Questions about appeal procedure

[Halie Satanus]

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?

I would lean towards the defendant being allowed to nominate a defender from the citizenry. If no defender can be found the curator could appoint one from a list of citizens who had previously agreed to serve that role if required.

I like court room dramas though so might be over doing it a bit..

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

6 months from now those defenders are going to be elected officials, I can just see it now.

[Halie Satanus]

If the censors decided on suspension I'd imagine an appeal is unlikely.

At least it was yesterday..

[Veteraan]

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?

Why not simply suspend the suspension and let it start after the appeal has run it's course. Unless the appeal was successful.
That would be a simple solution and things here are already complicated enouhg in my view at least.

[Sir Adrian]

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?

Give the suspended citizen a set amount of time in which to appeal, issue the suspension only after that time expires and beforer issuing give him one final chance to appeal. If he appeals issue the suspension only after it fails (if it fails). Done.

Appellants should not be allowed to post in the thread at all beyond an initial defense post, nor should any person post in their behalf. If they post the appeal is forfeit. Similarly censors have the right to post an initial viewpoint if they wish and any further posts, regarding anything result in immediate VonC. That way you get no more scandals, no more gaming the system and assaulting officials to get people off the hook, no more lame-ass AF jokes.

[Aikanár]

Give the suspended citizen a set amount of time in which to appeal, issue the suspension only after that time expires and beforer issuing give him one final chance to appeal. If he appeals issue the suspension only after it fails (if it fails). Done.

Appellants should not be allowed to post in the thread at all beyond an initial defense post, nor should any person post in their behalf. If they post the appeal is forfeit. Similarly censors have the right to post an initial viewpoint if they wish and any further posts, regarding anything result in immediate VonC. That way you get no more scandals, no more gaming the system and assaulting officials to get people off the hook, no more lame-ass AF jokes.

I disagree with that.

Why would Censores (or the Curator for that matter if he would have broken the tie), who have already provided their reasoning in the initial Referral and the Further Action thread should be allowed to re-iterate their opinion again? If they have made up their mind and come to a decision, that decision is posted. What else would there be for them to be posted. The only reason I can see why Censores could be allowed to post in the Appeal would be if they changed their mind. But if they have changed their mind from when their decision got made to the point where the Appeal starts, that begs the questions why they made their decision in the first place.

I'm of the opinion that in order to provide the Appellant with an as fair and as impartial procedure as possible, no citizen that was involved in the referral (that includes the citizen referring him or the moderator issuing the infraction) should be allowed to partake in that Appeal.

As for the Appellant, he should be allowed to make his case and post as much as he wants. It is his behavior, we're judging. It is his citizenship, that's on the line. It's only fair to enable him to fight for that.

Also, there should be, as it is now, no time limit to appeals. We don't have time limits to Tribunal or Praetorium appeals and the public appeal system of referrals was not conceived with a time limit in mind. There's also no real need to make it overly complicated. Enforce the judgement. If the Appellant wants to appeal while he is suspended he can easily be re-admitted access to the citizen user group for these 4 days which then can be added to the end date of the suspension of which the Curator needs to keep track anyways.

[Sir Adrian]

And then we will have a repeat of what happened in the last appeal where somebody posts ******** to sway opinion in their favor and censors can't reply because they have no right to post. Either both should have the right to post or none at all, you are not just examining the behavior of the appellant but also the judgement of the censors, and silencing one but giving full range to the other will always allow for abuses.

[Aikanár]

And then we will have a repeat of what happened in the last appeal where somebody posts ******** to sway opinion in their favor and censors can't reply because they have no right to post. Either both should have the right to post or none at all, you are not just examining the behavior of the appellant but also the judgement of the censors, and silencing one but giving full range to the other will always allow for abuses.

The Censores can always comment in the Townhall. That is absolutely fair game. In fact that was even common practice for Patrons to comment on ongoing Citizen Applications in which there were forbidden to post themselves. I don't see any difference. If Censores feel challanged, post there, it's a comment thread.

