[Discussion] Changing Removal of Rank to Indefinite Suspension

[Astaroth]

I think Aikanar and Genius already addressed this above, but I find it fascinating how you apparently keep jumping back and forth between two different points/topics yet often claim that this is not the case, PikeStance.


(1) On the one hand, you keep bringing up clearly SUBSTANTIVE arguments about how it is supposedly problematic that Citizens who got kicked out "don't get a fresh start". About how they might be 'demoralised' by the removal. You support this by saying that few people have ever re-applied for Citizenship and so on.

(2) On the other hand, you often emphasise how this is only supposed to be a FORMAL change in terminology. You keep saying that nothing would be different in practice (aside from some additional censor involvement) and that the only change would be a one to the names of different institutions.


Whenever someone responds to the first string of arguments by stating that they disagree with your assertions about "a fresh start" for those who were kicked out, you immediately abandon ship and claim that you only ever wanted a formal change in terminology (2) and not any sort of substantive change (1). But despite that, you keep bringing up these substantive points not long after once again, as your relatively recent response to Shankbot shows.

So which of the two is it? Why do you keep talking about giving people a "new chance" or "fresh start" when your change is supposed to be one of form and terminology only? Why do you make substantive arguments only to deny it soon afterwards? I honestly don't get it.

It appears to me that you either don't see this fairly obvious contradiction which several people have pointed out now or that you are unwilling to acknowledge it for whatever reason. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to understand.

[PikeStance]

With all due respect, it is true. What you said earlier (second quote) was that you thought something unfair and that you'd punishing twice for the same action. I take your complaint about the current system that you describe as allowing "an irreconcilable prejudice" as meaning that you intend to fix that problem. That's what you're trying to solve, right? Well, I don't think it is an irreconcilable prejudice and the fact that you're trying to change it means that you're restricting the point of view of the citizens. You may think it's justified because you don't like the decisions they make, but I'd rather they had that decision open to them rather than legislating against them. The post just above mine is exactly the same. You're dictating what should be judged. I don't want you to tell me what I should value for citizenship.

In an indefinite suspension there would be NO restrictions, because they would be no tenuous ethical grounds to stand on as both Squid and the Shankbot pointed out.

Oppose, ..... I'd be willing to go further, if such a former citizen wanted to regain citizenship than no contributions that occurred during their previous time(s) as citizen can be used in a future application, in other words make them start totally fresh and not able to rely on past accomplishments.

I always thought that was how re-appliers were judged anyway? If not I would support something like that. By all means give them a second chance, but a second chance starting afresh.

So you see, my proposal would spare you having to defend your point of view.

And once again, I'll point out that censors don't deal with citizen behaviour; they deal with citizen referrals. The two aren't the same thing. Censors have bugger all to do with behaviour except when a referral takes place. They have exactly the same say about behaviour as any other citizen when a member applies for citizenship. They exist because it is necessary to restrict access to referrals to a smaller group than the whole citizen body. That single area that they have control over gives an option for a review by citizens.

It's not a "logical expansion" because they aren't the gatekeepers of citizen behaviour; citizens are. There is no logical reason for gifting censors with this power, nor would doing so benefit the process.

This is purely an academic discussion since it is more likely to be supported if it is more like the citizenship application. However, for S & G let's have a go

Strange logic here...
The first cause is Behavior (specifically poor)
The Second cause is referral
The Third cause action or inaction.
If Citizens bad behavior may cause a referral and Censors can take action or no action on the referral, then how exactly do they not judge behavior?
If A+B=C, then C=A+B

To use your logic,... The referral and Censor system exist because it would be impractical and potentially problematic to have one group of member "looking" for misbehaving citizens.
Moreover, the cause for the creation of the Censors doesn't exclude the potential for their roles to expand. Since they judge referred citizens, it is perfectly logical if they judge the behavior of suspended citizens (which currently they would be the cause of their suspension in the first place). If this isn't convincing enough. The Censor's role was already expanded. When the Censor position was created they did not have a role in the event the Curator was absent or derelict in their duties. There is no logical connection between judging referrals and taking over the Ciratorship in the Curators absence, but yet, they have the role nonetheless. Of course there was logic for the "expansion." The Magistrate, technically a non-Curia position, was not a logical choice to manage the Curia. However, the Censor is a Curia position, and therefore, despite not being created for this purpose, it now has this role. The irony is that there is a greater connection between the expansion of their role in this case, than in that case.

