Welcome to another monthly Helios Curial Report! July has been a remarkably interesting and action-packed month for the Curia, filled with drama, complaints and important Curial Officer and Magistrate Elections. So, let's begin our journey towards the discussion-filled Curial Halls once again!
Curial Election Coverage
The first election that will be brought to our attention is the Magistrate Election. Elected every 2 months for 6-month terms, Magistrates discuss all Tribunal Cases and rule as Tribunes in a rotating fashion.
Calvin 's Magistrate seat was up for re-election, and along with him standing for re-election, two other members also applied for the position.
Яome kb8 , a contestant of the previous election, decided to try again, along with
Elrond who had recently resigned his moderator badge. Unlike last time around, an "official"
Magistrate Debate Thread was opened, as a result of the
Magistrate Debates Amendment. Hotspur, a Tribune and therefore someone one of the applicants wwould undoubtedly have to work with posed the first questions, with
Pøntifex following suit:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Hotspur
Would you use your position within the Tribunal to shape the Terms of Service, either in enforcement or punishment?
Which cases have you vehemently disagreed with the decision reached?
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
1. What would be your ruling
here.
2. Would you let your own personal feelings about the ToS affect rulings when it is obvious that a post breached them?
Two quite similar sets of questions, which Calvin was quick to answer:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Calvin
Originally Posted by
Hotspur
Would you use your position within the Tribunal to shape the Terms of Service, either in enforcement or punishment?
First and foremost I would use my position as I have been doing - uphold the ToS as it stands. While I may disagree with some of the fundamentals of the current ToS, my job as magistrate is to make sure that I judge the appeals
by the current ToS . Not by what I wish the ToS said.
So to answer the question directly, no. I would not use my position within the Tribunal to shape the Terms of Service either by enforcement or punishment - merely uphold them.
That being said, I will use the
experience from the Tribunal to shape the ToS through the proper channels - IE: the Curia to a limited, overview extent, and the Q&S/discussion with senior moderators and admins. I feel that one should not try and use their power (and there is a great deal of power to disrupt and challenge the current ToS when on the Tribunal) to bend the ToS to their will. What they should do is enforce it to the best of their ability, and that is what I do.
Which cases have you vehemently disagreed with the decision reached?
Though I know there have been some in the past, I cannot think of any off the top of my head. I'll have to go digging.
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
1. What would be your ruling
here.
I cannot answer that as of yet since I am ruling on that case and will not discuss it.
2. Would you let your own personal feelings about the ToS affect rulings when it is obvious that a post breached them?
No, as I stated in my answer to Hotspurs questions, my own disagreements with the ToS will not get in the way of ruling denied on a post that has breached the ToS. For example, I disagree quite strongly with the ToS when it comes to 'endorsing illegal activity'. I have been an opponent to that from the moment it was brought in. However, I will deny an appeal about that section of the ToS if an appellant has clearly endorsed it or portrayed it as normal etc. I uphold the ToS, I don't necessarily agree with it. The two are not incompatible however.
Celsius continued with questions directed at specific applicants, while kb8 answered all the questions that had been asked so far:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Celsius
Question for Calvin:
How do you think you performed during your term as a Magistrate?
Question for Rome:
How do you think, if elected, you would do things better than Calvin?
-
Celsius
Originally Posted by
Calvin
Hmm, how can I answer this without either sounding arrogant or not worth voting for?
Personally I believe I have performed my duties well. I have debated quite strongly with others involved in the process, and have not been afraid to give input where input has been needed in my own opinion. I have upheld the ToS to the best of my ability, with my own mind - not just following the crowd (it is quite a small crowd obviously...). I suppose you or I could always ask Hotspur and Mim to give their opinions on how I have performed.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
1. What would be your ruling
here.
From what I understand it, the moderators of the game, a significant enough number, were having trouble with their game, and sought moderator intervention. The moderation acted. Although I would have liked to see a case showing how exactly the Jeb was annoying and what he was doing wrong. But ultimately, it is a private game and based on what has been said so far only, I'd maintain the ban.
2. Would you let your own personal feelings about the ToS affect rulings when it is obvious that a post breached them?
Nope. I did it when I was a moderator, should be able to do it now. So illegal act is an illegal act. The
interpretation is something else, and what the Magistrates are supposed to decide on a case by case basis.
Originally Posted by
Hotspur
Would you use your position within the Tribunal to shape the Terms of Service, either in enforcement or punishment?
I wouldn't try and change the words of it, or defy the actual text.... only uphold what it says. The rules are there, and they are to be respected. In terms of influencing it indirectly by punishment or enforcement, ultimately that can't be done. The moderators can still do as they please to the best of their judgement, and I wouldn't try and force them or pressure them to do otherwise. I'd only judge each case, by case, according to it's needs. If precedents are indirectly set, like the whole implying people are children as an insult, then it still in the moderations hands to do as they wish.
Which cases have you vehemently disagreed with the decision reached?
Not vehemently disagreed with, but this one I remember.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=261156
Originally Posted by
Adrian to Me
I never seen someone as defensive as you I really think you are a
ing racist you push this
about Africa
Even though it was aimed at me, he didn't explicitly state that I was a racist, only that he thinks I am one when I push forth my African free trade argument. So I would have probably downgraded it to a note, because he didn't call me a racist, but his post was largely abusive trash.
That's if I was someone else, since as Magistrate naturally I would not have judged this case, as I am involved.
Originally Posted by
Celsius
Question for Rome:
How do you think, if elected, you would do things better than Calvin?
I can't really answer as I have no idea what he does in there. But I have no doubt he's done an excellent job if he carries on his attitudes and views displayed in the Curia and elsewhere into the Tribunal and I doubt I can beat him in this election. I don't know if I deserve it, to be honest, I could be taking out a good man. But my selling point is a new perspective to the Tribunal and my former experience as a moderator so I know the precedents and processes and historical cases.
Quite insightful.
the Black Prince , a current Magistrate, asked how the applicants would deal with an inappropriate warning, while
Elrond took the time to answer some the questions posed previously.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
the Black Prince
Where you think a Moderator has overstepped the mark in a tribunal case and the warning is very clearly inappropriate and should not have been given, what would you do?
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
If it is clearly inappropriate, I would simply vote against it...then probably PM him with some advice for the future. People gave me advice all the time when I was a moderator, I used to be one, so may be qualified to give advice this time round. I wouldn't do it public though, in the actual thread.
Originally Posted by
Elrond
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
1. What would be your ruling
here.
2. Would you let your own personal feelings about the ToS affect rulings when it is obvious that a post breached them?
1. I would uphold the forum ban - it was implemented on request of the local moderators and judging from the guys performance in the Appeal thread he is unlikely to change his behaviour if the ban was lifted.