[Sir Adrian]

I see your point but how many people who vote in an appeal will actually check the thread. Jokes are jokes but somebody could really use this to manipulate the system, particularly if its someone popular. We've had many discussions about transparency in the tribunal, here you have an opportunity to see precisely what the censor was thinking, and why, especially if they're not particularly verbose., why not take it.

Where is the damage in allowing censors to post? They have no stake in what the outcome is, and if they do it means that thier original judgement was flawed by personal preference and should have recused themselves.

[Aikanár]

I see your point but how many people who vote in an appeal will actually check the thread. Jokes are jokes but somebody could really use this to manipulate the system, particularly if its someone popular. We've had many discussions about transparency in the tribunal, here you have an opportunity to see precisely what the censor was thinking, and why, especially if they're not particularly verbose., why not take it.

Where is the damage in allowing censors to post? They have no stake in what the outcome is, and if they do it means that thier original judgement was flawed by personal preference and should have recused themselves.

I too see your point and have to think about that. Good exchange.

[PikeStance]

There are three routes to be taken
1- Neither the Censors or the Appellant can participate.
2- Both the Censors and Appellant free participation.
3- Censors and the Appellant have limited participating clarifying their POV/ defense upon questioning.

The first route is the easiest to implement. The second is also easier to implement. However, argument that the Censors already made their opinion is valid. However, allowing the appellant a level of participation denied in the referral process seems uneven. Limited participation seems the best route to go IMHO. However, I would argue for this opportunity in the referral process. In the past, I advocated that referred citizens ought to be able to view the discussion and be available to answer questions to create a more fair and transparent system. If this is not feasible in the referral process, it is something we should consider in the appellant process.

While in deliberation, I had to weigh the question of dismissal or censure. I opted on censuring. During the discussion, with the appellant explaining his defense more vigorously and effectively, I started to reconsider. The important distinction is in the appeal process you have something we did not and perhaps should have. I do not think you can argue that our logic is faulty.

[Lord William]

If we are to have an appeal system, I think we should increase the amount of censors to 3 so that the curator could stay impartial and should a appellant feel he has been wrong he may appeal to the curator to which he may grant or deny the appeal. the system we have now (from my understanding of it) any member can ask for an appeal, what is to stop everyone from appealing? and if everyone appealing is acceptable than what is the point of censors?

[Genius of the Restoration]

Keep their citizenship until the appeal is over.

[Halie Satanus]

There are three routes to be taken
1- Neither the Censors or the Appellant can participate.
2- Both the Censors and Appellant free participation.
3- Censors and the Appellant have limited participating clarifying their POV/ defense upon questioning.

Once the censors have made an assessment and ruling that is the end of their role. We shouldn't have defendants and censors arguing in an appeal. The only question should be whether the defendant should be allowed to argue their case beyond an OP.

If we are to have an appeal system, I think we should increase the amount of censors to 3 so that the curator could stay impartial and should a appellant feel he has been wrong he may appeal to the curator to which he may grant or deny the appeal. the system we have now (from my understanding of it) any member can ask for an appeal, what is to stop everyone from appealing? and if everyone appealing is acceptable than what is the point of censors?

I would invite everyone to appeal if they feel they have a case. Those who chose to go to the curia without a case should get short thrift.

[PikeStance]

There are three routes to be taken
1- Neither the Censors or the Appellant can participate.
2- Both the Censors and Appellant free participation.
3- Censors and the Appellant have limited participating clarifying their POV/ defense upon questioning. .

Once the censors have made an assessment and ruling that is the end of their role. We shouldn't have defendants and censors arguing in an appeal. The only question should be whether the defendant should be allowed to argue their case beyond an OP.

I suggest we choose option 1. The appellant doesn't need a defense because it is already in the referral.
The Curia should have the same information as the Censors.

We should try this and see how it works. If it proves to be inadequate, then it would apparent and easier to change.

Based on previous stated opinions, this seems to be where most people sentiment rest.

[Halie Satanus]

I'm not so sure.