(2) On the other hand, you often emphasise how this is only supposed to be a FORMAL change in terminology. You keep saying that nothing would be different in practice (aside from some additional censor involvement) and that the only change would be a one to the names of different institutions.

1- Yes, I mentioned it 8 times throughout the discussion.
2- I also mentioned that how the process would be define is up for discussion. The Censors involvement was JUST one possibilty.

(1) On the one hand, you keep bringing up clearly SUBSTANTIVE arguments about how it is supposedly problematic that Citizens who got kicked out "don't get a fresh start". About how they might be 'demoralised' by the removal. You support this by saying that few people have ever re-applied for Citizenship and so on.

1- Has Aik and Genius have pointed out, they DON'T or MAY NOT get a fresh start beause they want the consider the entire history of someone who had their rank removed. As Squid and Shanks have each pointed out that each citizen should start from scratch.
2- "demoralized" I never used this word, at least I didn't see that I did when I re-read the thread (I skimmed) so I could had missed it. I did, however, discuss the psychological difference between being suspended as opposed to being "kicked out of the club." The argument was more to do with citizens being les willing to want to rejoin a group that had "thrown them out." I do not think they are demoralized. My concern here was about motivation. Suspension gives a psychological effect of making someone believe that one day they can enjoy full membership. This was as opposed to losing your rank and not caring at all.
3- I do not believe I used the expression "don't get a fresh start." I did use "ground zero," however I was defining when one have their rank removed. They have to start from the beginning despite the fact that they contributed. In a suspension scenario, they do not start at the beginning, but the totality of their contribution is considered. The focus would be their behavior which was the cause of their "removal." I did state that in a removal scenario that you should consider only what they have done at the point their had their rank removed. This seems like a contradiction, However, it is a consistent application of the meaning of the two expressions.
4- I do not know why there have been few cases of reapplying. I was speculating the system itself discourages. I also stated that the nature of the CdeC also played a role. In the case Aik cited, the previous contribution was considered, but it was deemed not enough despite the applicants peers believing otherwise a his firsr application. A tougher CdeC probably played a contributing factor in discouraging many to try to reapply. However, this too is speculative. Keep in mind, in some cases, a former citizen may have been banned from the site (suspended indefinitely) or left the site in disgrace (on other words, left and have yet to return). There is only a handful of potential reapplicants for citizenship.

Whenever someone responds to the first string of arguments by stating that they disagree with your assertions about "a fresh start" for those who were kicked out, you immediately abandon ship and claim that you only ever wanted a formal change in terminology (2) and not any sort of substantive change (1). But despite that, you keep bringing up these substantive points not long after once again, as your relatively recent response to Shankbot shows.

These are two divergent conversations
One discussion dealt with the inconsistent view that if you removed someone's rank that you can still consider the totality of their contribution and behavior. I argued if this is what you want, the suspension would be consistent with that view. The discussion was about the porposal The proposal is a change in terminology that would promote a change in behavior. I never said anything about a fresh start. The ground zero comment had to do with it being inhibiting. In fact, when the expression was included, I believe Genius took exception to it because he believes that everything should be considered. If you are going to remove the rank, then logically, you should consider anew. Is this my prefrence? No. This should be clear by advocatin the change.

I think I'm about worn out by this discussion. Neither of us are getting anywhere. I don't think we should tell people what they should take into account and what they should value and so I disagree with your proposed name change. I also disagree with handing over power to the censors because they have no reason to be involved and because it's a waste of time as it's a job that will citizens do anyway when they vote on whether the member should receive citizenship again. That pretty much sums it up for me.

The funny thing is I was going to request that the discussion be archived when both you and Asteroth added these two posts. Since you both raise good points, I wanted to respond to them out of courtesy to both you. I would like to thank you both and every one else who contributed for sharing their views. It is obvious that there is little interest in trying to take this further.

I would like to ask the Curators now to ARCHIVE this discussion. If possible can you VM or PM me the link so that I will be able to reference this discussion in the event I wish to pursue this at a later date. Thank you.

If anyone would like to continue this discussion, you are welcome to PM me.

Again thank you for your feedback and I hope everyone will have a great weekend!