2. No, A Magistrate decides whether a moderator decision is a fair implementation of the ToS not whether the relevant part of the ToS should be there in the first place.
Originally Posted by
Celsius
Question for Calvin:
How do you think you performed during your term as a Magistrate?
Question for Rome Elrond :
How do you think, if elected, you would do things better than Calvin?
-Celsius
Yes, Otherwise I wouldnt have applied. I think a new face will help the tribunal and I think I have enough experience to be a good magistrate. I am very used to disciplinary stuff first through 3 CdeC terms in 2007-2008 and then as moderator this year. During my moderating stint I avoided the Q&S, the Curia and the Polticial forums as much as possible - I think this would serve me well if I am elected and prevent any bias from me.
Originally Posted by
the Black Prince
Where you think a Moderator has overstepped the mark in a tribunal case and the warning is very clearly inappropriate and should not have been given, what would you do?
I would vote to overturn the decision and probably pm one of the senior mods about it, although in all likelihood they will probably overturn such a warning before it gets to the tribunal.
PowerWizard went on to ask another Tribunal Archive related question, which the applicants were quick to brush off, while Rome yet again attracted attention with a question directed solely at him.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Please tell me which do you think was the worst and the best ruling in the history of the Tribunal.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
I literally have no time to go through the history of the Tribunal.
Originally Posted by
Elrond
Ditto. Theres 500 cases under the current system. I really couldnt say which one is the best or worst.
Originally Posted by
pannonian
Question for all, but Rome especially. I find
this post of interest. In it, Norpheus alleges that you have called other members ignorant, thus justifying his own usage. I'd like the other candidates to rule on the usage of the term "ignorant", as applied to other members, with reasoning and/or backing from prior cases. In addition, I'd like Rome to explain his use of that term as alleged by Norpheus.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Originally Posted by
pannonian
Question for all, but Rome especially. I find
this post of interest. In it, Norpheus alleges that you have called other members ignorant, thus justifying his own usage. I'd like the other candidates to rule on the usage of the term "ignorant", as applied to other members, with reasoning and/or backing from prior cases. In addition, I'd like Rome to explain his use of that term as alleged by Norpheus.
I see nothing wrong with pointing out someone is ignorant (unaware) of details, information or facts regarding a certain event.
Ignorant; unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge; "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances";
It would however depend on the
context . Saying someone is ignorant in that they are uneducated and stupid or dumb, then that would certainly fall under
insult . However I have never used it in that context, and would consider that the same as saying someone is stupid outright. Like many other possible insults it depends on context, which would be up to moderators to judge, then if we disagree as the Tribunal, to overturn.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
I believe if one has no experience in being a Tribune, studying rulings and precedents should be a reasonable prerequisite for candidacy. Otherwise anyone could be a Tribune, really.
Originally Posted by
GrnEyedDvl
Since the Tribunal has set precedents in several areas, the archives are quite relevant. This is also a must for there to be anything close to consistency.
That doesnt mean that you rubber stamp something because a previous Tribunal ruled one way on a specific case, and the context of one post can be very different from the context of another post, but at the same time a feel for previous rulings and how previous Tribunals interpreted the ToS is fundamental. If you disagree with a particular ruling or policy, then you need to know the history of how that policy was applied, and if you want the policy changed then go through proper channels not just rule a specific way because you disagree with the policy.
That being said I dont expect applicants to be completely versed in every aspect of the Tribunal, but when asked a question like this surely there is some ruling you can you can remember feeling strongly about one way or the other.
EDIT: Even though I quoted Rome, the comment about feeling strongly about a particular ruling is directed at all applicants. Can you not name 1?
After some more discussion on the importance of the archives and the precedents that have been set by the Tribunal, the
Election took place.
In what must have been one of the most straightforward Curial Elections,
Calvin was comfortably re-elected with 39 votes over
Яome kb8' s 12. Wish him luck for the upcoming 6 months!
Moving on, we have another routinely Consilium de Civitate Election. Four seats(3 full terms and a month term) were up for election.
As usual, there was a moderate amount of interest for the seats, with 7 people applying.
Pøntifex ,
the Black Prince and
Xavier Dragnesi stood for re-election while CdeC Veterans
B. Ward and
Boeing also applied. The other 2 applicants were
Celsius and
Carl von Döbeln .
The
CdeC Debate Thread that followed was surprisingly uneventful. Only 2 questions were posed which some of the applicants were quick to answer:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Romanos IV
Ok, here's the question:
With what criteria would you vote in a disciplinary procedure?
Originally Posted by
Celsius
I would base my decision on what the citizen has done. I would ask others why they think that citizen deserves disciplinary action. I would not just simple look at what someone has said and vote based on it.
Originally Posted by
Xavier Dragnesi
I don't have any set "criteria" for voting in a disciplinary procedure. However, the way I work when deciding is this:
- Look at the reason for punishment, and judge whether the moderator-given sentence was just. If not then No Further Action immediately.
- If it is, then I will wait for the defense, which might or might not influence my decision. If there is no defense, I will usually vote Further Action
- When it comes to judging the actual punishment, I will look into the background of what caused the action to be made as well as the validity of the defense, and base my punishment on that.
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
I have high standards of behavior for citizens. It is a case by case thing though.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
In what circumstances would you vote for further action in a case, and secondly in what circumstance would you vote for a suspension of citizenship or a removal of citizenship?
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
I can't adequately answer that because everything is judged case by case. I will say that because I have higher standards, 75% of the time I will be voting further action. Repeat offenders will always get a vote for further action.
Originally Posted by
the Black Prince
Everything in terms of discipline is really on a case by case basis, and cases often tend to have wildly different backgrounds and circumstances, so I guess it all depends on the case.
As a general rule, on voting for further action, I would look at what the Citizen did to get the warning. The questions I ask myself are: Did the citizens conduct fall below that which I consider to be expected from a Citizen? and also was the Citizens conduct such that might bring the citizens as a class into disrepute.
I'm not bothered about what action the moderators have taken, because the moderatos are concerned with enforcing the ToS, whereas the CdeC is concerned with ensuring that citizens maintain a good example for all members of the site. A member can be in trouble with the CdeC without breaching the ToS. Likewise, though probably less likely, they can breach the ToS without their behaviour being substandard. It all depends on the case.
As for sentence, well, obviously it depends on the nature and quality of the act committed by the citizen. However, I also think its appropriate to take their past record into account. If a citizen has committed a minor offence of off-topic posting, but has previously received a Censure for exactly the same behavior, then clearly, despite it being another minor matter, a more serious punishment is required.
