[Discussion] The Triumvirate and Conflicts of Interest

[PikeStance]

If the Curia is going to willingly give me this much power (as opposed to me just doing it and telling everyone to piss off) then do not be surprised when I use it. I think I have been pretty vocal about what I think the state of the Curia is and could be and if the Curia really wants me to clean house, believe me I will.

Everyone needs to consider that very carefully.

I think its just talk. But let's be honest hear, you have been hinting at what you think it should be, but you have yet weigh in what that is. Maybe its time you exercise your right as a citizen and express what you think it ought to be!

I completely disagree with that. Using that logic, I should leave a Staff member on Staff when I fire them, just suspend their account? Citizenship is not an award though it has been treated like that. Using Squid as an example (sorry Squid), if he went off the deep end and did a bunch of stuff that required me to fire him, I would remove him from Hex and from Tech Staff but would not remove his service medals.

Its more than a recognition, in my mind its also a duty both to yourself and to the site. There is a certain prestige that comes with Citizenship and having the right to wear the badge and change the user title. People love that kind of stuff even more than they like getting new crowns for rep. With rights comes responsibility, in all aspects of life. You have the right to drive a car and the responsibility to do so in a manner that doesn't endanger others. You have the right to free speech and the responsibility to not infringe on others right to free speech. The list goes on.

With Citizenship you have the right to wear the badge, and the responsibility to act in manner that showcases why you got that badge in the first place. Citizens are supposed to be the elite of the site, the best contributors to the site in terms of user generated (as opposed to Staff generated) content. And every single one of us should be expected to continue those contributions once we achieve the badge. But beyond that I believe that every single Citizen should be a role model for new members of the site. People should look at Citizens and say "I want to be like that" and not just for the badge. Call me idealistic I guess.

I am not sure what you are disagreeing about? You have essentially written what I have written for the past few months. The purpose of changing the act of removing citizenship to "indefinite suspension" is precise for the reasons you have indicated. The difference does preserve what they have done, but it removes the privileges if they continue to act within the normal behavior of citizen.

As you noted, we want people to continue to contribute to the site; keeping the carrot of citizenship is a good incentive to change one's behavior. If not, then they will never wear the badge again. Also, I even suggested a tier system to encourage people to continue to contribute. I thought the distance from the citizenship badge to the "large medals" to be a steep valley of commitment. At the time of my suggestion, it gained little attention. Multi- level Recognition Alternative

[GrnEyedDvl]

I bow to your definition here, though indeed idealism does play a part, and that's never a bad thing. I would say, in the raw point of it, i'm actually just not in favour of the Curia having the power to remove citizenship based upon curial issues. I would give the prerogative to hex/overseers for those who break the ToS, not the constitution (which i sincerely do believe as a document needs to be redone).

The Constitution I will leave to other members of the Curia, commenting occasionally as I sometimes do.

I stand by what I said, the Curia should be able to remove its own members who act in a way the Curia finds not in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the Curia. Its just a matter of consistently defining what that sprit and traditions really are. And consistency is the key, you cannot have standards that change every election cycle.

I would say GED, while i agree with your definition of a citizen in some ways, the responsibility is surely to keep in line with the ToS?

That is the responsibility of every member on the site. We don't need the Curia to enforce the ToS. Curial stuff is separate from that.

The Curia should be more than just people who post while avoiding breaking the ToS. Otherwise what is the point of having it? You as a Citizen get X, Y and Z rights, and we expect from you....nothing more than we expect from people who are not Citizens? Where is the sense in that?

If this is truly what a lot of Citizens think, then the cries among the Plebians over the year that everyone should be a Citizen with equal rights on the site are well placed. If the only thing Citizenship means is that you are held accountable to the ToS then we should disband the Curia today.

I think the Curia can be a lot more than just abiding by the ToS.

The constitution as it is, is a lesser issue. And this is what Ishan was punished for, by the removal of his citizenship. Something which i feel shouldn't have been able to do by a citizen body, as their not the ones to make judgments upon his contributions to the site and decide if due to one slip up (which i'm pretty sure happens on every single curial poll in some form or another) is deserving of the discarding of all these things in favour of a constitution that many citizens aren't even aware of, and that personally as i've probably bored everyone to tears with by now, i think needs updating.

I am speaking in the broad sense, not in the specifics of the Ishan case. Maybe Ishan deserved to be stripped, maybe he didn't. I think the fact that we don't have a clear consensus on that points only to one thing: The Curia has a lack of direction, and no sense of self worth as a body.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Don't know how I missed this post, sorry about that and the double post.

