User talk:Quack 688/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Klingon law 1.1 Personal honor 1.2 Family honor 1.3 Vengeance 1.4 Do Klingons bend the rules? 1.5 Scratchpad 1.6 Talkpage section 2 Test userboxes, and equal opportunity emoticons 3 Charter Scratchpad 3.1 Mission 3.2 Principles 3.3 Governance 3.4 Explanatory notes 3.4.1 Mission 3.4.2 Principles 3.4.3 Governance

[edit] Klingon law

[edit] Personal honor

Much of the Klingon legal system revolves around personal honor - there are several occasions where it is suggested that insulting the honor, bravery or competence of a Klingon warrior could result in a fight to the death:

• When Sisko strikes Worf with the back of his hand, Worf informs him that it could be interpreted as a challenge to the death. (DS9: Apocalypse Rising)

• Picard: You want to destroy the ship and run away, you coward.

Worf: If you were any other man, I would kill you where you stand! (Star Trek: First Contact)

• After Riker repeatedly offers Kurn guidance, Kurn replies "If [the Enterprise] were a Klingon ship, I would have killed you for offering your... suggestion". (TNG: Sins of the Father)

The fact that none of these individuals are killed suggests that Klingons might allow outsiders a bit more slack when committing social faux-pas than they would tolerate from other Klingons.

The ultimate punishment for a Klingon is discommendation, a process whereby a Klingon is symbolically stripped of their honor by the High Council, and their name can no longer be spoken. It is first revealed in (TNG: Sins of the Father), when Worf accepts such a fate to maintain unity within the Klingon Empire. Several references throughout the episode indicate that such a fate is considered worse than execution. Part of the ritual involves the High Council turning their backs on the disgraced individual. This ritual is repeated in (DS9: The House of Quark), when a Klingon is publicly shamed by the High Council for attempting to kill an unarmed Ferengi.

[edit] Family honor

Unlike other legal systems, which hold only individuals responsible for their crimes, the Klingon legal system extends rewards and sanctions to family members, through the law of heredity (G'now juk Hol pajhard): "A son will share in the honors or crimes of his father." (TNG:Redemption I)

• If a family member commits treason, the family will be dishonored for seven generations. (TNG:Sins of the Father)

• A Klingon who allows themselves to be captured in battle dishonours themselves and their sons for three generations. (TNG:Birthright)

• In a house with no single father figure, but two or more brothers, the elder brother speaks for the family. (TNG: Redemption)

[edit] Vengeance

If a member of a house is killed dishonourably, another member of that house may claim the right of vengeance, allowing that house member to kill the murderer of their kin. This right supercedes even discommendation - in (TNG: Reunion), a discommendated Worf is allowed to challenge Duras, under the claim that Duras killed his mate, K'Ehleyr. Worf faces no legal sanctions after killing Duras - the Klingons consider the matter closed, even though Duras was one of the contenders to lead the Empire.

However, this does not extend to those killed honourably. In (DS9: The House of Quark), D'Ghor tells Quark that an accidental death would pass disgrace onto the victim's family, but a death in personal combat "would be honorable... and an honorable death needs no vengeance".

The right of vengeance can also be extended to family members of the accused. However, the wronged person has the right to spare the accused's life, though such a decision is highly unorthodox. In (TNG:Redemption II), Worf is given the life of Toral, son of Duras, as a result of Duras's crimes, even though Duras is long gone. Worf refuses to kill the child, and forbids anyone else to do it. He states, "You gave his life to me... and I have spared it." The decision is openly questioned, but allowed to stand.

[edit] Do Klingons bend the rules?

Klingons often mention the importance of honor, and a common criticism Klingons make of Romulans is that they are a race "without honor." However, there are several incidents portrayed in Star Trek where Klingons are shown to act with questionable ethics. Most notably, in (DS9: Rules of Engagement), Worf is accused of firing upon a civilian transport without cause, killing 441 Klingons. However, it is later revealed that the entire incident was a ruse, intended to discredit Worf and the Federation.

In (DS9: Tacking into the Wind), Ezri Dax suggests that these problems are not limited to individuals, but have become systematic within the culture:

"I see a society in deep denial about itself. We're talking about a warrior culture that prides itself on maintaining centuries-old traditions of honor and integrity... but in reality, it's willing to accept corruption at the highest level."

