[Discussion] Changing Removal of Rank to Indefinite Suspension

[PikeStance]

DEAR ALL: For all practical purposes this discussion is over. The last page and half is a series of circular arguments that proved to very unproductive for every one involved. I have decided to abandon this proposal due to the complete lack of interest in changing the terminology. therefore, i see no point in furthering the discussion. however, if you do have something new to add or need a legitimate clarifciation , then I will respond. As far as this proposal is concern, I will not take this proposal any further. If anyone else would want to, then you will have my support -Pike

---

Fellow Citizens,

I would like to explain the rationale for this proposal/ discussion
As citizens we are all recognized for making contributions that has benefited the community in some way. As citizens, we have a responsibility to uphold a certain degree of behavior. Unfortunately, there are times when a citizen fails to act in accordance. The Curia is forced to take action. In the past this meant the removal of rank. I am personally uncomfortable with this. Here is why. First there are two parts of citizenship. One, is the recognition we have for contributing. Two, we are given privileges that other members do not have. Indefinite suspension may seem like semantics but it isn't. It still preserves the contribution (since technically they still have the award), but it removes the privileges associated with it, including the ability to display the badge and/ or color of citizenship. A secondary issue is the goal is to change the behavior of the citizen. I fear a removal of rank only injures the member to a point where most would never reconsider becoming a citizen again. This should not be the goal of the action. What we want is a change in behavior and or attitude. Lastly, indefinite suspension gives some glimmer of hope of regaining their rank by the fact it is still there. The member only needs to show a change and they can conceivably have it back. A removal of rank could be psychologically inhibiting their motivation to change their behavior and contribute in a meaningful way.


Petitioning
I have two alternatives

Option A

This process is similar to citizenship. The Petitioner sends a letter with a paragraph outlining how they have changed their behavior and attitude to the censors requesting and end to the suspension. The Censors, may reject the petition without discussion, asked follow- up questions and then render a decision. If both Censors agree, then a thread is open which will contain the petitioners letter and the censors opinion for the full Curia to vote either yes, no or abstain. (The voting will be similar to the citizenship application. In the event a tie between the censors the Curator will break the tie. If no, the petition fails.

Option B

The process is similar to a proposal. The petitioner creates a thread in the Forum Magnum and appeal for supporters by writing a paragraph(s) outlining how they have changed their behavior and attitude. If the petitioner can received three supporters. A formal request for review is sent to the Censors for deliberation. The censors may ask follow= up questions and take into account any discussion made in the thread. The voting procedure outlined in Option A applies here.

There are pros and cons for both systems.


The Constitution

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Section I - Member Ranks and the CuratorAll members of the Forum can be divided into the following ranks. Each rank confers on the holders a specific set of rights and privileges unavailable to other ranks unless explicitly stated. An individual may hold only one account of the rank Citizen or higher

A member, in addition to their normal rank, may also hold other positions entitled to badges. In this case they may choose which rank to display. Regardless of the rank listed next to their name they retain all the rights and privileges associated with all their ranks.


Article III. Rank, Indefinite Suspensions, and Award Resignation

The rank of Citizen and all Awards listed here are honours given to members based on their merit. While members may refuse or resign their honours, that does not reduce their merit and they may request them back at will if they have not been suspended revoked in the meantime. Procedures to remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them, except that the member is assumed to have declined any right of notification or response.

Procedure for ending an indefinite suspension of rank: TBD

Section IV - The Judiciary Article I. Citizen's BehaviourThe suspension and removal of a Rank is handled by the Citizen's Triumvirate via the following disciplinary process. No Citizen may be subject to more than one referral for a single post.

Procedure

Staff and Citizen referrals take place in the Politia forum.