Circumstances where I would vote to remove citizenship would either be cases of very serious and deliberate breaches of the ToS, or conduct so poor that it would seriously bring the rank of citizen into disrepute. Again, this is all going to be dependant on the individual facts of the case, so its really impossible to say something like, if you do this, I would suspend you, if you do this, I would strip your rank.
Some interesting posts on disciplinary cases, in spite of the thread's brevity.
Pøntifex ,
the Black Prince ,
B. Ward and
Boeing were
elected. Congratulations!
And in our last stop for this section, we have the Curatorial Election! And this is probably going to be the most awkward section of this report, so I'll try to make it brief. Talking about myself is well, weird to say the least.
Three people applied for... having the right of moving threads and stuff.
Hesus de bodemloze ,
Soulghast and
Elrond. Their application statements:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Hesus de bodemloze
I am going to give this a shot as well. So sign me in boy' s.
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
I would like to apply for re-election. I have been performing the curatorial duties for nearly 4 months(1 month as the previous Curator's assistant and 3 months as the elected Curator). I believe that I have done a good job.
During my term, the
Citizen List was overhauled, with user IDs being implemented in place of the old "user" tags, making it considerably easier to locate members' profiles.
The Annals Of Curial Decisions were also rehauled in a similar fashion to the Annals Of Amendments, with a distinct post and latin numerals for each year, to allow for more accessibility.
I have always tried to perform the Curator's duties as quickly and efficiently, and I believe that I have succeeded, for the most part. Most stickies were updated regularly, bills were moved to vote as soon as possible and the I made every effort to process CdeC cases swiftly. In sending out failed Citizenship letters, my prime aim was to inform the user of what he needs to do to be successful next time around, and have elaborated on the reasons the user was not accepted to the Citizen rank(as per the user's request), more than once. I have always tried to come off as welcoming and friendly through my letters, attempting to encourage participation in the Curia.
I hope that my experience in the role, coupled with the reliability I believe I have exhibited will be enough for the Curia to grant me the right to another Curatorial term.
Originally Posted by
Elrond
I would like to apply.
Essentially I would use the position of Curator to push through progressive reform of the Curia to make it and the site more democratic and the Curia more useful to the site. I would use any and all of the influence of the position of Curator to do this and I would do my best to encourage others to do this.
I essentially want to get back the reforming attitude of 2006 - 2007 that made the site so memorable and the Curia useful to the site. I think that every Citizen has contributed to the site and that collectively the Curia should be the driving force for the decisions made on the site.
During the election I will propose some bills aimed at achieving this and if I am elected I will propose more.
In terms of the technical aspects of the job: I have done the job before, a long time ago, more recently I have been a moderator and therefore I strongly believe I can do this side of the job competently.
The
Curator Debate Thread was quite predictable, save for a few comments on the apparent lateness of certain applicants' responses.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Celsius
Thank you.
One more.
Why do you think you are the only one so far to answer questions but no other candidates are?
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Is the fact that the prospective candidates have not answered any of the last few questions an indication that they really just don;t give a shite? Or is it complacency and confidence in victory, arrogance... or maybe it's just a genuine and valid reason?
Some of the bigger, more serious posts:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Elrond
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
The Constitution demands that you appoint an assistant. Who is that likely to be and why?
I have no one in mind atm, I would make a decision based on applications I receive if I am elected.
Also, are you a mindless bureaucrat or a flexible pragmatic administrator?
Neither, but I am nearest to the 2nd.
Originally Posted by
Viking Prince
On what grounds would you veto a Council vote on a patronization request?
If less than 50% of the CdeC voted (not sure if this has been legislated recently).
Originally Posted by
the Black Prince
How far would you empower your assistant? Would they only undertake precisely those tasks that you allocate, or would you let them be a second Curator in all but name?
It would depend entirely on who I would choose as my assistant.
Originally Posted by
Celsius
What experience do you have in the Curia?
Too much. I have been active since 2006, was a Curator in 2007, Pro Curator and CdeCer in 2008 and a general annoyance since I became a Citizen.
Originally Posted by
Belisarius
How can you make the curia more useful to staff/twc?
By trying to encourage more radical ideas, by trying to get the Curia more involved in the TW section. By trying to make as many appointed and decisions as possible made by the Citizen Class as whole - both those involved in the CC and TW section. I will both during the election and if I am elected, after the election propose legislation to push forward this agenda.
Originally Posted by
Harry Lime
As the position is the only publicly elected moderator position, are you a Humbug, Werther's Original or Rolo? For non-purveyors of British confectionary that translates to hard-liner, average ferocity or softie. Would you report a post to the Administration if it broke the ToS, delete it (and have a word with the perpetrator) or leave it alone and hope no one notices? Due context considered, of course.
As a moderator I was generally nice to people who broke the rules for the first time but harder on those who repeatedly offended. I think I would probably be softer as Curator. It would depend on the context but in most cases delete it and message the poster.
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
The Constitution demands that you appoint an assistant. Who is that likely to be and why?
Astaroth will most probably continue being my assistant in the case of my re-election. I believe he has done well so far, and am certain that he will continue to do so.
Also, are you a mindless bureaucrat or a flexible pragmatic administrator?
Somewhere inbetween. While I will try to uphold the Constitution to the letter, I will be favoring practicality through the use of vetos in some cases, as I have done recently.
Originally Posted by
Viking Prince
On what grounds would you veto a Council vote on a patronization request?
Since the
Required Percentage of CdeC Participation Amendment passed, I don't think I'll ever need to veto a patronization request. As I said above, I might veto certain disciplinary actions, pending the accused's Senior Staff or Tribunal Appeal, which could possibly render said proceedings void anyway.
Originally Posted by
the Black Prince
How far would you empower your assistant? Would they only undertake precisely those tasks that you allocate, or would you let them be a second Curator in all but name?
My assistant will only have the power to take care of the standard Curator duties(except moderating) during a possible absence, perhaps churning out a few CdeC Report and helping me with updating certain stickies. However, if a situation that required action arose while I'm not there to take care of it, I would support my assistant acting as he saw fit, within certain boundaries.
Originally Posted by
Celsius
What experience do you have in the Curia?
I had been an avid Curial participator before my Curatorial spells, so I am quite familiar with the way it works. I have been a CdeC councillor for almost 5 months, and have had CdeC access for 8 months in total. Needless to say I am quite familiar with all CdeC proceedings.
That, in addition to my 4 months of acting as the Curator(1 month as an "Assistant" and 3 months as the Curator).
Originally Posted by
Belisarius
How can you make the curia more useful to staff/twc?