[edit] Scratchpad

• • If the head of a house kills the head of another house honourably, he has the right to marry his victim's widow and thereby become the leader of that house as well, in a ritual called bIreqtal. house of quark

his wife also has the right to choose his victor as the new head check which way this goes - who has the right to choose, exactly?

bending rules - ds9: when it rains gowron backstabs martog

DS9: - klingons on dominion prison camp, they don't face the three-gen dishonor thing cause they're trying to escape? maybe the three-gen rule is for long-term prisoners only?

DS9:The House of Quark - the "kill the guy, take his house" situation

vengeance: bortas dib?

(copied from klingon culture:) The Arbiter of Succession is a Klingon legal practice designed to ensure a stable succession for the Chancellor. Although it is a Klingon custom, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, a human, is the first person within the Star Trek canon known to have this role.

To gain leadership of the Klingon Empire, a Klingon must gain control of the Klingon High Council. The council itself is made up of the strongest families of the Empire, a more violent example of the British House of Lords. Because a candidate must gain support from the other families, leading to factions, it is the Arbiter's job to resolve the possibility of a stalemate to decide matters of honor relating to the Challenge, and to choose a Chancellor of the Klingon Empire.

of "Arbiter of Succession" to Picard; because he must be neutral in order to interpret the law and see that the rightful person acquires the position

((Category:Klingons|Law))

[edit] Talkpage section

Things to do in Klingon law:

Add appropriate wikilinks throughout the text.

Images that should be wikified, copyright-cleared, and added:

http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/High_Council_of_the_Klingon_Empire (TNG-era council shot)
http://www.thefilmfrontier.com/images/trek06_010.jpg (image of st6 trial)
http://www.paulmcelligott.com/images/undiscovered_country.jpg (2nd image of st6 trial - I prefer the first one, though, cause it focuses more on the klingons, but I'm not too stressed. only one st6 shot is necessary, though)

Unsourced claims to add if sourced:

- The Mek'ba is the name given to that part of a trial or challenge in which evidence is presented. - Klingon law provides that both the prosecution and the defence present their cases simultaneously.

Things that need to be added:

"Trial procedures" section In the Klingon legal system, a Klingon warrior standing trial or challenging the High Council can appoint a cha'DIch, or "second." Since the accused warrior is denied combat privileges during the trial, the cha'DIch must physically defend him. (TNG: Sins of the Father)

ST6 - trial procedures ENT:Judgment - trial procedures

PS. I found this script website - they shouldn't be listed as references, keep listing the actual eps for that, but they life a bit easier when trying to find an old episode you're thinking of. TNG scripts: http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgeneration/
DS9 scripts: http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/ds9/

nice ref on real-world ideas behind em: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/original/commies.shtml

[edit] Test userboxes, and equal opportunity emoticons

Do i really need to add a j/k?

[edit] Charter Scratchpad

[edit] Mission

1. The primary objective of Esperanza is to support contributions to the Wikipedia knowledge base. This is accomplished through a variety of methods, including but not limited to:

a. Encouraging Wikipedia readers to make their first edit

b. Training current contributors to become more productive

c. Maintaining staff morale, by spreading hope, good-will, and a sense of community

d. Maintaining staff morale, by dealing with minor problems before they turn into major ones

e. Directly improving the state of Wikipedia by organizing a variety of group projects

f. Encouraging co-operation and sharing between various WikiProjects (notes)

[edit] Principles

2. Esperanza's services are provided for the benefit of all editors - not just Esperanzans.
3. All Wikipedian editors have the right to use or ignore Esperanza, without prejudice.
4. Wikipedia-wide promotions or sanctions are based solely on an editor's merits (or lack thereof), and not on any group affiliations or memberships.
5. Membership is open to any Wikipedian who:

a. Agrees to the initial mission statement - that is, they agree to be, first and foremost, individual contributors to the Wikipedia knowledge base,

b. Agrees to uphold all the other ideals presented in this charter,

c. Is willing to receive messages from Esperanza (such as the monthly newsletter), and

d. Publicly agrees to these terms and conditions, by adding their name to the members list.

