Questions about appeal procedure

[Sir Adrian]

Sooo umm what's the procedure here, are we allowed to pose questions and witty riddles to the Censors or do we strictly discuss the case and nothing else? And how long does this stay open?

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

The poll is open for 4 days.

I would advise treating this as if you were a Censor judging a referral, but it is simply open to every Citizen, and come to your own conclusion about the suitability of the action taken with regards to behaviour unbecoming of a Citizen. If you agree, keep the ruling, if you think it was fine behaviour overturn the ruling, and (in this case) if you think further action is needed beyond a Censure then vote to change the ruling.

I would also like to ask the Censor's who sat on this case not to partake in the appeal discussion.

[PikeStance]

The Poll closes in 4 days, so you have that long to discuss.
You can read my detailed opinion in the referral thread.

[Veteraan]

Originally Posted by Section IV, Article 1, Appeals

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If 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.

"A simple majority of non abstaining votes is required for the first vote"

I assume this means >50% of all votes and not the simply the option with most votes?
And even then, the people that participate in the second vote could differ from the ones that did so in the first vote and/or changed their mind.

[Sir Adrian]

It means option with most votes.

The poll is open for 4 days.

I would advise treating this as if you were a Censor judging a referral, but it is simply open to every Citizen, and come to your own conclusion about the suitability of the action taken with regards to behaviour unbecoming of a Citizen. If you agree, keep the ruling, if you think it was fine behaviour overturn the ruling, and (in this case) if you think further action is needed beyond a Censure then vote to change the ruling.

I would also like to ask the Censor's who sat on this case not to partake in the appeal discussion.

Ok. I was only asking since this is the first appeal under the new system so I needed some boundaries.

One more question, are votes secret like in the proth or semi-open like in the case of citizen aps? Basically am I allowed to say what I have voted?

[Veteraan]

It means option with most votes.

So that means a majority of the votes could be in favour of either overturning or keeping the ruling, but the original punishment would not be available in the second vote. That seems a bit odd to me.

Ok. I was only asking since this is the first appeal under the new system so I needed some boundaries.

One more question, are votes secret like in the proth or semi-open like in the case of citizen aps? Basically am I allowed to say what I have voted?

I says it's a public poll, and I could see who voted what. But perhaps you mean something else. I am quite new at this and may miss the point here and there.

[Sir Adrian]

I says it's a public poll, and I could see who voted what. But perhaps you mean something else. I am quite new at this and may miss the point here and there.

Oh

There isn't much point in overturning the original punishment just to issue it again. If the ruling is kept there is no second poll, the original punishment stays.

[Veteraan]

It seems I wasn't clear enough, or I simply don't understand how this works. I will try an example:

•Keep the ruling 5
•Overturn the ruling 4
•Change the ruling 6
•Abstain 3
Change the ruling wins. There are 9 people in total who voted for overturn or keep the ruling, which is no punishment or the least severe one. Those 9 are now forced to go for a more severe option or not participate at all. Such a way of voting only works well if there are only two options IMO.

I intend to vote on this case, but I don't feel comfortable voting in a process I may not fully understand.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

With regards to the poll, as a few questions have been raised, I made it a public poll like you would find in a Citizenship application (hopefully!) I can see the results anyway so could someone clarify if they can see the results a.) before voting b.) only after voting or c.) it says the results are hidden until the end of the poll.

Also, the Constitution says simply majority which too me implies the option with more than half the non-abstaining votes. I am not sure if this was intentional or not, or simply an oversight and it was meant to be plurality like for elections. However the Constitution does make the distinction between majority and plurality votes, so I'm going to assume by simple majority means more than half. Indeed for the second poll it says the option with the "highest number of votes" which is a distinction to simple majority mentioned earlier.

[Aikanár]

^Since I was the one proposing this article, I can tell you that by majority I meant: the option with the most votes. The "simple" is simply an oversight from the original proposal which used a wording which is a commonly used phrase in the TWCC.

It's plain common sense that in this context "simple majority" cannot mean 50%+1 vote, since there is no guarantee or even probability that in a vote with 4 options there would always be one which would receive 50%+1 vote.

I think it's perfectly within your remit making a minor formative change and omit the "simple" from that sentence, since it was clearly never intended to be there when I conceived the re-draft in the Curia Triumvirate Revisited amendment.