Pike

[Genius of the Restoration]

In an indefinite suspension there would be NO restrictions, because they would be no tenuous ethical grounds to stand on as both Squid and the Shankbot pointed out.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Telling people that they can't stand on what you describe as "tenuous ethical grounds" amounts to telling them how they should be judging citizenship. You bolded and underlined comments by Squid and Shankbot where they call for the citizen to start afresh again. That would be telling citizens how to judge citizenship which would restrict the ability of citizens to vote as they please. What am I missing?

If Citizens bad behavior may cause a referral and Censors can take action or no action on the referral, then how exactly do they not judge behavior?

Tell me then, when a regular member applies for citizenship, how are the censors judging behaviour? That's right, they don't do anything. Nothing at all.
What they are judging is a referral. A referral isn't the same thing as citizen behaviour. You're operating from the false premise that a referral is synonymous with behaviour when it's not.

To use your logic,... The referral and Censor system exist because it would be impractical and potentially problematic to have one group of member "looking" for misbehaving citizens.

This is a such a circular discussion. Here, let me quote the three times I've said this in different posts in this thread:

The reason censors deal with citizen referrals is because the Curia cannot. The infractions given to citizens will not be released to all citizens without the citizen's consent. The existence of censors addresses this problem. Otherwise, the infraction would be open for all citizens - and that's exactly what happens if a decision of the censors is challenged.

The involvement of the censor makes sense for a referral when the citizen's moderation interactions are shared with the censors and curator.

They exist because it is necessary to restrict access to referrals to a smaller group than the whole citizen body.

Moreover, the cause for the creation of the Censors doesn't exclude the potential for their roles to expand. Since they judge referred citizens, it is perfectly logical if they judge the behavior of suspended citizens

Sigh. No, it wouldn't be logical. You want to expand their role, I get it, but there is no logical reason to expand it. As I've said multiple times now, there is a necessity for censors to exist for referrals. That's why they exist. There's no reason for them to judge someone that citizens are going to judge themselves straight after.

The Censor's role was already expanded. When the Censor position was created they did not have a role in the event the Curator was absent or derelict in their duties. There is no logical connection between judging referrals and taking over the Ciratorship in the Curators absence, but yet, they have the role nonetheless.

They were chosen because they were elected officials who had some mandate from the Curia which is markedly better than what any other citizen has to offer as mandate.

Of course there was logic for the "expansion." The Magistrate, technically a non-Curia position, was not a logical choice to manage the Curia. However, the Censor is a Curia position, and therefore, despite not being created for this purpose, it now has this role. The irony is that there is a greater connection between the expansion of their role in this case, than in that case.

Someone is needed to take over the position of curator if one leaves. That's a necessity. That's why the censor is involved; because someone needs to do this job. That's also why a censor is involved in referrals; because the situation necessitates it. It's the same rationale that I've been trying to communicate to you ad nauseam.

[PikeStance]

I don't understand what you're talking about.

I am not sure why, I have been repeating the same thing over and over again for three pages now.

Telling people that they can't stand on what you describe as "tenuous ethical grounds" amounts to telling them how they should be judging citizenship. You bolded and underlined comments by Squid and Shankbot where they call for the citizen to start afresh again. That would be telling citizens how to judge citizenship which would restrict the ability of citizens to vote as they please. What am I missing?

Well, it is tenuous because in this thread alone two different members (Shank's and Squid) both made an argument that it would be wrong to consider previous contribution. In my alternate wording such viewpoint would be irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, as it is worded now, it will be a reality you are going to have to deal with if and when the situation happens. If I was you if have two choices, you can either change the wording as I suggested and think freely, or keep as is and have to deal with people who share Squids and Shank's position.

Tell me then, when a regular member applies for citizenship, how are the censors judging behaviour? That's right, they don't do anything. Nothing at all. What they are judging is a referral. A referral isn't the same thing as citizen behaviour. You're operating from the false premise that a referral is synonymous with behaviour when it's not.

