What exactly is the Problem?

[Belisarius]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...526#post952526

Well as you guys know I opened an opinion thread a few days ago, and I must say I am quite disheartened at the results, not positive at all! It seems that the civitates and community as a whole don’t regard the Status of civitates as something special, and that according to people its getting cheaper. So what exactly is the Problem?

I could do as many and Propose something, but I don’t think many of us know what the problem is, if there is one! So I’d like to see other peoples opinions and discuss this issue.


Well as you guys know I opened an opinion thread a few days ago, and I must say I am quite disheartened at the results, not positive at all! It seems that the civitates and community as a whole don’t regard the Status of civitates as something special, and that according to people its getting cheaper. So what exactly is the Problem?

I could do as many and Propose something, but I don’t think many of us know what the problem is, if there is one! So I’d like to see other peoples opinions and discuss this issue.

[Seleukos]

Since when was there a problem? Yes, there are a couple here and there that misbehave, but that is natural, and expected.

And you deal with them when they come around. Dont attack the system saying it is bad and low quality when there is only a small few who are the wrongdoers.

[Kagemusha]

I agree with Seleukos.There are good apples and then there are bad ones.I think if you would have rephrased your question and not gave the option that the quality have gone done with on last year,the results would be different. I think its only human behaviour if asked they always say that things were better in "golden past".

[vizi]

Get rid of the bad apples. Remove what makes something bad and then it will eventually make what was bad looking, look good again.

In other words cut off the fat.

[Romanos]

But who are the bad civitate I mean most of us deserve it (not all but most) I mean can we just sacked them or a long gruelling Ostrokan.

[Garbarsardar]

The problem is that Civs are reluctant to remove the ones amongst them who post mostly rubbish most of the time. So they actualy have abandonded this constituitional right and have delegated all such action to the Staff. The limited choices in the Syntagma for dealing with constantly underperforming Civs, are a big part of the problem as well.

[Farnan]

I know when your talking about me Garbar...

Joking aside, the primary way of dealing with underperforming civitates is to not patronize them. If you don't patronise them, they don't become civs. Problem solved.

[Publius]

I realize this is just the lowly opinion of a civ but I think much of this "slump" in civitate quality is merely a product of the continually growing size of this site. As more people patronize and the tree of civitates (and above) branches out, the amount of control or perhaps to better phrase it, the level of observation which you are able to keep on the fledgling civitates is decreasing. This in itself is not the problem. The problem is that when we get one or two "bad apples" as was previously stated, this leads to broader generalizations about all civitates as there are simply too many now to keep track of. I in no way blame the staff or others at all, as this is an immense task which will often be superceded by more pressing issues. But I do think that what may be happening is that the posts of a small percentage of "bad" (for lack of a better term) civs is being extrapolated to include all of us. Like I said before though, this isnt a knock against the staff. You guys are doing a tremendous job in my opinion.

In any event, that is my 2 cents

[Fabolous]

I think there are three main problems, amoung others.

1. Members coming in. People are not patronizing people of a high enoguh quality, and staff is too nice in civ votes. There is still a "Have they done anything wrong?" mentality as opposed to a "What have they done for the site?" mentality.

2. Lack of punishment of civitates. The curia is spammy, I am guilty of spamming in some in the new civ thread. There needs to be a crackdown at some point. While I am okay with the friendly banter, too often, it is spam for spams sake it seems. I don't just blame staff for the lack of punishment of civitates, I blame all of us. If we see a civ spamming, there should be some reaction, where just noting it for future reference to see if it is a re-occuring problem, or in a more direct way, such as taking away rep points (those who can). I use spam, as that is the main thing I see, but that applies to everything. I think civitates are moderated to lightly in many cases, when they should be moderated more harshly.

3. The reluctance to make proper use of the Ostrakon. I quote Garb:
"The problem is that Civs are reluctant to remove the ones amongst them who post mostly rubbish most of the time. So they actualy have abandonded this constituitional right and have delegated all such action to the Staff. The limited choices in the Syntagma for dealing with constantly underperforming Civs, are a big part of the problem as well."