I am very much afraid that I can't do much through my position to increase the Curia's usefulness. During my term, I have done my best trying to encourage new citizens to participate in the Curia, but that's about all that I can do. In order for the Curia to become more useful, it needs to be reformed, but in order to reform it, there is a need of more people participating rather than scorning it.
I could say I would propose bills, like others have done. But I'd be doing that through my capacity as a Citizen. Truth is, what you can do to better the Curia through the role of Curator is quite limited. If there aren't enough people interested, nothing will get off the ground.
Originally Posted by
Harry Lime
As the position is the only publicly elected moderator position, are you a Humbug, Werther's Original or Rolo? For non-purveyors of British confectionary that translates to hard-liner, average ferocity or softie. Would you report a post to the Administration if it broke the ToS, delete it (and have a word with the perpetrator) or leave it alone and hope no one notices? Due context considered, of course.
I'm probably somewhere between average ferocity and softie. Leaning more towards softie. The truth is that there have been very few occasions of me having to use my moderating privileges in the Curia, and while I was quick to cut down on some blatant spamming, I generally allow some friendly banter and will only request warnings in the case of something truly out of line.
If a post broke the ToS, I would delete it and have a word with its poster. I would only report it if I felt that said member's overrall conduct in the Curia required further moderation action, and that would only happen in the case of continuous violations. I'd personally like to keep the moderation staff and hex as less involved in Curial Moderation as possible.
Originally Posted by
Celsius
Why do you think you are the only one so far to answer questions but no other candidates are?
While I understand that the question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that the debate thread remains open for 2 weeks. Just that other applicants have not responded by the 4th day does not mean that they never will.
Originally Posted by
Elrond
Originally Posted by
fergusmck
This one is primarily aimed at Elrond, but applies to a lesser extent to the other applicants.
In your nomination you set out what you wish to achieve as Curator. Many of these actions, due to the limited power of the Curator, are within the grasp of any ordinary citizen. In only doing these things in your bid for election, do you feel that you are holding the office of Curator to ransom, or that you'll only do this for TWC if it gives you something in return?
For the other candidates. What makes the experience you have in Curial or moderatoring matters more beneficial that the other candidates? Why should we trust you above them?
To put it simply its easier to reform when the figure head of the Curia is in favour of it, not significantly easier but still a little bit easier. I will be proposing three bills before the election starts I just need to think more about some specific aspects of them. In short I dont really expect to win so its not a matter of only proposing stuff if I cant get something out of it.
Originally Posted by
The Sundance Kid
This is directed at Elrond: In your only term as Curator you were VonC'd. Since then, you've found Christ. How will the Good Lord prevent you from re-making past mistakes, and why should we be more confident this time around?
Firstly the VonC was stuff that would go basically unnoticed by the current Curia - Ie I remember a hysteric reaction to the CdeC report being a week late - something which is fairly common these days. In terms of Sundances 2nd point I think mentioning my Christian faith is irrelevant to the Curia and tbh its pretty offensive to mention it in the Curia for a laugh. I will try to a better job this time around if I am elected however I dont think the leap necessary is that huge and I think those who were around 2 years ago if being honest would admit that.
Originally Posted by
Sqυιd
Since as curator you'll hold the tie breaking in CdeC, what will you look for in an application to either vote for or against it if a tie occurs?
The tie break is irrelevant in most patronistation votes because they require a 60% majority to pass. However I think the Curator should be very involved in the discussions and say which way he would vote if it came to a tie were the casting vote matters (if its for instance 5:5 and the Curator voted yes, it wouldnt matter as the candidate would fail to get 60% of the vote - basically you need a very high level of abstains for the Curators tie to matter in patronisation votes). I would look for direct contributions to one or several parts of the site as well as a polite and friendly attitude.
In terms of disciplinary votes I would look on things on a case by case basis depending on if the person has apologised, the severity of the ToS breach as well as the persons history.
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
Originally Posted by
fergusmck
For the other candidates. What makes the experience you have in Curial or moderatoring matters more beneficial that the other candidates? Why should we trust you above them?
I have been acting as Curator for the past 4 months, and I believe that I have done well. I won't get in the process of trying to explain why I believe I am better/worse than the other applicants.
Originally Posted by
Sqυιd
Since as curator you'll hold the tie breaking in CdeC, what will you look for in an application to either vote for or against it if a tie occurs?
I have more than a term's experience in the CdeC, so I would just vote in the way I would have voted as a CdeC Councilor. However, this only applies to Disciplinary Cases, as the tie-breaker citizenship votes require at least 60% percent of non abstaining votes to pass.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
The following question is not addressed at anyone, and any resemblance to real events is purely coincidental.
An interesting discussion is starting to unfold, when suddenly OMG, someone posts a youtube video in a Prothalamos thread. Other people try to bully the OP instead of countering the points brought up in the thread. Which action do you take?
A./ Delete the thread without caution.
B./ Accuse the OP of encouraging spam and when he replies in kind, close the thread.
C./ Delete spammy posts, post a general warning, let the discussion go on.
If the thread serves little purpose and has degenerated into spam, it will be closed. If this happens in a serious, well intentioned proposal, chances are I will just be deleting the off-topic posts and let the discussion continue.
Originally Posted by
Desperado †
How will you promote Curia activity?
I can't really do much alone. In order to increase activity, more interest is required. And as long as people are disinterested in the Curia, mostly due to the fact that it has no real power, there's nothing that can be done to increase activity.
How will you ensure that Hex provides a reply as to why a proposal is not yet implemented?
I'll continually spam their inboxes until they reply.
What comes foremost, principles or the constitution and ToS?
I'm not sure I understand the question. The constitution and especially the ToS should always be upheld.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Is the fact that the prospective candidates have not answered any of the last few questions an indication that they really just don;t give a shite? Or is it complacency and confidence in victory, arrogance... or maybe it's just a genuine and valid reason?
I was away for the weekend, actually.
I went on to win the election quite comfortably. I guess you'll have to put up with me for another 3 months.
General Curial Coverage
Due to shortage of time, this section will be quite brief, and will focus mainly on a bit of an uproar that my decision to close down a thread caused.
PowerWizard satirically proposed
banning clavicles , probably in retaliation to the recent ToS Changes.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
I think clavicles are way too luscious, therefore they should be banned from this PG-13 site. We should protect the children from being exposed to sexually implicit content.
Any figure whose genitals, pubic hair, buttocks, or (if female) nipples, areolas or
clavicles are exposed, partially or totally; or are not exposed, but it's clear that this is only because of the angle of the shot or incidental intervening objects (e.g., hands, hair, bits of cloth).
Just think of it...