If you think I was arguing that they were synonymous then that would be a false comprehension, not false premise. I'll explain again.
Citizen A misbehaves (First Cause) > Citizen B reports misbehavior called a referral (Second cause) > Censors considers action or inaction regarding citizen A's behavior (third cause)

Please note: The color denotes what is similar. Noticed that Referrals and action and inaction are the same colors. Please also note that I underlined the citizen A. Also noticed that the word "Behavior (or misbehavior) is noted in each stage of the causal link. When you said that referrals isn't the same thing as a behavior you are right. Referrals is the report of a alleged misbehavior. It is the role of the Censor to "judge" the misbehavior. To put this another way. If I had an incident in my classroom concerning a student that warrants the involvement of the administration, I will write a Student Incident Report (e.g. Referral). The principal would read the report and decide if the student's "behavior" warrants a punishment (e.g. Action or inaction). The Principal is not judging the "report." S/he is judging the students behavior that is explained in the report.

Student misbehaves (First Cause) > Teacher (me) reports misbehavior called a Student Incident Report (Second cause) > Principals considers if action is needed regarding Student's behavior (third cause)

This is a such a circular discussion. Here, let me quote the three times I've said this in different posts in this thread:
Sigh. No, it wouldn't be logical. You want to expand their role, I get it, but there is no logical reason to expand it. As I've said multiple times now, there is a necessity for censors to exist for referrals. That's why they exist. There's no reason for them to judge someone that citizens are going to judge themselves straight after. [Are you referring to one of the many proposals?]
They were chosen because they were elected officials who had some mandate from the Curia which is markedly better than what any other citizen has to offer as mandate.
Someone is needed to take over the position of curator if one leaves. That's a necessity. That's why the censor is involved; because someone needs to do this job. That's also why a censor is involved in referrals; because the situation necessitates it.

We didn't NEED the Censors to assume the role of Curator in case of absence. We could had chosen another option, like make the Assistant Curator an elected position in which one of it's powers would be to assume the duties in case of the Curator's absence. And yes, we could argue that the expansion of the role would had been necessary.

If we were to redefine it has indefinite suspension, we could easily say it was necessary to expand the role of the Censors. After all, they can "remove" your citizenship it would seem logical that they can be the one's to decide to give it back to you. You don't want to see logic in that because you personally do not want to give the powers to the Censors (what did you say... they will abuse it). This is my only guess to why you keep throwing these incongruent arguments.

It's the same rationale that I've been trying to communicate to you ad nauseam.

Sorry, I am not finding your manufactured argument to rationalize your predisposition on the subject (as noted above) very convincing.

[Aikanár]

^False dilemma. We already can choose free, regardless of whomever might have whatever other opinion. We don't have to deal with anybody's opinion if we so choose.

[PikeStance]

Great; You went from defiance to indifference.

[M D]

I don't know if a discussion can be abandoned

[PikeStance]

Discussion has reached an end point. Unsubscribed from thread! All that could be said was said for the time being.
Regardless it won't be going to vote, so I see no point keeping it here.

Thanks to all participants!

[Genius of the Restoration]

You don't want to see logic in that because you personally do not want to give the powers to the Censors (what did you say... they will abuse it). This is my only guess to why you keep throwing these incongruent arguments.

Sorry, I am not finding your manufactured argument to rationalize your predisposition on the subject (as noted above) very convincing.

Ha, thanks for that. Classic Pike.

Yeah, I'm out. It's a waste of my time and debate doesn't go anywhere productive or nice.

[Lord William]

Just a clarification, If a citizen's rank is removed under the current system does he/she apply to the censors to regain citizenship or do they apply to the masses? if it is the ladder I must say that would highly undermine the authority of the Censors and should be changed.

with that said I am against the idea of indefinite suspension, it implies forever and nothing is forever unless nothing changes

[PikeStance]

Just a clarification, If a citizen's rank is removed under the current system does he/she apply to the censors to regain citizenship or do they apply to the masses? if it is the ladder I must say that would highly undermine the authority of the Censors and should be changed.

with that said I am against the idea of indefinite suspension, it implies forever and nothing is forever unless nothing changes

If your rank is removed under the current system, you have to apply for citizenship like everyone else. You need a sponsor and to demonstrate that you have contributed. In as discussed in the previous pages, some may even consider what you have done prior to having your rank removed, while others will not. It wouldn't undermine the authority of the Censors, because the Censors would had one their part by removing your citizenship.

I do not ge the other part. Removal of rank says you are NOT a citizen. Which means you could not be a citizen forever as well. Suspension just mean your rank is "still there" but you lose all rights and privileges until have demonstrated you are practicing the ideals of citizenship. One IS forever, until you reapply, while the other CAN BE forever, unless you are reinstated.