Edit: may I also suggest that the posts discussing the technicalities being moved to either their own thread in the curia main or the Townhall since they distract from the real issue at hand, which is the appeal itself.

[Ngugi]

Is this supposed to be a case were we conclude whether the ToS has been breached or not, or were we gather to act Moral Police? Because I see unpleasant signs here, that should not be made precedent.
A citizen may been rewarded citizenship completly unrelated to debate conduct, and we shall not judge a citizen different then than a non-citizen member in the matter, but simply evaluate whether the rule(s) have been broken - if to at least try to be fair and just in the duty we're offered and take upon us.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

@Aik, Fair enough, we'll go with that. I wasn't sure because whenever it means the option with the most votes the Constitution has, previously anyway, referred to it as a plurality. The distinction made me think it was intentionally meant to be a simple majority.

However I won't just change it to majority because that still means it consists of more than half the options. If plurality is what you intended (which does make more sense) then I'll either just go and change it if people are happy with that, even though it isn't exactly a MFC, or I'll propose an amendment and we'll take it through officially.

[Aikanár]

Is this supposed to be a case were we conclude whether the ToS has been breached or not, or were we gather to act Moral Police? Because I see unpleasant signs here, that should not be made precedent.
A citizen may been rewarded citizenship completly unrelated to debate conduct, and we shall not judge a citizen different then than a non-citizen member in the matter thus, but simply evaluate whether the rule(s) have been broken -if to at leats try to be fair and just.

It is about Citizen behavior. It is not about whether or not the infraction was warranted, since that is the remit of the Tribunal; and Moderation. It is not the remit of either the Citizen Triumvirate, nor of the Curia or any other curial body.

You, as a Citizen, are asked whether or not you find the action taken by the Triumvirate appropriate or not:
- if you think that what mongrel said was perfectly fine for a citizen to do: vote to overturn the decision
- if you think otherwise: vote otherwise

@Aik, Fair enough, we'll go with that. I wasn't sure because whenever it means the option with the most votes the Constitution has, previously anyway, referred to it as a plurality. The distinction made me think it was intentionally meant to be a simple majority.

However I won't just change it to majority because that still means it consists of more than half the options. If plurality is what you intended (which does make more sense) then I'll either just go and change it if people are happy with that, even though it isn't exactly a MFC, or I'll propose an amendment and we'll take it through officially.

See, plurality and majority come up with the very same translation for me, so when I say "majority of the votes" I mean "the option with the most votes cast" if that translates to plurality, then it's plurality - if it translates to majority, then it's majority - it makes no difference when I translate "Mehrheit der Stimmen" which is what I meant.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Ah okay, that is where the confusion is then - no worries, we'll go with plurality.

(and thanks for the post moving suggestion, a good idea )

[Sir Adrian]

Is this supposed to be a case were we conclude whether the ToS has been breached or not, or were we gather to act Moral Police? Because I see unpleasant signs here, that should not be made precedent.
A citizen may been rewarded citizenship completly unrelated to debate conduct, and we shall not judge a citizen different then than a non-citizen member in the matter, but simply evaluate whether the rule(s) have been broken - if to at least try to be fair and just in the duty we're offered and take upon us.

The ToS is irrelevant, that's moderation's job. We are supposed to judge whether he is line with what is expected of a citizen and if it impacts the image of citizenship on the site.

[PikeStance]

Three Points

Simple Majority means 50% +1 (The distinguishes from other forms of majority voting).
The formal term is plurality.

I see no conflict of interest for moderators or even Tribunes actively participating in the process.
A Moderator judges if a person as violated the ToS. In the appeal you are judging if the person has failed to meet the standards of citizenship. I see no conflict whatsoever. All citizens should feel that they can voice their opinion since another citizen's action reflects on them as well.

Lastly, The fact the citizen was infracted for violating the ToS should not prejudice you on deciding if the person as acted unbecoming a citizen.
Anecdote: I was being assessed on a match I was officiating. A player commits a foul in the penalty area. I ca;ed the penalty; no problem. However, was it a misconduct (caution or send- off?) I opted not to. I was asked about it after the game by the assessor. I said, I felt the calling a penalty was harsh enough. I was told that the result of the foul has nothing to do whether or not you should punish for a misconduct. If his actions warrants a caution, then you give the caution regardless if it also resulted in a penalty.