Fix those, and the civ class will return to the level needed.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

May be civitates rank should be granted only to the ones who make actually something for the site or for rtw in general or even for actual adoption .... like in rome you where granted civitate when u served in the army or made something for rome or where adopted by a roman I suppose .....

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Also why not Castize the ranks of TWC system? meaning make the houses somehow more important in the selection of the new civitates .... ?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

2. Lack of punishment of civitates. The curia is spammy, I am guilty of spamming in some in the new civ thread. There needs to be a crackdown at some point. While I am okay with the friendly banter, too often, it is spam for spams sake it seems. I don't just blame staff for the lack of punishment of civitates, I blame all of us. If we see a civ spamming, there should be some reaction, where just noting it for future reference to see if it is a re-occuring problem, or in a more direct way, such as taking away rep points (those who can). I use spam, as that is the main thing I see, but that applies to everything. I think civitates are moderated to lightly in many cases, when they should be moderated more harshly.

3. The reluctance to make proper use of the Ostrakon. I quote Garb:
"The problem is that Civs are reluctant to remove the ones amongst them who post mostly rubbish most of the time. So they actualy have abandonded this constituitional right and have delegated all such action to the Staff. The limited choices in the Syntagma for dealing with constantly underperforming Civs, are a big part of the problem as well."

But who are the bad civitate I mean most of us deserve it (not all but most) I mean can we just sacked them or a long gruelling Ostrokan.

Get rid of the bad apples. Remove what makes something bad and then it will eventually make what was bad looking, look good again.

In other words cut off the fat.

hmm, and yet when a change to the ostrakon process is proposed (giving us a quicker route to minor punishments) it gets shot down in flames (and by some of you that are now complaining about bad apples)?

You can't have it both ways folks.

[Aemilianus]

I assume you're talking about the Ostrakon Reform thing with the council?

If so, that isn't an issue. If there are 20 bad civitates, somebody who cares (which appears to be a lot of you) open up 20 Ostrakon threads. Do it right now, go to the Prothalamos, and open them. Don't rely on a council to do it for you, because you shouldn't have to. I will post in every one of them, and so will a lot of other Civs who love this kind of thing. Odds are you'll get a few of them demoted, at least. Nobody has tried this (save Fake Crandar) so you all can't tell me how it would work (especially using it on actual bad Civitates). The problem isn't the system (which is very straightforward and easy), it's the Civitates who think that Ostrakon isn't a viable method. In some cases it may not be. In some cases it is. Either way, the process will make Civs more accountable and improve the institution (which I think is fine). The legislation is there, just use it if it's such a huge deal.

[Belisarius]

Well I think the biggest problem is that civitates dont value the rank, they treat it as nothing. Yea its just a badge in an internet forum, but when people took pride in it they behaved and posted better. I dont know how many times I've heard someone say that they dont value the rank, if thats the case, they should be civitates. When I was made Civ I had to post well for 5 months to get noticed and didnt ject get it because I had a cool name, people thought I was funny and so on. Maybe an informal solution is needed... Even from the Patrons Point of view, I take pride in my civitates.

I think the first step is writing a guide, I'd be prepared to do that when I have some more time.

Second step is to seriously start thinking about a cut off point -

If someone gets 3 intermediate (Or whatever the hell they are called now) warnings within a month they should be demoted subject to tribunal appeal.

I mean, why exactly should people like that be civitates? Ostrakons dont work because people are soft, like me

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I assume you're talking about the Ostrakon Reform thing with the council?

If so, that isn't an issue. If there are 20 bad civitates, somebody who cares (which appears to be a lot of you) open up 20 Ostrakon threads. Do it right now, go to the Prothalamos, and open them. Don't rely on a council to do it for you, because you shouldn't have to. I will post in every one of them, and so will a lot of other Civs who love this kind of thing. Odds are you'll get a few of them demoted, at least. Nobody has tried this (save Fake Crandar) so you all can't tell me how it would work (especially using it on actual bad Civitates). The problem isn't the system (which is very straightforward and easy), it's the Civitates who think that Ostrakon isn't a viable method. In some cases it may not be. In some cases it is. Either way, the process will make Civs more accountable and improve the institution (which I think is fine). The legislation is there, just use it if it's such a huge deal.