A collarbone today, naked areolas tomorrow?
The comments that followed were mostly of a non-serious nature:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
I still think she's sexy. Don't care what anyone says.
Originally Posted by
magpie
Great screen PW.
Originally Posted by
Boeing
Massed men firing volleys of musket fire into each other, the stench of the young dead strewn upon the fields of Europe...excellent!
Naked human body...CHRIST PROTECT ME FROM THE IMAGE OF THE FORM THY FATHER HAS SCULPTED THE!
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Seriously though I don't see the similarity between nipples and that neck bit you're harping on about Wizzle. I know you're trying to make a point but and all.... but... no.
Which in turn gave way to some more serious discussion on the ToS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Mimirswell
The rules are designed to support the notion that a parent would approve of this site given the content of the site is not significantly different than the content of the game (in terms of violence, nudity, profanity). If the unaltered TW games start showing naked human bodies then clearly we can rethink site policy on this matter; until then, I do not think you have much of a chance of convincing Hex to change this policy.
Originally Posted by
Boeing
No
.
Thank you for enlightening me, I would not have been able to elucidate the purpose of those rules without your commentary.
Originally Posted by
Mimirswell
Given you said they were ridiculous, I could only assume you didn't understand why they existed; else, your statement wouldn't make much sense as that is hardly a ridiculous reason for those rules to be included in the ToS. Certainly, counterpoints could and do exist but they are not so strong that the governing reason is to be ridiculed.
Originally Posted by
Boeing
I do think they are ridiculous. I think more reasonable and more lax standards could be introduced which would still enable TWC to be a "teen-safe" site. But my experience on this site and on the ToS Committee has shown me that change comes rarely, if not at all, and not in the direction that I support. But, being the pragmatist I am, I understand the reasons why Hex has the ToS the way it is, but I still disagree, and I'm still allowed my childish protests if I see fit to do so. Not to mention my comment is more or less disagreement with the American standard of what is and isn't acceptable for children - a different topic altogether - but I wish to express my displeasure at TWC's implicit endorsment of such societal standards in my own immature manner.
Originally Posted by
Mimirswell
Originally Posted by
Boeing
Not to mention my comment is more or less disagreement with the American standard of what is and isn't acceptable for children - a different topic altogether - but I wish to express my displeasure at TWC's implicit endorsment of such societal standards in my own immature manner.
If you want to argue that the American standard is ridiculous then feel free but it would better be argued in the D&D than here. In regards to your second point, TWC is a site that depends upon heavy traffic to grow and prosper and that's not achieved by defying basic cultural mores of a large percentage of its membership (even if said mores are illogical). Also, it is not an implicit endorsement so much as it is a basic survival strategy of virtually any organization/company that acts within the North American market.
I think more reasonable and more lax standards could be introduced which would still enable TWC to be a "teen-safe" site.
Certainly, minor changes could be made in the ToS but outright nudity is not one of them.
Originally Posted by
Boeing
Originally Posted by
Mimirswell
If you want to argue that the American standard is ridiculous then feel free but it would better be argued in the D&D than here. In regards to your second point, TWC is a site that depends upon heavy traffic to grow and prosper and that's not achieved by defying basic cultural mores of a large percentage of its membership (even if said mores are illogical). Also, it is not an implicit endorsement so much as it is a basic survival strategy of virtually any organization/company that acts within the North American market.
This is, like you said, more suited for the D&D. If you want to discuss this further, go ahead and make a topic, but I feel that we may end up agreeing.
Like I said, I understand why TWC does what it does, but I disagree with how it goes about some of it.
Certainly, minor changes could be made in the ToS but outright nudity is not one of them.
I agree. There are minors here and it is illegal for anything of a pornographic nature to be disseminated to them. That said, artistic, historical, or otherwise "tasteful" nudity in a proper and academic context should be allowed, and generally it is. The ToS is flexible and TWC relies heavily on the good judgment of its moderators, but the wording is absurd, in my opinion. You don't need to list in explicit detail what part of the female anatomy is allowed and what isn't. The Miller test really should be applied here, imo.
Now, on the other hand how "illegal activities" are addressed (it's not illegal to discuss past drug use, for example, but the ToS interprets that as such) bothers me. Yes, moderator judgment calls into question whether or not the bending of that rule is in a proper context, and they generally get it right.
My biggest issue is the phrase "normal and acceptable behavior".
Originally Posted by
The ToS
...or portraying it as normal or acceptable (e.g., casually mentioning that you have pirated games/smoked pot/etc. as though this were normal and acceptable).
"Normal and acceptable" is subjective. What is normal and acceptable? Is it what Garb thinks it is? You? Me? The moderator? There are behaviors that I find perfectly normal and acceptable that others do not, even people who are part of the same social group as I. Now, I'm not a moral relativist, I think there are some morals that are universal, that killing, theft, rape, etc, are pretty much frowned upon in every culture because of the damage it does to the community. Maybe that could be a baseline for normal and acceptable...but what if we put it in context?
Say a member casually mentioned that they, for example, raped someone? Should that member be infracted on site for that crime? I mean is that necessary? To me that seems pointless. Contact the authorities if you believe that was real. What if they raped someone, but served their sentence? Should they be infracted for that? That clause is totally superfluous and unnecessary, I've had nothing but problems with it since it was introduced. It's too judgmental. The ToS, like law, should be impartial.
My other problem is with the censored words, it's not very important but I think all non-insulting "curse" words should be uncensored, but I'm not losing any sleep over that.
Originally Posted by
Mimirswell
Originally Posted by
Boeing
You don't need to list in explicit detail what part of the female anatomy is allowed and what isn't. The Miller test really should be applied here, imo.
Ideally, I agree with this; practically, I feel it causes difficulties. It falls into the same trap of the "normal and acceptable" clause you discuss below. What I feel crosses the threshold to pornography is different from everyone else and inevitably, without strict guidelines, more than one member ends up getting burned. Perhaps the "normal and acceptable" clause needs a similar treatment (or better examples) of what's ok to say and what isn't.
While PW went on with his sarcastic statements:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
I think collarbones are not acceptable, as they:
1./ display outright nudity;
2./ are one of the sexiest parts of the female body according to several surveys.
In these aspects they are similar to buttocks, nipples, pubic hair and genitals. Except that there's nothing sexual inflammatory in pubic hair. In fact, it is a major turn-off for most people. Now if you apply the above-mentioned criteria to other parts of the female body, you will also have to ban calves, lips and so on. For example, I’ve always been a sucker for the back of a woman’s neck; I love it when girls wear their hair up so that you can see it. On the other hand, it could be detrimental to post women's bare necks on the interwebs.