6. Esperanza must keep its own affairs in order, and not become a burden on Wikipedia.
7. Some form of governance is necessary, to ensure that these principles are implemented. (notes)

[edit] Governance

8. Esperanzan activities are co-ordinated by an Advisory Council (often abbreviated to AC). This Council consists of 7 members in 2 tranches, A (with three members) and B (with four members). Each Councillor serves a term of six months. Should a Councillor resign or leave Wikipedia, he or she is replaced by the leading runner up from the last election, who will hold this position for the remainder of the original term.

Tranche A

• Elected on March 31; term ends September 30
• Elected on September 30; term ends March 31

Tranche B

• Elected on December 31; term ends June 30
• Elected on June 30; term ends December 31

9. After each election, an Administrator General (often abbreviated to Admin Gen) is chosen by the council from within the council. Should the Administrator General resign or leave Wikipedia, the Council shall meet and elect a new Administrator General from amongst themselves. The role of the Administrator General shall be to co-ordinate the Council's affairs, and to "own" the IRC channel.

(In the case that there is any dispute from a vacancy in the Council, or a rule in dispute, the Administrator General shall have the sole duty to determine the resolution. In the case the Administrator General cannot complete that duty, then the Council will do it.)

10. Powers granted to Advisory Council members:

a. Declare that consensus has been reached on an Esperanzan discussion, and act on that consensus

b. Alternatively, decide that an issue under discussion is too important (e.g. charter reform, adding/deleting programs), or too closely contested, to be summarily declared, and pass it up to the entire council to observe

c. Be a public spokesperson for Esperanza (as an elected representative)

d. Suspend or revoke Esperanzan membership for members who commit vandalism or behave disruptively

11. Powers specifically denied:

a. Order members to carry out certain tasks, or vote in a certain direction

b. Make independent decisions regarding Esperanza without some form of consensus

c. Block or ban members who commit vandalism or behave disruptively (this decision is made by Wikipedia admins)

12. Responsibilities:

a. Accept the authority of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales over all of Wikipedia (including Esperanza), and fully comply with any of their rulings

b. Remain transparent to regular members, and contactable

c. Protect the Esperanzan image and brand name

d. Ensure that all the maintenance needed to keep the group alive (pages, newsletter, etc.) is carried out (either personally, or through delegation to other members)

e. Ensure that Esperanza stays focused on its primary mission of improving Wikipedia

f. Propose a course of action which is in the best interests of Esperanza (while remembering what its primary mission is)

g. Make a commitment to be personally responsible and accountable for the welfare of the group during their term in office (notes)

[edit] Explanatory notes

[edit] Mission

(a) is recruiting for Wikipedia. The goal is to reassure readers that they are welcome to contribute, and that they won't be shot down in flames. This should be achieved by maintaining a friendly atmosphere on Wikipedia - this issue is covered more in point (c).

(b) is training. This training provides three basics. First, an introduction to the Wiki-verse, including other Wikis, and to any Wikipedia tools that are little known, but useful none-the-less. Second, the right frame of mind to be a part of the community. Third, the technical skills required for advanced editing and administration.

(c) and (d) are two sides of the same coin. They are officially sanctioned, but allow members to express themselves informally, and discuss any issues they wish.

(c) deals with positive issues. Put simply, hope is still a precious commodity. As stated in (a), building a community on Wikipedia will encourage some editors to be more active. If some editors want no part of it, that's fine, but the community is still there, and prepared to welcome them if they change their mind in the future.

(d) deals with negative issues. It is not about using peer pressure to force disgruntled Wikipedians to keep editing. Instead, a forum is provided for any editor (not just Esperanzan) to discuss any issues they wish, no matter how minor, on an unofficial level. If someone reaches a level of significant stress, they should take a break. (d) is about preventing editors from reaching such a level of stress in the first place. It is prevention, not cure.

(e) is a community action group. This group notices that work needs to be done, and, in the absence of government agencies, does the work itself.

(f) is a free trade agreement. There are a large number of WikiProjects which focus on certain articles or fields of shared interest. Esperanza could function as a sort of "meta-WikiProject" to help connect different users, feed cross-collaboration, and perhaps awaken new interests in Wikipedians.