If any Citizen receives a staff warning from a Moderator they will be referred to the Citizen's Triumvirate for potential action. Moderation Staff will keep track of the Citizen's infractions and promptly forward any new ones to the Curator for posting. The referred will then be asked by the Curator to produce a defence within ninety-six hours. At the request of the referred the Curator shall also accept materials provided on behalf of the referred. Such materials shall be posted until the first voting poll is concluded and must be considered by the Citizen's Triumvirate in the second voting poll if such a poll is required. At the conclusion of this period, regardless of whether a defence has been received, a vote shall be opened by the Curator to conclude after four days. The options are:

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

If the Citizen's Triumvirate vote to take Further Action the Curator shall open a second poll for four days. The options are:

Curial Note:

• Censure

Curial Warning:

• Suspension of rank for 2 weeks
• Suspension of rank for 1 month
• Suspension of rank for 2 months
• Suspension of rank for 3 months
• Suspension of rank for 4 months
• Removalof Rank Suspension of rank indefinitely

No Curial Penalty:

• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining votes is required for the vote to pass. Where two options have the same number of votes, the action taken is determined by the Curator breaking the tie.

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

At the conclusion of the process, the Curator informs the referred member of the result, and asks whether the member wants the case to be made public or kept private. Cases made public are moved to the Antechamber, viewable by all members; private cases are kept in the Politia.

A rank may not be indefinitely suspended removed except by the procedure outlined in this Article. Large Curial Awards may only be indefinitely suspended removed by a Decision of the Curia or by the request of the rank holder.

Members of the Citizen's Triumvirate must must recuse themselves in their own disciplinary cases.

AppealsIf a referred Citizen is not satisfied with the result of their referral they may request that a public appeal take place. The appeal will be discussed and decided by any Citizen that chooses to participate and the result is binding and is not subject to further appeal.

Procedure

The Curator will post the original private referral and the further action thread in the Questiones Perpetuae and will open a new thread to which they will add a poll containing the following options:

•Keep the ruling
•Overturn the ruling
•Change the ruling
•Abstain

The poll will last for four days.

If the citizens vote to change the punishment, the Curator shall open a second poll for four days. The options are all punishments other than the original punishment and Abstain.

A simple majority of non abstaining votes is required for the first vote. In the case of a vote to either increase or decrease punishment, in the second vote the option with the highest number of votes is the punishment given. Where two options have the same number of votes the punishment given is determined by the multiple transferable vote system.

[Dark Storm]

I believe the current system we have does leave open the opportunity to reapply for citizenship (at least I think it does? ) and personally I'm inclined to go with this system over an indefinite suspension. With the system we have now, the onus is on the person whose rank has been removed to keep applying themselves in what they do best on the forums in order to attain citizenship once more.

The difference between regaining citizenship after Removal of Rank or indefinite suspension is that, whilst both require a change in attitude, the removal of rank also includes the added factor of ensuring that if that person wants citizenship, they've got to earn it again. Citizenship is a reward for having provided something of benefit to the site whilst maintaining a good attitude over time, and as such Citizens should be held to relatively higher standards; as role models to other members.

Therefore removal of rank provides an apt punishment for those citizens who might have broken the ToS or whose attitude has severely degraded to such an extent where removal is a consideration; both in the fact that it is a deterrent for Citizens against 'bad' behaviour due to its severity and that it requires more than just an attitude change for rank to be regained, requiring the Citizen to show that they are Citizen standard through their actions on the forum.

That's my opinion anyway

(Also, if this discussion goes in favour of indefinite suspension, I am inclined to argue against option b in the initial post. I can't be wrong in saying that many of our citizens have good friends in the curia, and were their title to be stripped and a mass vote to be held on whether they should have their citizenship back or not those friends would support them, regardless of the circumstance)

[Sir Adrian]

On paper your proposal works but I see two potential problems with it.

1. Censors having a deciding role: You are basically giving the same people both the knife and the bread and opening a doorway for potential abuse. So far all Censors have been completely professional and even handed but that does not mean all future censors will be the same. Besides other people might see this as an attempt to create a mini-CdeC. I think you should make the Censor role consultative by having them review the user and simply give a recommendation instead of begin able to block the application outright.