Think of it, sleep on it, pray on it.
Something that was not received well by Thanatos:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Thanatos
If you cannot honestly understand the difference between the neck/collarbones and various parts of female genitalia, then if anyone needs to think about things, it's you, not us.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
I love it when a junior mod briefs me on human anatomy. I propose that the Phalera award should automatically be conferred on anyone who wears a mod badge.
If you cannot honestly understand the difference between the neck/collarbones and various parts of female genitalia, you haven't read my post, and you completely miss the points of others too. As GB said clavicles are a gateway area to even more dangerous parts of the female body. We should do something to stop the proliferation of such immoral images before they corrupt the site and it turns into a 24/7 porn channel. I call for stricter rules, that's all, a mod should love it.
Which led to my intervention:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
I deleted some off-topic and spammy posts. It hasn't grown into anything excessive, but it's best to cut down on spam early, given certain precedents.
I also see that this is anything but a serious proposal, and looks more like a way for PW to express his dissatisfaction at the newest ToS changes. While the Curia can be the place where you can lodge complaints, it would be best if people expressed their opinion in the relevant Q&S thread or opened another one in the Curia main. What is happening here is certainly not the way to go about it, and if it turns into a spamfest or flame party, the thread will be closed.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Dear Sir Mr. Curator,
1. This is a serious proposal prompted by my concerns that seing a female collarbone can cause emotional distress to some users who would consequently stop visiting the site either by their own decision or by their parents'.
2. You are not meant to interpret proposals and give them implied meanings, especially they are not true and slanderous as such. In fact, you are not meant to interfere with the natural flow of discussion in the Curia at all, unless it violates a clause of the Constitution.
3. You are not allowed to close threads in the Prothalamos, unless they violate a constitutional clause.
Please retain your Curatorial dignity. Thank you.
Originally Posted by
Pøntifex
This is clearly a farce. If I were Curator I would have deleted it completely because it is this kind of stuff that makes the Curia nothing more than an ineffective conference room. If we are talking about dignity in terms of respect of the Curia, it is not the Curator's that should be examined...
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
So we, humble citizens share our moral concerns about a dangerous phenomenon that could spread like an epidemic through the site and the mod squad tell us to buzz off? Who's got dignity here? Please contribute to the discussion and try to address the issues brought up in this thread instead of pissing around.
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
Yes, it is a farce. And I'm saying this through my capacity as a Citizen, not as the Curator. It's terribly obvious, considering that the proposer of this bill had also proposed a
Babe Thread.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Can't people make up their minds? Recently I was convinced in a friendly discussion that seing collarbones through monitors can be dangerous to your personal development as a teenager. You see the naked bones, then you want more and more of that anti-evolutionary e-stuff - and that's where you'll start dating .jpg-s and .avi-s instead of Mary, Julianne and Emily.
PS I miss Hotspur's times. He either immediately closed the thread without further complaining or allowed it...
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
Alright, I've had enough. You're not fooling anyone. If you have a problem with the new ToS changes, take it up with the moderators. I'm closing the thread.
...and the thread's subsequent closure.
A thread was opened in the Curia main not too long afterwards, asking why the Clavicle proposal was shut down.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
....why was
this thread closed?
Alright, I've had enough. You're not fooling anyone.
Yes, it is a farce. And I'm saying this through my capacity as a Citizen, not as the Curator. It's terribly obvious, considering that the proposer of this bill had also proposed a
Babe Thread.
In essence this thread was closed because.... you doubted the proposing member's motives for the bill since he previously proposed a babe thread, which contradicts the aim of his new proposal?
Both sides expressed their opinion.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Apparently accusing proposers of evil intent and suppressing all discussion on the subject is a new Curatorial duty. I wonder why weren't we notified of this Constitutional change?
I even had 3 named supporters... anyway, I don't particularly care. It wouldn't have added anything creative to the site just like the gazillions of other unimportant bills recently tabled for discussion.
Originally Posted by
Astaroth
It was never a serious proposal but rather a sarcastic complaint about the current ToS. Such things do not belong into the Prothalamos. Furthermore, the topic degenerated quickly and several posts had to be deleted.
The Curator was perfectly within his remit to close it.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
How can you tell I wasn't being serious? The burden of proof is still on you, especially if you limit the freedom of speech in the Curia.
Originally Posted by
Astaroth
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
How can you tell I wasn't being serious? The burden of proof is still on you, especially if you limit the freedom of speech in the Curia.
Almost the whole thread consisted of spam and a discussion about whether the current "Obscene Content" section of the ToS should be changed or not. Either way, such threads are not tolerated anywhere else on this site and I fail to see why the Prothalamos should be any different in this respect.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Never said he wasn't within his remit. Just questioning the intent.
The Prothalamos is meant for serious proposals. Complaints can be posted in the Q&S (and in the Curia main I guess), off-topic discussion belongs to the Thema Devia.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
That's your personal judgement on the quality of posts in the thread, not an evidence of me being "unserious" in my proposal.
So, in lack of evidence, you are saying that discussing the obscene content rule and proposing an amendment to said rule is "not tolerated" in this site. I wonder where is the server located? In Uzbekistan? Perhaps in Uganda?
Originally Posted by
Astaroth
I did not say that. My point is that spamming (and the topic was full of that) is not allowed. If you wish to complain about the obscene content rule, feel free to do so - in the appropriate forum.
Either way, the Prothalamos thread had degenerated and Soulghast was perfectly within his remit to close it. Therefore, I'm done with this thread now.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
A few things to consider:
1. If you regard a post to be "spam", you should delete it, but not close the entire thread. *insert facepalm smiley here* There are a few spam (off-topic) posts made by moderators - why didn't you delete them? Also, based on your perception of what's "spam" and your standard of the logically subsequent action, why don't you go and close the curator debate thread?
2. I wasn't complaining, I was proposing an amendment to said rule.
3. The Curia is the appropriate forum for making such proposals. Check the forum description.
So close this too, that way you don't have to face criticism at all.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
It's meant for proposals . Full stop. You missed the point of PowerWizards thread. The Prothalmos threads are not just for proposing and that;s it... they're about discussion too. In this case the discussion was about the broader topic of what is considered ''modest''. The Curia currently has the right to try to make amends to site policy.
Originally Posted by
Sqυιd
Except, as has been pointed out, it was quite clearly not meant as a proposal but a commentary on the obscene content part of the ToS, most likely because of the minor change that was made to it with the revised ToS just released.
Originally Posted by
Sqυιd
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
As I said discussion is still allowed within the prothalmos on those kind of matters, no matter if it's a little unorthodox in approach.