[Aikanár]

I see no conflict of interest for moderators or even Tribunes actively participating in the process.
A Moderator judges if a person as violated the ToS. In the appeal you are judging if the person has failed to meet the standards of citizenship. I see no conflict whatsoever. All citizens should feel that they can voice their opinion since another citizen's action reflects on them as well.

Well, I see it a bit different. An officially recorded ToS violation in the form of a warning (infraction) is the only formal (aside from being a registered member for such long a time and x number of posts) restriction to Citizenship. Hence why a warning is an automatic trigger for a formal process of reassessing the conduct of a citizen. A process which potentially can, in the end, even lead to the removal of Citizenship due to conduct unbecoming of a Citizen.

I think that the comparison to a court of honor is the best I can come up with, even though that comparison might not be entirely correct, it's still close enough to demonstrate why I'm of the opinion that at least the issuing Moderator, active Tribunes and Magistrates as well should better abstain in a Citizen Appeal that got triggered by a Staff Referral: in this case, the appellant is the soldier charged with the accusation X that may also trigger a civil process, the Moderator is the MP officer who caught the appellant in the act and the Tribunes and Magistrates are the judges of the civil court. You wouldn't let those people make a judgement call in a court of honors even if, say, the magistrates would qualify to be judges in the court of honor simply because they are or potentially could be involved in the process in the future (in case of an appeal to the Tribunal haven't already taken place, it still can take place anytime in the future).

So while in a Citizen Appeal there could be plenty of votes to set off for potentially biased votes of the issuing Moderator, the Tribunes or the Magistrates, I think it's still a very sensible precaution to not get involved into a Citizen Appeal if a chance of a conflict of interests exists - even if only theoretically.

Basically that's the same reason why no Moderator runs for Censor or why Moderators cannot be Magistrates and vice versa at the same time.

It's simply: probability of conflict of interest? Abstain.

But then again, that's just my opinion.

[PikeStance]

I think that the comparison to a court of honor is the best I can come up with, even though that comparison might not be entirely correct, it's still close enough to demonstrate why I'm of the opinion that at least the issuing Moderator, active Tribunes and Magistrates as well should better abstain in a Citizen Appeal that got triggered by a Staff Referral: in this case, the appellant is the soldier charged with the accusation X that may also trigger a civil process, the Moderator is the MP officer who caught the appellant in the act and the Tribunes and Magistrates are the judges of the civil court. You wouldn't let those people make a judgement call in a court of honors even if, say, the magistrates would qualify to be judges in the court of honor simply because they are or potentially could be involved in the process in the future (in case of an appeal to the Tribunal haven't already taken place, it still can take place anytime in the future).

I am not really getting the point here. Civil, Criminal and especially military courts are completely separated in the US. I do know that a soldier can face criminal charges and a dishonorable discharge in the same court preceding. In other words, he can be found innocent of a crime, but still be dishonorably discharge for the same act.

This brings up some interesting discussion points

Well, I see it a bit different. An officially recorded ToS violation in the form of a warning (infraction) is the only formal (aside from being a registered member for such long a time and x number of posts) restriction to Citizenship. Hence why a warning is an automatic trigger for a formal process of reassessing the conduct of a citizen. A process which potentially can, in the end, even lead to the removal of Citizenship due to conduct unbecoming of a Citizen.

The terms of Service is considered to be basis for which everyone should be behave. It is expected that citizens maintain a higher standard than following the ToS. However, just "how high" is a matter of debate.
It brings up some interesting points...
If a citizen received a referral for violating the ToS the moderator is responsible for submitting a staff referral;
If the citizen is guilty of violating the ToS, then he is de facto guilty of not maintaining a higher standard of conduct. Logically, the citizen is at least punishable by Censure if not worse depending on the severity of the violation.
However, are there mitigating circumstances where the citizen can be infracted, but he/she did not act unbecoming a citizen. Ithas been argued that off- topic postings are often describe as a potential exception to the rule. I, myself, thought I had found such an example. I was outvoted, so my one possible example was not considered. I guess I could had been right and the other two wrong. However let us consider something else. Let's say the citizen was infacted. If it is "accidental" or "unintentional" wouldn't the citizen appeal to either or both the moderators and Tribunal? If not, it can be argued that the citizen de facto accept that he/ she violated the ToS, and therefore could not then argue an "accidental" violation. Thinking through this, perhaps the best course of action to take, is to ignore the ToS in all cases involving citizen referrals. I honestly came to this conclusion after my fail attempt to find a mitigating circumstance. It makes more sense to ignore IF an INFRACTION was issue and only judge if the behavior/ attitude/ statement themselves are unbecoming a citizen.