I think its just talk. But let's be honest hear, you have been hinting at what you think it should be, but you have yet weigh in what that is. Maybe its time you exercise your right as a citizen and express what you think it ought to be!

I have in the past, though not in public recently. And to be honest every time I have done so (most recently inside Hex just this week) the reception is lukewarm at best and at times outright hostile. I posted something in Hex that I thought would actually get large amounts of support, and I got one supporting, one against, and no other replies. There are two obvious reasons for this:

1. Am I out of touch with the Curia as a whole? I wouldn't doubt that a bit. I am hardly what you would call active here.
2. People are unwilling to change the status quo, or unwilling to take on the loads of crap that will follow from what I proposed in pursuit of making the Curia more relevant.

The Curia is somewhat set in its ways, and though I think it desperately needs to evolve as the rest of the site has had to evolve, sometimes pushing that through can seem like more trouble than it is worth.

t sure what you are disagreeing about? You have essentially written what I have written for the past few months. The purpose of changing the act of removing citizenship to "indefinite suspension" is precise for the reasons you have indicated. The difference does preserve what they have done, but it removes the privileges if they continue to act within the normal behavior of citizen.

Indefinite suspension is basically a ban from the site, with a slight chance of coming back. Stripping a Citizen of his rank lets him remain on the site, just not in the Curia. A violation of what the Curia thinks is proper may not be a ToS violation at all, which is fine. And if there is no ToS violation that is so severe that it warrants a lengthy ban then under that very ToS we have no right to ban them, or suspend them, or whatever language you choose to use.

The ToS is separate from the Curia and the Constitution and should remain so.

noted, we want people to continue to contribute to the site; keeping the carrot of citizenship is a good incentive to change one's behavior. If not, then they will never wear the badge again. Also, I even suggested a tier system to encourage people to continue to contribute. I thought the distance from the citizenship badge to the "large medals" to be a steep valley of commitment. At the time of my suggestion, it gained little attention. Multi- level Recognition Alternative

I wasn't aware of that one, as I said I haven't exactly been active here. I have considered something similar to what you proposed, but on huge amounts of steroids both in what you get in terms of bling/benefits but also in terms of structure and what is needed to set it up. I am not ready to make that idea public yet, it needs some serious fleshing out. I think what I really need to do is get a group of 10-12 people together and present the idea, hash it out in that smaller group and then present it to the Curia as a whole. Having too many people involved in the initial idea process sometimes makes things confusing as hell.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I am not your sire (at least I don't think I am...), and I do not own you.

Type GED, just typo.

Anyway I'm interested when someone mention about the jury system. Sounds like fun.

Triumvirate or not, decisions about citizens here should not be under the responsibility of 2 or 3 people (unless you own the site of course ).

In referral cases let the Triumvirate be the presiding judge but allow 12 (rotated) selected citizens to vote. The more people in then the lesser impact of any conflict of interest and in a close community like our, there's always be conflict of interest somewhere along the line because the only people who does not have any conflict of interest are the ones who is not active.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Type GED, just typo.

I just couldn't let that one pass without comment.

Triumvirate or not, decisions about citizens here should not be under the responsibility of 2 or 3 people (unless you own the site of course ).

And I do not want to be the lone person deciding on Citizenship. On a ToS issue, I have no problem laying down the law so to speak and on issues that involve the security of the site I will do so. Citizenship is about more than the ToS, and I really do want it to mean something to the people that have it. And for it to mean something to them they have to have a large say in what it means as a whole and what the values of Citizenship are. Citizenship cant be just one mans vision.

Maybe I should type something up. I warn you though, it will be long.

[PikeStance]

Don't know how I missed this post, sorry about that and the double post.

2. People are unwilling to change the status quo, or unwilling to take on the loads of crap that will follow from what I proposed in pursuit of making the Curia more relevant.
The Curia is somewhat set in its ways, and though I think it desperately needs to evolve as the rest of the site has had to evolve, sometimes pushing that through can seem like more trouble than it is worth.

There is systemic inertia. I think the fat cats are few and the reformer many. The vision of change are often in conflict leaving the site almost paralyzed.

Indefinite suspension is basically a ban from the site, with a slight chance of coming back. Stripping a Citizen of his rank lets him remain on the site, just not in the Curia. A violation of what the Curia thinks is proper may not be a ToS violation at all, which is fine. And if there is no ToS violation that is so severe that it warrants a lengthy ban then under that very ToS we have no right to ban them, or suspend them, or whatever language you choose to use.