No the prothalamos is meant for proposals and the discussion thereof, not just any random discussions.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Squid, repeating an unproved statement will not make it true.
Given the posts are there for all to view, lets look at some of them:
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
I still think she's sexy. Don't care what anyone says.
Originally Posted by
magpie
Great screen PW.
Originally Posted by
Boeing
Because the ToS' clauses on nudity, besides being awkwardly titillating in their own right, are ridiculous.
I've always hated it's clauses on nudity and "illegal activities".
SMOKING POT NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE! <-technically that is in violation of the illegal activities clause of the ToS.
Originally Posted by
Gaius Baltar
Support. Clavicles are a gateway area, you know what this will lead to. Belly buttons, calves, thighs, the progression is unescapable.
Originally Posted by
Nikos
Support, I also support the banning of any skin. I mean look at this floozy here!
<pic removed>
Given peoples responses to your post and taking into account the timing of the proposal, so closely after the ToS changes being announced, and your previous attempt to have a babe thread, which would certainly have pictures with clavicles in them, taking the thread to be a comment on the obscene content is very obvious.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Originally Posted by
Sqυιd
Given the posts are there for all to view, lets look at some of them:
I am not responsible for other people's posts as I am not able to access their accounts. I can be accounted for my own posts, not for others.
Originally Posted by
Sqυιd
Given peoples responses to your post and taking into account the timing of the proposal, so closely after the ToS changes being announced,
The actuality of the recent ToS changes only indicate the seriousness of my proposal. I wished to carry on the changes in the spirit of progressive, 21th century ideas. I even commented that I'm glad displaying a penis or scrotum is now officially against the rules. The site is going in the right direction, instead of heading towards moral disintegration and lewdness.
and your previous attempt to have a babe thread, which would certainly have pictures with clavicles in them, taking the thread to be a comment on the obscene content is very obvious.
I see you didn't read my latest post in the closed thread. Here it is again:
"Can't people make up their minds? Recently I was convinced in a friendly discussion that seing collarbones through monitors can be dangerous to your personal development as a teenager."
Also, there's a difference between said proposals. Posting a babe isn't frivolous per se, however posting a girl who openly shows the upper part of her breast could lead to debauchery.
Originally Posted by
Mimirswell
He's not serious; he is just unwilling to concede that he was using satire to protest the ToS. Whether satirical posts have an actual purpose should be the discussion here. I think they have some merit when done as a separate thread provided the satire doesn't devolve into silliness (which it threatened to do so in this case) and instead of the prothalamos, perhaps the Curia Main or Symposium. This would make the satire more obvious and those places are better venues for generalized discussion.
It was only after I posted in the thread that things got gradually more... heated.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
I'd just like to briefly explain my position.
PW was clearly not serious with his proposal, even though he doesn't want to admit it. Certain past proposals, and the fact that he currently has
this album up should be enough to convince anyone.
Now, while I generally don't mind some not entirely serious proposals, PW's proposal was ill-natured and came off more as a troll directed towards the moderation branch, if anything. While I initially decided to delete some posts, post a general warning and not close the thread, after thinking it over and consulting certain persons, I decided to close it.
If people want to have a discussion on the newest ToS changes, they are more than welcome to do so, either in the Curia main or in the QS. But proposing ToS amendments just for the sake of being trollish will not be tolerated.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
PW was clearly not serious with his proposal, even though he doesn't want to admit it. Certain past proposals, and the fact that he currently has
this album up should be enough to convince anyone.
I already said that I changed my mind, and was convinced by friends and recent scholarly studies showing that a collarbone is among the top 10 sexiest parts of the female body. Seeing one on Total War Centre could be detrimental to the health of a teenager after he saw his total war soldiers burnt alive or trampled to death. My picture collection of cars can be accessed only by friends and admins. It's like sharing a bottle of wine with friends at a party: you know all of them can drink alcohol. But I am a responsible person, I know that the masses of TWC shouldn't be exposed to such pestilence that would detrimentally affect their sexual development.
Given that you were unable again to provide proper and ample evidence to back up your claim, I call BS. I won't repeat myself from the previous thread, read my posts again.
While I initially decided to delete some posts, post a general warning and not close the thread, after thinking it over and consulting certain persons, I decided to close it.
Can't you decide it your own? It is your moral duty as a Curator to act on your own and be independent from others.
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
I already said that I changed my mind, and was convinced by friends and recent scholarly studies showing that a collarbone is among the top 10 sexiest parts of the female body. Seeing one on Total War Centre could be detrimental to the health of a teenager after he saw his total war soldiers burnt alive or trampled to death. My picture collection of cars can be accessed only by friends and admins. It's like sharing a bottle of wine with friends at a party: you know all of them can drink alcohol. But I am a responsible person, I know that the masses of TWC shouldn't be exposed to such pestilence that would detrimentally affect their sexual development.
I am not on your friends list, and I can see the album. And so can everyone on TWC.
Given that you were unable again to provide proper and ample evidence to back up your claim, I call BS. I won't repeat myself from the previous thread, read my posts again.
It's blatantly obvious that you were just trolling. Still are, actually. I don't need conclusive evidence of your intent to close a thread. It's the internet.
Can't you decide it your own? It is your moral duty as a Curator to act on your own and be independent from others.
I made the decision. The fact that I talked with some people just made me reconsider my stance. I wasn't aware that it wasn't allowed.
Originally Posted by
Soulghast
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
It is a technical glitch. But if you are so anal about my 1967 Chevrolet Impala, I can report it for you. Geez.
I don't care at all actually. It's just hypocritical.
What's the evidence of your claims again? Are you able to read my mind? You know I can do the same. It is blatantly obvious that you're just trolling/BS-ing here. I can tell it from the look of your eyes, because we're on the interwebs.
I don't need to be able to read your mind in order to point out the obvious. Your album, the tone of your posts, and your history of debating against such "prudish" as you used to call them ToS changes make it clear that you're just protesting about the newest ToS changes. And you know it. Now, you say you changed your mind? Well, given all the above, I just can't believe you.
The fact that you talk with "some people" instead of making a decision on your own makes me question certain abilities of yours.
You are free to VonC me if you're in doubt concerning my abilities.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I've explained my position numerous times, and my decision won't change. If you want to keep complaining about it, do it, but I won't reply to any more of your posts. But if I were you, I'd stop.
Other Citizens were quick to comment.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Macky
ooooh drama
Originally Posted by
imb39
Just a glimpse of the good ol' days
Originally Posted by
Heinz Guderian
I think it shows that the Curia is healthy if something is debated with passion and perhaps a little anger. Alot of things that are done with anger are often more pleasurable too. Like having sex. OK, I actually cant think of anything else. But both PW and Soulghast are right.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Are you suggesting Soulghast and Wiz should sort out there differences over pillow talk?