2. You are trying to involve regular members in something which is not their business and that will turn the whole thing into a popularity contest.




Even if you don't make the changes I'm proposing at least the bold part needs to go.

The Censors, may reject the petition without discussion, asked follow- up questions and then render a decision

[m_1512]

I am completely against such notion. Indefinite suspension is the most severe form of punishment, something which should have some sort of appeal. Even the site administration has a system where a person banned indefinitely can appeal to the admins and get back the account access under s probation.

[Astaroth]

Opposed.

It is extremely difficult to get your rank removed as it is, as evidenced by the small amount of people who have accomplished that feat. If someone manages to misbehave in such a way that his rank is revoked, despite the many steps that usually preceed this outcome (censure, temporary removal of rank etc.), then chances are that that person's behaviour must have been extremely problematic and might even have negatively affected the image of citizenship.

Citizenship is not only a reward for good contributions but requires decent behaviour as well -- this is fairly obvious, considering that 1) you can't become a Citizen with an active warning; 2) even aside from warnings, behaviour is and has always been taken into account during applications and 3) there is a whole system of handling misbehaviour and rule violations by Citizens.

In the light of that, it is only natural to remove someone's rank once their behaviour has reached a certain point.

It would be downright contradictory to refuse someone Citizenship because they have 1 active warning point while only "suspending" someone's rank who has, say, received 5 infractions in the past 6 months.

[PikeStance]

I believe the current system we have does leave open the opportunity to reapply for citizenship (at least I think it does? ) and personally I'm inclined to go with this system over an indefinite suspension. With the system we have now, the onus is on the person whose rank has been removed to keep applying themselves in what they do best on the forums in order to attain citizenship once more.

The difference between regaining citizenship after Removal of Rank or indefinite suspension is that, whilst both require a change in attitude, the removal of rank also includes the added factor of ensuring that if that person wants citizenship, they've got to earn it again. Citizenship is a reward for having provided something of benefit to the site whilst maintaining a good attitude over time, and as such Citizens should be held to relatively higher standards; as role models to other members.

Therefore removal of rank provides an apt punishment for those citizens who might have broken the ToS or whose attitude has severely degraded to such an extent where removal is a consideration; both in the fact that it is a deterrent for Citizens against 'bad' behaviour due to its severity and that it requires more than just an attitude change for rank to be regained, requiring the Citizen to show that they are Citizen standard through their actions on the forum.

First, I would like to avoid a specific discussion. Essentially, there is NO change in punishment here. The suspension indefinitely of the rank is equal a punishment to removal of rank. The proposal is not in any way attempting to mitigate the punishment. Moreover, the onus is still entirely on the former citizen to apply. If anything, it is a psychological thing. The idea of one's rank being suspended seems les distant than a removal of your rank. The difference is like benching a player indefinitely as opposed to kicking him off the team. ( I once suspended a player of mine. He wasn't allowed to practice, but he was expected to show up on time and assist me whenever I needed him. As a result, his attitude changed. If I had kicked off the team, I would never see him again.

As far as the expectation of contribution. This will still be part of it. Attitude is an important component for reinstatement. If a suspended citizen stops contributing, then they are obviously not displaying the same attitude they had when they were first accepted as a citizen.

(Also, if this discussion goes in favour of indefinite suspension, I am inclined to argue against option b in the initial post. I can't be wrong in saying that many of our citizens have good friends in the curia, and were their title to be stripped and a mass vote to be held on whether they should have their citizenship back or not those friends would support them, regardless of the circumstance)

I agree, this is a distinct possibility

On paper your proposal works but I see two potential problems with it.

