Intergalactic Summit

Jueshi Lafisques,

Mutual understanding and free and respectful communication is the beginning of any movement towards a more harmonious and lasting peace. I am most glad to see this router open officially, and will be commending it to all.

Regards,

Xun Yu
Taishou of Sanxing

Ms. Firestorm,

From my brief conversation with Mr. Lafisques about this channel, and its purpose, as distinct to the IGS (both here and the fluid router) is that it serves as a particular point of contact for those interested in discussing matters relating to the Federation and her constitute peoples, history, cultures, and government.

Regards,

Xun Yu
Taishou of Sanxing

Commander Kim,

Jueshi Lafisques has an idiosyncratic manner of expression I think it is fair to say, and indeed something I find most pleasing in a conversation partner.

As to the matter of the channel, it is open to any who are able to respect common decency, and the discussion is open to contrary opinions again so long as they are reasonably and politely expressed - after all free and frank discussion is a fundamental of any functioning democracy.

As to what may be discussed of course any reasonable matter of interest may be discussed civilly upon the router, but again to reiterate a strict policy of civility will be required of all and breaches will meet with exclusion from the router. This is my understanding, I am sure Jueshi Lafisques can confirm this when they are next available.

Sincerely,

Xun Yu
Taishou of Sanxing

That wasn't the question I have asked, but since you have switched discussion to civility, I have to ask you directly about that part.

Will speakers be protected from personal attacks and lies because they sound opinions and philosophies, that others (and official Federal propaganda) can't accept?

Speaking of democracy, the best weapon against it is knowledge. Unfortunately, most of the times I used such weapon it was 'countered' by verbal 'mudslinging'. I am honestly tired of such 'experiences', and if you really guarantee real unbiased civility, then I am interested to give this channel a try.

The idea of the channel is to keep it more strictly curated than the open chats for our community of Capsuleers, of which there is a few, in fact. I think any time people think Gallentes want to talk about things they associate it with free speech, which is not exactly what I am in fact proposing here. There's no real reason to regulate the number of channels for free-form chatting if it behooves their creators, in any case, as a multitude of options generally lead to people finding things that they personally prefer. Narrowing choices generally has a detrimental effect on building emergent communities as it limits behavior norms, dictating form from a select library that might exclude otherwise willing voices.

In any case, to reiterate, it is what it looks like, ...which I understand is perhaps not usual. A channel run by Federals, and has a structure in the form of some gentle moderation in line with adherence to Dialogue. As a Federal and as a Dove, I would not restrict the channel's access to race, as that would be hypocritical to the extreme, and I personally would be happy to hear from those who would like to weigh in, as long as it bides by the structure we're hoping to achieve. There is always a place for free speech in its purest form, but there is also a place for other kinds of discourse as well. This is about options and about constructive progress in our relations and will be likely tuned to our corner of the cluster. There are complex forces at work everywhere, and there is nothing wrong with a little focus from time to time.

I understand where the concerns come from, but it is not our way to restrict a variety in all things, as we believe it is one way to promote growth. Those who prefer consolidation and group unity may still do so in the traditional pillar channels, which remain and will endure, of our collective social legacy.


Also thank you, Xun Yu. I do believe we have an understanding.

Further, free speech and democracy are not universally constructive in every situation. Even truth can be deemed non-constructive if the format it is brought with is aggressive or puts others off. It is in this vein we will be handling complaints.

Frankness as well is handled differently in different cultures, and as Federals, we must be aware of this within our borders as well. Civility will be a priority, over 'frank' discussion, which is often a veneer for antagonizing enemies, as an alternative path to the sharing of ideas. Perhaps we will see some voices that have not yet spoken up.

How would you protect someone from those "lies" without restricting the speaker of said "lies" from their free speech as well?

Diana, stop playing these games. I think I can probably simplify this for you.

You can come and speak your piece in a civil and respectful manner, and others can do the same, regardless of whether or not you find it objectionable or even untrue, so long as it is civil and respectful. You have a habit of interpreting any criticism as "lies and propaganda", so I doubt the owners of the channel will censor sufficiently to your standards.

First what you shall learn, that so called "free speech" is a dangerous and semi-criminal phenomenon, that shall not be allowed in any civilized society.

All people MUST bear responsibility for what they say.

Words can get you killed, words can get you rich. And you can't hide behind so-called "right" of "free speech".

Besides that, it shall be allowed for people to speak opinions, but shall not be allowed to insult opponents in conversations (well, provided they don't start that first. I usually stop considering opponent in conversation as a honorable person when they start personal attacks and just shove into them what they deserve).

Also, YOU shall LEARN already, that there is a distinct difference between criticism and lies with insults. Basically, you can criticise someone for doing something, telling what they did wrong and why. You need to have a strong basis for a criticism.

Lies and insults can and shall never be considered criticism, they bear neither ground, nor recommendations. They are used just for the sake of unrightful defamation.

Maybe if you will be so kind to LEARN things that you are speaking about, you wouldn't speak nonsence about me (for example, that I have a 'habit of interpreting any criticism as "lies and propaganda"'), which, obviously, doesn't make your speech sound as intelligent at all.