The ToS is separate from the Curia and the Constitution and should remain so.

I think it is a bit tenuous to compare "indefinite suspension" from the site to "indefinite suspension" of rank. Your rank was mostly acquired through contribution. The removal of a rank is essence nullifying your contribution. A suspension keeps it. So its more than simple semantics.

I wasn't aware of that one, as I said I haven't exactly been active here. I have considered something similar to what you proposed, but on huge amounts of steroids both in what you get in terms of bling/benefits but also in terms of structure and what is needed to set it up. I am not ready to make that idea public yet, it needs some serious fleshing out. I think what I really need to do is get a group of 10-12 people together and present the idea, hash it out in that smaller group and then present it to the Curia as a whole. Having too many people involved in the initial idea process sometimes makes things confusing as hell.

There is literally a plethora of ideas in the Curia right now. It would be better to have a think tank to work out a compromise and then present it.

Maybe I should type something up. I warn you though, it will be long.

Nothing too long, I have ADHD

[AngryTitusPullo]

And I do not want to be the lone person deciding on Citizenship. On a ToS issue, I have no problem laying down the law so to speak and on issues that involve the security of the site I will do so. Citizenship is about more than the ToS, and I really do want it to mean something to the people that have it. And for it to mean something to them they have to have a large say in what it means as a whole and what the values of Citizenship are. Citizenship cant be just one mans vision.

Maybe I should type something up. I warn you though, it will be long.

I agree with you about the citizenship. The ability to include someone who contributed someone in shouldn't be left to only 12 citizens (as in old CdeC) so the current systems do work. However in case on voting citizen out as in referral case it shouldn't be left only to 3 members.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I think it is a bit tenuous to compare "indefinite suspension" from the site to "indefinite suspension" of rank.

A bit of confusion there, when you say "indefinite suspension" I automatically think of it as from the site because that is the term we have used for so long.

Removal of Citizenship is removal of Citizenship, whether its for a day or permanent. I don't think you should leave a guy in limbo by making it "indefinite". Either give him a set period of time or tell him to piss off and reapply when he gets his act together. Obviously you put it a bit more diplomatically than that, but still that is what needs to happen. Anything else is a bit unfair to him.

There is literally a plethora of ideas in the Curia right now. It would be better to have a think tank to work out a compromise and then present it.

I am typing some stuff now, including some background and the reasons behind the proposal. I guess we will see how it goes if I decide to post it.

Nothing too long, I have ADHD

Read it over a weekend then.

[PikeStance]

I agree with you about the citizenship. The ability to include someone who contributed someone in shouldn't be left to only 12 citizens (as in old CdeC) so the current systems do work. However in case on voting citizen out as in referral case it shouldn't be left only to 3 members.

I agree on principle. The problem is coming up with a solution that everyone can agree on. Right now there are too many ideas circulating. It would be best to form a small team to hatch out the best solution and then present it to the curia.

A bit of confusion there, when you say "indefinite suspension" I automatically think of it as from the site because that is the term we have used for so long.
Removal of Citizenship is removal of Citizenship, whether its for a day or permanent. I don't think you should leave a guy in limbo by making it "indefinite". Either give him a set period of time or tell him to piss off and reapply when he gets his act together. Obviously you put it a bit more diplomatically than that, but still that is what needs to happen. Anything else is a bit unfair to him.

Confusion.... The member would not be in limbo. They would be able to appeal their suspension after a period of time. My suggestion would be 3 and or 6 months and with each unsuccessful attempt, waiting period of 3 months. I would imagine 6 months to be the maximum amount a time for anyone serious about retaining their badge.

I am typing some stuff now, including some background and the reasons behind the proposal. I guess we will see how it goes if I decide to post it.

If you decide NOT to post, then send it to me in PM... I am intrigued now.

Read it over a weekend then.

Yes, but as an IB teacher, I will stop naturally at 2500 words

[GrnEyedDvl]

I agree on principle. The problem is coming up with a solution that everyone can agree on. Right now there are too many idea circulating. It would be best to form a small team to hatch out the best solution and then present it to the curia.

That might be the best way.

If you decide NOT to post, then send it to me in PM... I am intrigued now.

Consider yourself on the short list along with Major Darling and Halie Satanus and Hex. I have had those two in mind for a couple of weeks now.

Yes, but as an IB teacher, I will stop naturally at 2500 words

Read it over a month then.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Yes, but as an IB teacher, I will stop naturally at 2500 words

I just checked the word count, I just blew past your 2500 mark and not half done yet. Sigh.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I agree on principle. The problem is coming up with a solution that everyone can agree on. Right now there are too many idea circulating. It would be best to form a small team to hatch out the best solution and then present it to the curia.