1. Censors having a deciding role: You are basically giving the same people both the knife and the bread and opening a doorway for potential abuse. So far all Censors have been completely professional and even handed but that does not mean all future censors will be the same. Besides other people might see this as an attempt to create a mini-CdeC. I think you should make the Censor role consultative by having them review the user and simply give a recommendation instead of begin able to block the application outright.

CdeC members were not all bad. Many were quite thorough in their duties. It is ashamed that some of them have opted, thus far, to run as Censors. BTW, technically, the Censors are a mini- CdeC when it comes to referrals. Lastly, one of the options does give a consultative role in the process.

2. You are trying to involve regular members in something which is not their business and that will turn the whole thing into a popularity contest.

I am not attempting to do anything. I merely made to suggested options. I also indicated that both options have their positives and negatives. I chose not to discuss them, because I waned this thread and the Curia to discuss them. More importantly, I would not possibly be able to cover them all.

Even if you don't make the changes I'm proposing at least the bold part needs to go.
....The Censors, may reject the petition without discussion

I put that option in there in case there is a superfluous petition that does not warrant serious consideration. In other words, both Censors read the petition and found it to be without merit. It is the same thing with frivolous on unfounded referrals.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Aikanár]

^There is no such thing as a frivolous referral.

If Censors find that the action a citizen was referred for is up for what they consider citizen behavior, they will vote to dismiss the referral, but that does not indicate that they need to do so without discussion, a vote always needs to take place.

[PikeStance]

I am completely against such notion. Indefinite suspension is the most severe form of punishment, something which should have some sort of appeal. Even the site administration has a system where a person banned indefinitely can appeal to the admins and get back the account access under s probation.

I am confused! You say you are against the notion, but then indicate afterwards as if you support it.

Opposed.
It would be downright contradictory to refuse someone Citizenship because they have 1 active warning point while only "suspending" someone's rank who has, say, received 5 infractions in the past 6 months.

Where are you getting this?
My proposal dealt with two things
ONE the change in the terminology
TWO the change in terminology meant that a procedure needs to be put in place for reinstatement, which I left open for discussion by providing two rudimentary options.
I made NO references to time periods or number of infractions or anything of the sort.... so where are you getting this?

^There is no such thing as a frivolous referral.

If Censors find that the action a citizen was referred for is up for what they consider citizen behavior, they will vote to dismiss the referral, but that does not indicate that they need to do so without discussion, a vote always needs to take place.

Nothing is set in stone. I left it for discussion.

[m_1512]

I am confused! You say you are against the notion, but then indicate afterwards as if you support it.

I am merely pointing out how a similar system works. I never implied I would support it right away.

[PikeStance]

No worries. It is in the discussion phase. Seeking support at this phase will be very premature and inappropriate.

[Aikanár]

Nothing is set in stone. I left it for discussion.

Ah, I forgot to add that I only meant to address the current state of affairs with regards to that, not your proposition.

[Sir Adrian]

^There is no such thing as a frivolous referral.

Yes there is. If I refer you simply because I disagree with you and want to shut you up even though you didn't you actually do anything I'm submiting a frivolous refferal.

[Aikanár]

Yes there is. If I refer you simply because I disagree with you and want to shut you up even though you didn't you actually do anything I'm submiting a frivolous refferal.

Care to find me that restriction to referrals in the Constitution?

You cannot, because there is no such restriction. Every citizen can refer every other citizen for whatever they think is unbecoming of citizen behavior.

It is the Triumvirates job to judge and they need to do so according to the framework that is set. They cannot simply throw something out, they have to discuss and vote.

But please go ahead and present the source that something like a frivolous referral would exist. Please do.

[Sir Adrian]

There is no restriction because frivolous does not mean restricted, it means willfully abusing the system by making baseless accusations for personal gains.
My example would be an abuse of the system for instance because it is not used for its intended purpose (correcting someone's behavior) but to further my goals.

The fact that Censors discuss it to determine whether it is a legitimate referral or not does not mean it's not frivolous, it only means that the Censors are doing their job.