In Wikipedia, all these services are provided by Esperanza, a community action group of sorts. (e) is the most direct work, but the other projects also improve the quality of Wikipedia indirectly, and in the long run, are needed to ensure a vibrant, diverse community of editors. (back)

[edit] Principles

2. However you define it, Esperanza is not simply a social club. Also, while proving support services for editors, it is not Esperanza's job to provide such support for the internet community at large. See also "no court jesters" in point 5. Esperanza should be hosted on Wikipedia, to remind everyone that it is part of the Wikipedia community, and not an isolated group.

3. Editors should be judged on the quality of their work, not what they say or do on their break time. (Do you judge software based on what programmers do on their break time? Or do you judge the software on its own merits?) By the same token, editors shouldn't be criticised for using, or not using, the services Esperanza provides.

4. If, through being active in Esperanza, someone develops the right mindset and skillset to be an admin, great. But membership itself should be irrelevant to the RfA process. Ditto for demotions or banning users.

5. A full-time Esperanzan "court jester" might spread joy and good cheer throughout the Wikipedia. However, opponents of Esperanza will point to such an individual as an example of everything that is wrong with the group. To avoid such accusations, all members should be editors first and foremost, and personally contribute in some form. The form this takes is entirely up to the member - they can be a subject matter expert, web-page designer, dispute arbitrator, or policy refiner, to name a few.

6. Once community standards have been established for Esperanzan pages, Esperanzans themselves should be responsible for maintaining them. Per point 3, any non-Esperanzan admin who wants nothing to do with the group can ignore it, and should not be forced to clean up one of their discussions as part of their admin duties. Similar to office coffee drinkers keeping the sink clean, or smokers picking up their own cigarette butts. If a new person starts spamming Esperanzan discussions, Esperanzans themselves should work on "enlightening" said spammer.

7. This charter - indeed, any charter - is irrelevant without some method to enact it. Some form of co-ordination is needed for a group of this size. Also, a group is judged on how it deals with extremist members, such as habitual vandals and trolls. No condemnation by the group can indicate a tacit approval of those activities, and bring the entire group into disrepute. In any case, the highest penalties that can be made in this regard are counselling, suspension or exile from the group. As in point 4, any other decisions, such as banning from Wikipedia, are made by Wikipedians, with group membership being irrelevant. (back)

[edit] Governance

(coming soon: summary of points made on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance and Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza)

Their job is primarily to interpret the will of the community, which they measure through the charter (which expresses the core values of the group) and discussions (which highlight current "hot issues"). Then, they can offer ways for Esperanzans to work together and turn the community's will into reality. But this is always an offer to work together, and never an order. Technically, any member could exercise some of those powers (especially if they're an admin). But there is likely to be less dispute if these things are done by elected Esperanzan officials. Also, all members are expected to carry out those responsibilities as part of the group.

Depending on their workload, I don't see a problem with letting a council member delegate some of their maintenance work to other Esperanzans who have volunteered to help (perhaps those who ran for election, but narrowly missed out - can you have apprentice council members?), but only elected council members have the authority to sign off on the work and publish it.

Comparing admins and AC members:

• A Wikipedia admin is a janitor with a badge. They are chosen by Wikipedians, to maintain the entire site, and are given the authority to deal with troublemakers. If they don't want anything to do with Esperanza, however, they shouldn't be forced to visit here as part of their job. They don't individually decide policy, they just implement it.

• An Esperanzan admin is a janitor with a badge (and a green hat). The only difference between them and a regular admin is that they like visiting Esperanza. While here, they deal with maintenance and vandalism issues the same way they deal with them everywhere else - Esperanza is just another stop on their patrol beat.

• An Esperanzan council member is a representative. They are elected by Esperanzans, to act and speak on behalf of Esperanza.

Regarding "Propose a course of action which is in the best interests of Esperanza" - AC members are elected by Esperanzans, for Esperanzans. By ensuring that Esperanza is healthy enough to carry out its mission, they are also strengthening Wikipedia indirectly. Put it this way - a short-term view regarding where efforts should be directed suggests that Esperanzan pages and projects are a waste - editors should be redirected to work on "real" encyclopedia articles. However, if Esperanzan pages make some editors feel more positive about Wikipedia and contribute more in the future, then those pages benefit Wikipedia in the long term. AC members should use the same approach when suggesting courses of action. (back)