It's the only way any sort of system can be taken seriously. The Censor has already done his job formerly- the appeal is to a separate group (the other citizens). Much like a junior moderator in the same straits, it's not now for the Censors to participate in any manner in the appeal thread. It's like taking your case to the court of appeals- you wouldn't get the same judge sitting- so it is here.

The appellant of course CAN post and make their case- it's their appeal, and their right to a defense to now convince the citizen body they've been unfairly treated and indeed this will include them launching attacks on the reasoning and thought process behind the Censors decision and the way/reasons they made the decision. The Censor though must and should just 'take it'- they've done their job. It's not personal and much like in other areas of the site it's bad form (and indeed in this case brings into question the 'fairness' of an appeal) for the prior censor/judge/active moderator/whatever to then post in response or engage directly. It's not their place to be.

If you don't do it this way- what's the point of having such a system? This is the only way for it be fair and impartial. Think of it as the rl 'High Court' (with the Censors) and then the secondary 'Court of Appeals' or even EU 'Court of Human rights' for the appeal- the two shall never meet and the latter may overturn the former, who must remain removed from the process of discussion.

Agreed.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I'm not so sure.



Agreed.

I'm agreed with what the dashing chap above re-posted from that fine chap. (Thanks i'm awful at finding my way around here...). But that's the point i wanted to raise. As a general comment about this system we've implemented as i see it- i'm struggling to see why it's such a key contention about if 'Censors' can't talk then the appellant shouldn't be able to either. It doesn't make sense guys. I assume the appeal is meant to be a separate and 'new' process? (Otherwise again, what's the point it'll be clouded in the miasma of the former ruling and discussion). In this new process- the Citizen body at large are now a new board of Censors looking at the appellants case- as such the appellant MUST be allowed to post extensively their point- questioning the Censors and their decisions is integral to this, and yes it's going to very likely be passive aggressive, but in work ethic i see the Censor position as being the equivalent to our Tribunes, Magistrates and indeed Moderators. In many theoretical examples here- You will get some abuse or feel your under attack, and you won't be allowed to respond, you just have to deal with it chaps.

[PikeStance]

ADDENDUM

The appellant should be allowed to post in these exceptions
If in his referral he failed to provide a defense in his referral, he will be allowed an opportunity to do so.
If he felt the Censors failed to understand his original defense, then he would be able to write a clarifying defense. (Not a new defense, but a clarification on misunderstood points)

I would prohibit any active participation in the thread.

I also think this cold be a good place to add an additional procedure to the referral process.
Give permission for any referred citizen to view the discussion and the ability of the Censors to asked additional questions. This is similar to what we have in the Tribunal. I see no reason why this cannot technically be done in the Triumvirate.

[Halie Satanus]

I'm agreed with what the dashing chap above re-posted from that fine chap. (Thanks i'm awful at finding my way around here...). But that's the point i wanted to raise, i'm struggling to see why it's such a key contention about if 'Censors' can't talk then the appellant shouldn't be able to either. It doesn't make sense guys. I assume the appeal is meant to be a separate and 'new' process? (Otherwise again, what's the point it'll be clouded in the miasma of the former ruling and discussion). In this new process- the Citizen body at large are now a new board of Censors looking at the appellants case- as such the appellant MUST be allowed to post extensively their point- questioning the Censors and their decisions is integral to this, and yes it's going to very likely be passive aggressive, but in work ethic i see the Censor position as being the equivalent to our Tribunes, Magistrates and indeed Moderators. You will get some abuse or feel your under attack, and you won't be allowed to respond, you just have to deal with it chaps.

No problem..

You've absolutely explained that position as I see it. People work hard for the awards that come with citizenship and should have the right [sic] to argue their case.

[PikeStance]

No problem..

You've absolutely explained that position as I see it. People work hard for the awards that come with citizenship and should have the right [sic] to argue their case.

The point is valid in the case of a removal of rank. A more vigorous defense would seem appropriate. Should they be two different procedures for "suspension" and "removal"???