Originally Posted by
Heinz Guderian
OMFG asthagfirullah no. May Allah forgive you for what you just made me imagine.
And after cooling down, a few more posts discussing babe threads among other things:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Junius
Though it is satire, and I commend PW dedication to the cause, I do agree with the overall sentiment. The ToS fails the majority of the userbase when it decides to pursue a PG-13 site. As has been brought up numerous times, the most recent games have carried ratings of a higher age. While some may argue that TWC is still trying to appeal to the players, speciffically those young players (below the age of 15/16) who still play R:TW or M:TW, the level of activity in the forums which cater to those groups, especially when we consider that age is all important, seriously dents that arguement.
There may still be some who argue that we need a PG-13 site to qualify for a Gold Affliation standard, but what is that standard really worth? Is it worth this site ignoring a proportion of it's users? I say not.
While I am not saying that TWC should become a porn site, I would support a 'Babe's thread', as some others would. While some people may find this offensive or lewd, we should not be limited in what we can do or say or post by the attitudes of others. There are certainly threads in the D&D which some may find offensive, yet they are not closed.
Finally, I find this use of satire and parody useful. It brings up several issues, not only what the OP intended. We have seen what some may consider the overreach of Curatorial authority, and it's challenge. I support PW in his assertation that evidence should be produced to close a thread, not just someone, even in a position of authority and trust, saying that any contradiction of the ToS is 'obvious'. This is not trolling, any more the political satire is trolling. It highlights it's points by bringing to the fore the ridiculousness of the opposition, and doing it in a more humourous, and thus more effective, way. If someone cannot deal with satire and parody, and being the object of fun, inherent to any political position, or one of power, than they should ask themselves if they really should be in that position.
Originally Posted by
pannonian
There are more effectively constructive ways of making a point than using satire. Satire can be entertaining in short doses, especially if coupled with genuine attempts at action. When there is nothing but satire, even that becomes cloying. And when coupled with disdain and mockery for genuine attempts at addressing issues, said satirists lose this supposed point, of provoking reform through wit.
If PW doesn't like these latest additions to the ToS, perhaps it could be simplified, by allowing moderators to use their discretion to judge what is and isn't allowed. If this were so, there wouldn't need to be any list of bodily parts that can and cannot be shown, as there would be a common understanding among members, which could be highly flexible, depending on what common understanding meant at any point in time. However, when a Babe thread was last discussed, my attempts to push the discussion towards this were rejected by PW, who responded by challenging me to point to the part of the ToS which forbade him from posting pictures of girls. Since moderator discretion and definition wasn't sufficient, ToS definition will have to do.
Incidentally, there were certain ironies to that incident, which moderation staff can see in the Den. I tried to nudge PW towards an answer which could have satisfied him, if only he'd have tried to listen, rather than talk over everyone. Instead, he managed to sabotage his own case more effectively than I could ever have done, or that I'd have wanted to. But then again, the Curia has tended to encourage debaters who seek to prevail, rather than find a solution that achieves a goal whilst addressing raised issues.
Originally Posted by
Garnier
The tribunal's decision is the rule in the end of course, but in practice it is moderator discretion that handles most situations. For sensitive and borderline things, usually the strats want to do the actual infracting simply to avoid abuse of the juniors. At the end of the day, moderating staff is trying to manage the site as best they can, and people will always complain about the decisions that are made. Senior staff has a lot to do that has more and better impact on more people here than argue about the technicalities of the ToS, since there will always be complaints about the ToS as long as it exists -- and it must exist.
I think we basically draw a somewhat arbitrary line and then allow moderator discretion to keep things working. This site is very remarkable in that there is far more openness to criticism of the establishment than you'll find in almost any big internet community -- and that is something deserving of respect. It is heavily abused, but I think we have to simply not worry about it.
Originally Posted by
Viking Prince
No -- the babe thread would make us look more like a barracks.
Do you really think that the members of this site would not have sufficient numbers to derail a babe thread with off color comments, suggestions of activities, etc. Do you really think that there would not be attempts to test limits on the size of the bikini, the thinness of the fabric, or the suggestive poses?
Since I have complete faith that all of the above would happen, why do you wish to tempt fate. Do you really want the weaker willed to become permabanned from point accumulation? Do you really want a moderator assign to duty 24/7 to keep the site pg-13?
You already can have a signature, a face page picture and as many albums as you wish. Oh, and even a social group. The social groups can have threads now also. Do you really need a thread as well?
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
You learnt the stereotypical response of moderators, thinking inside the
Den box.
You adapt quickly.
As for displaying female creatures in avatars, sigs, social groups and albums, it just shows that the policy is inconsistent.
Originally Posted by
Viking Prince
I will take that as the kind hearted compliment that you meant it to be.
Seriously....
Do you think that such threads would not become problems as I outlined in my prior post?
I am not suggesting that the babe pics that you would post would be the problem. This is also why I think the issue is consistent -- there is not the same type of potential for mischief when the babe pic is not within a forum thread. The problem is not the pic so much as the comments to the pic. This of course presumes the babe pic itself is not an attempt to test boundaries based on coverage, materials, and poses.
Originally Posted by
Seleukos
I remember the old babe thread. It was a mess, moderators had to be all over it 24/7. Like imb39 said, just go to google. Or any other of billions of sites out there with that sort of content.
Originally Posted by
PowerWizard
Yeah "go google", but nobody gives a shite about Google Images anymore, it is an old meme, besides Google is famous for giving misinformation. It will give you porn even if you are looking for cats. So I wouldn't recommend the solution "go google". Also, there's a difference between browsing images and discussing them. If TWC is not fitted to maintain a babe thread, it just shows the immaturity of the site.
Originally Posted by
Garnier
I think that it does show the immaturity of the site, and that is why the babe thread is not allowed.
Before the thread resolved to light-hearted banter, off-topicness and speculation on Newcastle's future.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
This is my thread buddy, I can bollock all over it if I want.
Originally Posted by
imb39
Well, in some ways it is a contribution. It reflects what people think about the situation, ie hand bags at dawn -
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
This thread has run it's course. Looking back I can't remember why I even cared anyway.
Originally Posted by
Harry Lime
Welcome to the world of every Newcastle supporter.
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Oh, one day now Harry, they'll be back to the top. One day.
Originally Posted by
imb39
Top of Division 2?
Originally Posted by
Яome kb8
Nah... come one... at least ... division 1.
Other points of interest include:
Have fun in the Curia!
-- Soulghast