[Aikanár]

There is no restriction because frivolous does not mean restricted, it means willfully abusing the system by making baseless accusations for personal gains.

How do you define an abuse of a system that does not define a possible abuse itself, but is explicitly kept open?

My example would be an abuse of the system for instance because it is not used for its intended purpose (correcting someone's behavior) but to further my goals.

How do you differ between the subjective perception of a subjective behavior of another person and the subjective definition of citizen behavior of the referring observer on the one hand, malicious intent which the use of the word frivolous and your explanation of what you mean suggest on the other?

The fact that Censors discuss it to determine whether it is a legitimate referral or not does not mean it's not frivolous, it only means that the Censors are doing their job.

So are you saying a legitimate referral can be frivolous?

I'm still awaiting the proof a convincing argument that "frivolous" is even relevant to referrals in the first place.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if "frivolous referrals" would be of concern to the process, they would have been mentioned somewhere in the paragraphs of the Constitution dealing with the process. Wouldn't you agree with this?

[PikeStance]

This discussion belongs elsewhere

[Dark Storm]

First, I would like to avoid a specific discussion. Essentially, there is NO change in punishment here. The suspension indefinitely of the rank is equal a punishment to removal of rank. The proposal is not in any way attempting to mitigate the punishment. Moreover, the onus is still entirely on the former citizen to apply. If anything, it is a psychological thing. The idea of one's rank being suspended seems les distant than a removal of your rank. The difference is like benching a player indefinitely as opposed to kicking him off the team. ( I once suspended a player of mine. He wasn't allowed to practice, but he was expected to show up on time and assist me whenever I needed him. As a result, his attitude changed. If I had kicked off the team, I would never see him again.

As far as the expectation of contribution. This will still be part of it. Attitude is an important component for reinstatement. If a suspended citizen stops contributing, then they are obviously not displaying the same attitude they had when they were first accepted as a citizen.

I suppose there is a psychological side to it, in that it might promote better behaviour. Yet, personally, I am more inclined to believe that by calling it a removal of rank you leave the ex-citizen knowing where they stand in the community and with some idea of how to get back from it. However by making it an indefinite suspension you are creating something that is indeterminate; an ex-citizen might be less inclined to do whats necessary to regain citizenship as there is no actual, definite goalposts for them to reach (i.e good attitude and high quality contribution to TWC) instead there's a possibility that they might do the bare minimum, believing it will allow them access to citizenship once more or they might be put off by the lack of clarity in what they need to do to regain citizenship.

To summarise; even if there is no actual change in what ex-citizens need to do to regain citizenship; providing someone with a definite punishment (regardless of how harsh the punishment sounds) gives them a definite set of goals to achieve; whereas the indefinite suspension does not provide that same clarity.

[PikeStance]

I suppose there is a psychological side to it, in that it might promote better behaviour. Yet, personally, I am more inclined to believe that by calling it a removal of rank you leave the ex-citizen knowing where they stand in the community and with some idea of how to get back from it. However by making it an indefinite suspension you are creating something that is indeterminate; an ex-citizen might be less inclined to do whats necessary to regain citizenship as there is no actual, definite goalposts for them to reach (i.e good attitude and high quality contribution to TWC) instead there's a possibility that they might do the bare minimum, believing it will allow them access to citizenship once more or they might be put off by the lack of clarity in what they need to do to regain citizenship.

To summarise; even if there is no actual change in what ex-citizens need to do to regain citizenship; providing someone with a definite punishment (regardless of how harsh the punishment sounds) gives them a definite set of goals to achieve; whereas the indefinite suspension does not provide that same clarity.