The problem with the current ostrakon process is that it is far too unweildy for the vast majority of cases. It's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

What the proposed ostrakon changes are trying to do is put in place an elected body who have a range of punishments available (up to full ostrakon) which they can apply to civitates who step out of line. For minor punishments the whole Civ body shouldn't need to be involved, only when a full ostrakon is proposed.

Also, by having an elected body you remove personalities from the equation so the other problem with the current ostrakon system (accusations of bias and personal vendettas against the instigator) are no longer an issue.

[Aemilianus]

Doesn't staff already have a system for such things?

It seems to go like this (correct me if I'm wrong). Poster A says something derogatory and gets warned. He then says something again and gets warned. The mod then says "Hey, watch out man, you've been posting pretty unacceptable stuff, you might get Censured or Ostrakoned, especially if we have to warn you again". That in my mind constitutes probation. Mods warn civs who step out of line, and if I understand correctly they're also PM'ed. If the Civ can't take the hint at that point, in my mind he shouldn't have the badge on his name, and he should get hit with that sledgehammer.

What penalties are we talking about here? Probation (basically implicit already)....suspension of posting (staff responsibility)....ban (staff)....Censure (already Curial responsibility)?

As I've posted in the other thread, I think there should probably be a Curial Court subforum in which we debate the merits of certain punishments. The "whole Curia" problem isn't really a big deal to me, because there is no requirement that you vote on everything anyway, and those who want to put their two cents in can do it. In my mind, that keeps a lot more power in the hands of the Curia and keeps the system a lot easier to understand.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Doesn't staff already have a system for such things?

It seems to go like this (correct me if I'm wrong). Poster A says something derogatory and gets warned. He then says something again and gets warned. The mod then says "Hey, watch out man, you've been posting pretty unacceptable stuff, you might get Censured or Ostrakoned, especially if we have to warn you again". That in my mind constitutes probation. Mods warn civs who step out of line, and if I understand correctly they're also PM'ed. If the Civ can't take the hint at that point, in my mind he shouldn't have the badge on his name, and he should get hit with that sledgehammer.

staff should have no part of whether a civitate keeps their rank or not, staff moderate the forums and hand out warnings/cautions/suspensions for users of the forums. That is a totally separate thing from whether a Civitate should be a Civitate or not.

Even if we suspend a civitate for several months, they are still a civitate when they come back. Staff can't affect a members civitate rank.

What penalties are we talking about here? Probation (basically implicit already)....suspension of posting (staff responsibility)....ban (staff)....Censure (already Curial responsibility)?

again, you are mixing up what staff can do and what the Curia can do.

Staff:
moderate people's posts, hand out warnings to members for breaking TOS, if member continues to misbehave then hand out suspension (up to and including a permaban). None of this has any direct impact on the member's rank.

Curia:
only the Curia can demote a member from being a civitate through the ostrakon process

[Aemilianus]

Ah, you're right...went too far on that...

Clarification- The mod would warn the user a third time, meaning automatic Ostrakon. As a Curial voter, I look for that, though, when I'm deciding how to vote. If someone posts that the accused has 7 warnings for a variety of things, I'm more inclined to vote yes on the Ostrakon. If said user did the same stuff, but it's being pulled out of the forum by a normal Civ and was not warned, I would ask myself why, and I would be a bit more wary of voting yes (well, in some cases that is). Staff actions do contribute, at least in my opinion, to whether a Civ winds up being Ostrakoned.

Differences noted, though :wink:.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

yeah, warnings do have an effect on an ostrakon. The point is though that the curia still only has the ostrakon 'sledgehammer'. To my mind the Curia should have a range of options to apply to a misbehaving Civitate with ostrakon only being used in the last resort.

[Aemilianus]

I agree with you on that count, that the Curia should have a range of options to deal with misbehavior, and I also agree with you that there's no way the Curia can debate them in the Prothalamos only. In lower respects, lower punishments, I think the council can be useful. I also think, however, that the Curia needs to be very involved in those punishments. I don't like the idea of 6 people doing it, and I would only accept that as a matter of expediency, not power. The power would rest in the appeal, which should be universally available.