free speech, how much would we tolerate until we would tolerate it no more? According to US and UK law, yes, the owner can do whatever he wants, but this can only disagree with the will of the community so much in practical terms.

Personally, between the personality of the current owner, and our long history of semi-intolerance towards totalitarian acts, I am not particularly worried about silencing editors and columns by changing the ToS 'in the name of site security' (though I've already been told democracy was an issue of site security, so maybe I should rethink that sentiment).

[Spiff]

Again though i have to ask what the motivation or perceived need for this bill is (the freedom of presses one).

I do not see this as an issue involving the will of the community, i see it as an issue regarding the will of the Content Manager, who could potentially act in a very harmful way leaving Hex with no 'legal' recourse save a long process involving ratification from the Curia.

[Simetrical]

The definition of what it means for content to be "up" is not clear. Does that mean the content manager doesn't have discretion over the front page? Or the specific facets of content? Does this impinge on any rights to create or remove particular publications, or hire and fire editors? And given that the TOS is whatever we say it is (e.g., anything "disruptive"), what exactly will this accomplish except creating more worthless pseudo-rights? Focus on real things, not stuff like this.

I oppose the bill on principle in any case, in the strongest possible terms. Content is, in a very tangible way, associated with TWC. It is and will be viewed as a semi-official opinion of TWC. It's also a draw for members. If content becomes irrelevant to our purpose, it no longer should be given precious space at the top of the forum or on the front page. What amounts to a virtually official mouthpiece of TWC should not be given to any Joe who wants to write an article to use as a soapbox. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Now, if content is not associated with TWC, and we just host it*— it's not in the Community News section, but rather some personal thing that someone runs in TD or maybe in their own subforum in the CC*— well, sure, we aren't going to remove it without reason. But to speak with TWC's voice, no, you can't do that except by our terms. In my opinion.

Oh, and access to Hex is up to the discretion of Hex. I don't think that provision is getting anywhere, either.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The definition of what it means for content to be "up" is not clear. Does that mean the content manager doesn't have discretion over the front page? Or the specific facets of content? Does this impinge on any rights to create or remove particular publications, or hire and fire editors? And given that the TOS is whatever we say it is (e.g., anything "disruptive"), what exactly will this accomplish except creating more worthless pseudo-rights? Focus on real things, not stuff like this.

this is real.....

I oppose the bill on principle in any case, in the strongest possible terms. Content is, in a very tangible way, associated with TWC. It is and will be viewed as a semi-official opinion of TWC. It's also a draw for members. If content becomes irrelevant to our purpose, it no longer should be given precious space at the top of the forum or on the front page. What amounts to a virtually official mouthpiece of TWC should not be given to any Joe who wants to write an article to use as a soapbox. It is absolutely unacceptable.

but, as we both know, Hex hasn't been interested in doing content for months - which is why Bel (not even a staff) started to do it. Now Gig will (hopefully) be doing it but he isn't Hex (yet). You can't have it both ways Sim, saying 'this must be Hex/official' and yet not have Hex doing it.

All this does is allows a clear framework in which people who are willing and interested can take on the role of Content Manager and run with it. Hex/owner still has final say and overall control (as always). I personally would rather that non-Hex/staff interested/keen people did the job - then it might get done.

Oh, and access to Hex is up to the discretion of Hex. I don't think that provision is getting anywhere, either.

Why not? what is so special about membership of HEX that it must be only populated by members of staff?

A lot of people contribute to this site (not least the modders) but the council that runs the site only contains a very small sub-section, why not open it up (in a limited way) to other groups on the site (eg. members and modders)?

[Spiff]

Why not? what is so special about membership of HEX that it must be only populated by members of staff?

A lot of people contribute to this site (not least the modders) but the council that runs the site only contains a very small sub-section, why not open it up (in a limited way) to other groups on the site (eg. members and modders)?

Its not so much that it has to be staff members as it is that it has to be who Hex wants, and this would become a problem if the Curia starts electing content managers (as seems likely in the future) purely on its own initiative.

[Silver Guard]

Why does it have to be who Hex wants? Why can't the Curia have its own representitives in Hex with the same powers? I see no reason why not

[Belisarius]

I practically resigned for this Bill, I support 1000%

[Rolanbek]

Like Spiff I would like clarification of the motivation for this bill.

Why precisely do we we need it?

I am for the freedom of the press per se, however I cannot see its operation inpinged at this time. So why the sudden dive for informants rights over the hex forum?

Enlighten me someone please.

R

[Tom Paine]

Informants rights? Might I point out that such a matter would break staff nondisclosure... expressly prohibited, because that's just wrong?

What prompted this Bill was a variety of things. The Freedom of the Presses Bill was prompted by the idea that, in the future, such a content area like my own beloved Helios might print something controversial; and that some Hex members (not the majority) might want it taken down. As I want the Helios to cover more and more, this becomes a greater and greater risk, and I want myself and my backside covered now, rather than retrospectively, personally.

The first part is to deal with any potential meddling (personally I didn't want a Curia writer at the time I hired one, for instance) by the Content Manager on any more than an editorial level, so Content staff can get on with their jobs ignoring everything else except the crack of the editor's whip.

Some changes made which may make it more palateable to some.

[Simetrical]

this is real.....

Not when the ToS is so vague.

but, as we both know, Hex hasn't been interested in doing content for months - which is why Bel (not even a staff) started to do it. Now Gig will (hopefully) be doing it but he isn't Hex (yet). You can't have it both ways Sim, saying 'this must be Hex/official' and yet not have Hex doing it.

Not at all. Hex doing content is totally separate from Hex having authority over content. It's the difference between the local government mowing your lawn and reserving the right to pass an ordinance that you must mow your lawn.

Why not? what is so special about membership of HEX that it must be only populated by members of staff?

A lot of people contribute to this site (not least the modders) but the council that runs the site only contains a very small sub-section, why not open it up (in a limited way) to other groups on the site (eg. members and modders)?

Nobody said that Hex will only be moderators. I don't think that will continue for very long. Hex is policymakers, as you know, moderation is optional.

I think you are correct, to a degree. Technically, yes, the owner can change the ToS to whatever he wants. If there is some stuff he didn't like, he could, feasibly, edit the ToS to remove the content.

Well, no. He would say "disruptive content is against the TOS", which it is. Or they could be closed as trolling, libel, even off-topic. Basically, the TOS lists anything that we'd be likely to view as bad for the site, and so if we think that leaving some content up is bad for the site for some reason, it's probably against the TOS for that same reason. This does nothing.

Some changes made which may make it more palateable to some.

Please change the reference to a majority of Hex and/or the owner. Hex works by its own procedures and makes decisions collectively. imb39 may not always be on, or he might take a vacation, and individual Hex members should be able to have the authority to act if they're confident that Hex will agree with them (if it doesn't, of course, their action can be reversed). The bill should read, "The staff will only prevent content being put up or take it down if it breaches one of these conditions, or by decision of the Hexagon Council. Any such action should then be explained to the Curia."

[imb39]

Sim is correct, imo, that it is better to be prudent. Have the article removed and then reviewed rather than allow it to cause damage. I do not place myself above criticism - I haven't edited out any comments that have indirectly or directly attacked my decisions anywhere. I firmly believe the same can be said of Hex too.

Let's bear in mind, though, that this sort of event has happened once that I can remember...(and somewhat justified too). Let's not get fixated on this issue. Arguably it is better to be thought of as policy than a specific rule... I can understand Ozy's concern - he doesn't want his publication under any threat, but with this comes responsibility. Not every one will be as responsible as Ozy. Sim is merely pointing out the requirement of some sort of safeguard.