I think you are reading more into the proposal than what is actually there. What you had describe exist now. If an ex- citizen chooses to they could easily find a citizen to patronize them. The constitution requires the bare minimal. With an Indefinite suspension, we can "reinvent" the rules for those who have been indefinitely suspended. We can require a greater level of contribution, attitude and behavior. For example, you can require that they have not be infracted within the past 6 months, 9 months, or one year. You can also requires waiting period. So, at least one year, plus 9 months of now infractions. AS it stands now, the former citizen only need to match the requirement for citizenship as stated in the constitution. There is no greater burden than that, except for the greater scrutiny of the Curia (obviously).

To summarize: Yes there is a psychology at play here. The psychology is centered on promoting better overall behavior. However, there is no reason to design a mechanism that would make it easier to become a citizen. Moreover, you can even require an extensive waiting period after a failed petition. Let;s say 6 months. You can additionally require that they cannot be infracted in that 6 months period. You can also require that they have some form of meaningful contribution. AS it stands now, no such restriction exist. The choice will be entirely up to the Curia.

[Aikanár]

This discussion belongs elsewhere

In case the Curator feels that way about this tangent too, he can of course move it.

[Astaroth]

Where are you getting this?
My proposal dealt with two things
ONE the change in the terminology
TWO the change in terminology meant that a procedure needs to be put in place for reinstatement, which I left open for discussion by providing two rudimentary options.
I made NO references to time periods or number of infractions or anything of the sort.... so where are you getting this?

You said in the OP:

Indefinite suspension may seem like semantics but it isn't. It still preserves the contribution (since technically they still have the award), but it removes the privileges associated with it, including the ability to display the badge and/ or color of citizenship. A secondary issue is the goal is to change the behavior of the citizen. I fear a removal of rank only injures the member to a point where most would never reconsider becoming a citizen again. This should not be the goal of the action. What we want is a change in behavior and or attitude. Lastly, indefinite suspension gives some glimmer of hope of regaining their rank by the fact it is still there. The member only needs to show a change and they can conceivably have it back. A removal means they start essentially at ground zero and combines with the secondary reason may never pursue or desire it again. As I said above, this should not be the ultimate goal.

My response:

Opposed.

It is extremely difficult to get your rank removed as it is, as evidenced by the small amount of people who have accomplished that feat. If someone manages to misbehave in such a way that his rank is revoked, despite the many steps that usually preceed this outcome (censure, temporary removal of rank etc.), then chances are that that person's behaviour must have been extremely problematic and might even have negatively affected the image of citizenship.

Citizenship is not only a reward for good contributions but requires decent behaviour as well -- this is fairly obvious, considering that 1) you can't become a Citizen with an active warning; 2) even aside from warnings, behaviour is and has always been taken into account during applications and 3) there is a whole system of handling misbehaviour and rule violations by Citizens.

In the light of that, it is only natural to remove someone's rank once their behaviour has reached a certain point.

It would be downright contradictory to refuse someone Citizenship because they have 1 active warning point while only "suspending" someone's rank who has, say, received 5 infractions in the past 6 months.

In short, I entirely disagree with your premise. If someone misbehaves in a way that requires the removal of his rank, then "what we want" is not only "a change of behaviour and attitude". Actions have consequences. You can't rack up 20 warning points and then be like, "oh well, I'll behave again now, plz forgive me". Of course the person might be allowed back eventually. But they shouldn't be given "some glimmer of hope of regaining their rank". Nor should they "only need[...] to show a change and they can conceivably have it back".

They should instead, in your words, "start essentially at ground zero", considering how atrocious their behaviour must have been to be kicked out in the first place. If, as a result, they decide to "never pursue or desire [Citizenship] again", that's their choice. After all, they were the ones who chose to misbehave in such a drastic manner so as to have their rank removed in the first place.

If anything, someone who was removed from Citizenship once should be in a worse position than someone who has never been a Citizen in the first place, considering that they already trampled and disregarded their positition once in the past. Note that misbehaving Citizens bring the whole Citizenship into disrepute, too. Plenty of newcomers already complain about "high ranking" (in their view) members (i.e. Citizens) behaving badly and getting away with it.