The triumvirate will invite random maybe 20 other active citizens to participate in any referral case and 12 will be selected base on their availability at the time.

[PikeStance]

Consider yourself on the short list along with Major Darling and Halie Satanus and Hex. I have had those two in mind for a couple of weeks now.

I just checked the word count, I just blew past your 2500 mark and not half done yet. Sigh.

The triumvirate will invite random maybe 20 other active citizens to participate in any referral case and 12 will be selected base on their availability at the time.

I wrote about a similar idea in another thread.... not sure where though; there are so many Reform threads to keep track.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

I would also go for a jury system. Also the triumvirate should act as a judge in the american law system which means they supervise the process. Furthermore the jury needs the right to be able to decide if one or all members of the triumvirate are biased and the triumvirate needs the same right concerning the jury.

[Aikanár]

Who would appoint the jury?

Also, a jury of how many citizens?

Have you had a look at the recent number of participants in curial votes? Other than citizen apps and the abolish the CdeC bill?

How do you fill vacancies in case not enough citizens would be willing or interested to do the job or would just be compromised one way or the other and would be disqualified with regards to stand as a member of the jury?

How experienced would jury members need to be? Some people apparently don't even trust very experienced citizens, how could you trust in the abilities of somebody who has no experience whatsoever?

What would the other prerequisites be? Surely not lower than what one would expect from a sitting Curator or Magsitrate, don't you think? If so, members of the jury would have to have gone without a moderation or curial warning for one year. Since you cannot have received a curial warning when you are not a citizen, that would imply, that they would have to be a citizen for at least 1 year. Or not?

That all adds up until it gets too cumbersome and I haven't even addressed the timetable yet. How long does it take to vet the possible candidates for a jury? How long does it take to appoint them, find substitutes, grant them access to a new forum (otherwise we would make all the past cases public to the jury for which they would neither havethe right nor the mandate)? How much time would that entire process require? How do you deal with that? Soemtimes it could be very hard to find enough jury members who are not biased or compromise. Do you handle that process on a case to case basis? How would that be fair with regards to other referred citizens? Do you handle that with a fixed timetable? How could it be fair to other referred citizens when they are judged by, say, 12 (not more could be found), while another would be judged by, say, 20?

There would be a lot to think through and address. I'm intereseted in seeing a detailed proposal of this.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I would also go for a jury system. Also the triumvirate should act as a judge in the american law system which means they supervise the process.

First problem here is that nobody would listen to the Triumvirate. They'd obviously have less sway over the process than Hex did in Ishan's case, which was very little by my judgment. I don't think more advisers would help the system.

Furthermore the jury needs the right to be able to decide if one or all members of the triumvirate are biased and the triumvirate needs the same right concerning the jury.

That seems like a recipe for a standoff with each accusing the other.

I honestly think the current system works pretty well and it doesn't need many changes.

[PikeStance]

I honestly think the current system works pretty well and it doesn't need many changes.

The current system was written with a 12 member group (CdeC) making a decision. You know have three select members. The procedure needs to be overhauled to reflect this change???

[Genius of the Restoration]

For what benefit?

[AngryTitusPullo]

For what benefit?

Lesser chance or impartially if decided by 12 people rather than 3.

Elected Triumvirate should contact some numbers of active citizens during the week and tell what's the requirement and whether they are free within that period. I don't think there's like a lot of case in a day right ? (or am I wrong ?).

The difference is that rather than have specific 12 members who were voted to hold the office for certain period, this give chance for more members to participate.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Lesser chance or impartially if decided by 12 people rather than 3.

Perhaps. If CdeC was anything to go by there can be all sorts of partiality with 12. You will also get people judging the case who won't have paid that much attention to it but will just vote with the rest. And that was when the people were elected officials and could be kicked from office, not just appointed for a case.

Elected Triumvirate should contact some numbers of active citizens during the week and tell what's the requirement and whether they are free within that period. I don't think there's like a lot of case in a day right ? (or am I wrong ?).

Who chooses the citizens?
I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Do you mean how many are finished within a day? Or how many are brought every day?

The difference is that rather than have specific 12 members who were voted to hold the office for certain period, this give chance for more members to participate.

What's the value in giving more members the chance to participate? Bearing in mind that a staff referral requires a citizen's moderation infraction to be revealed to whoever is judging it, whether the citizen wants this to be revealed or not.