In my anecdote; The first thing I judged is if a player committed a foul I do not consider a misconduct. When I consider if a player is guilty of a misconduct it is completely independent if a foul occur or not. In fact, even if a player is injured it is not a factor. Most misconduct rest on intent or negligence. The two are separate. In our case, Moderators judge if a foul had occurred. Censors judge if a misconduct had occurred. The two are separate and ought to remain so. The alternative would be to prejudice yourself to punishing a citizen unnecessarily. However, if a moderator recognize that they cannot separate the two, then they should abstain. But, they are not by the nature of their job prejudice. It is how they view each case.

Basically that's the same reason why no Moderator runs for Censor or why Moderators cannot be Magistrates and vice versa at the same time.

It's simply: probability of conflict of interest? Abstain.

But then again, that's just my opinion.

My understanding was tha moderators would be privy to information that the other Censor would not have access to. Moreover, the situation is similar to why FIFA chooses "neutral" referees. It is because the referee cannot be objective, it is because the perception may be he/ she is not being objective. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you can separate the two cases.

[Aikanár]

I am not really getting the point here. Civil, Criminal and especially military courts are completely separated in the US. I do know that a soldier can face criminal charges and a dishonorable discharge in the same court preceding. In other words, he can be found innocent of a crime, but still be dishonorably discharge for the same act.

Exactly. But you wouldn't have one and the same people make the judgement call in both cases, especially in different roles with different judgement calls.

The terms of Service is considered to be basis for which everyone should be behave. It is expected that citizens maintain a higher standard than following the ToS. However, just "how high" is a matter of debate.
It brings up some interesting points...
If a citizen received a referral for violating the ToS the moderator is responsible for submitting a staff referral;
If the citizen is guilty of violating the ToS, then he is de facto guilty of not maintaining a higher standard of conduct. Logically, the citizen is at least punishable by Censure if not worse depending on the severity of the violation.
However, are there mitigating circumstances where the citizen can be infracted, but he/she did not act unbecoming a citizen. Ithas been argued that off- topic postings are often describe as a potential exception to the rule. I, myself, thought I had found such an example. I was outvoted, so my one possible example was not considered. I guess I could had been right and the other two wrong. However let us consider something else. Let's say the citizen was infacted. If it is "accidental" or "unintentional" wouldn't the citizen appeal to either or both the moderators and Tribunal? If not, it can be argued that the citizen de facto accept that he/ she violated the ToS, and therefore could not then argue an "accidental" violation. Thinking through this, perhaps the best course of action to take, is to ignore the ToS in all cases involving citizen referrals. I honestly came to this conclusion after my fail attempt to find a mitigating circumstance. It makes more sense to ignore IF an INFRACTION was issue and only judge if the behavior/ attitude/ statement themselves are unbecoming a citizen.

The ToS is simply the trigger or, to be precise a recorded breach of it. If we would record an infraction whenever somebody (regardless of "rank") would break the ToS, we would have a very hard time.

Same with citizen referrals, the accusation is simply the trigger, it's up to the Triumvirate (or in the Appeal all of the Citizen's) to examine the case that got triggered by an accusation or an infraction against their understanding of Citizen conduct. After that, context is what matters and that one will hardly find in the infraction/accusation only.

So, yes, I agree with you in as much as that the conduct of a Citizen shouldn't be judged against the ToS but against the judges understanding and vision of what behavior becoming of a Citizen might be.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

On the other side of things at least we now know the appeal procedure needs looking at.

Indeed, for example I've come across a situation today when issuing a suspension. If the suspended Citizen wishes to make an appeal what happens? Are they allowed to re-join the Citizen's permission group in order to post in their appeal, or does it go on without them? If so that favours people who appeal a Censure as they can still post in the Curia. Or do we make it so the appellant isn't allowed to post in the appeal thread, even if they can still post in the Curia?