[VoNC] PikeStance (Censor)

[Garbarsardar]

Vote of no Confidence

At any time any Citizen of Total War Center may initiate a Vote of No Confidence against any member holding a position elected by the Curia, or in any individual who is responsible for managing some part of the site. A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority. Frivolous use of this procedure shall be considered grounds for Curial disciplinary proceedings. VoNCs are exempt from veto. A VoNC against an elected member results in that member's immediate demotion, whilst other VoNCs are non-binding. The debate and vote on a Vote of No Confidence shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Section 3, Article 3.

According to the relevant provision above it is my duty to initiate a Vote of no Confidence towards PikeStance, currently holding the rank of Censor.

1. While there is no constitutional provision that bars the Censor of participating in the public discussion of an appeal, there is the request of the Curator that Censors do not participate in appeal threads, in the interest of fairness.

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.

2. PikeStance was aware of that reasonable request; he did insert himself in the appeal thread initially for a debatable reminder of guidelines (which is not necessarily a problem) in post #21 of the appeal.

3. He has been averted again to the fact that he should not participate which he acknowledged in post #26

4. Then in post #29, he quotes the appellant and proceeds in directly replying to him.

His reply is a collage of his previous posts on the matter, which have been already linked to in the OP by the curator and were immediately accessible by everyone interested.

By quoting the appellant and reiterating (with appropriate re-formatting of his posts) his opinions, he did participate in the thread, deviating from the request of the Curator, backtracking on his promise not to do so, and subverting the principle of fairness upon which this procedure should be based.

Considering that this was the first case of appeal, and that we want to make a new start in the Curia, I think we should use this opportunity to set an example of what is expected at this level of participation.

A member who fails to adhere to a simple and reasonable request by the Curator is, in my opinion unsuitable for the function of Censor.

I propose his removal.

Thank you,
Garb.

[Sir Adrian]

Opposed.

[Aikanár]

The participation is definitely in defiance of what the Curator asked from the Censores. It's also noteworthy that the Curator is the Curial Master of Precedure. Furthermore the re-formatting does have a certain taste to it, as if Citizens could either not read Pike's postings or BIG GREEN BOLDED FONT WOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT MAGICALLY VALID FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER.

[PikeStance]

A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority. Frivolous use of this procedure shall be considered grounds for Curial disciplinary proceedings.

• I did not violated any part of the Constitution.
• I added nothing to the discussion nor did I say anything to prejudice the preceding for or against the appellant.
• Moreover, I am not even sure Censors should be barred from discussion. While I did not, I feel a Censor has as much of a right to justify his action as the appellant is free to do so him or herself.

Furthermore the re-formatting does have a certain taste to it, as if Citizens could either not read Pike's postings or BIG GREEN BOLDED FONT WOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT MAGICALLY VALID FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER.

The use of color is fashionable. I am visual person. I like colors.

[Aikanár]

• I did not violated any part of the Constitution.
• I added nothing to the discussion nor did I say anything to prejudice the preceding for or against the appellant.
• Moreover, I am not even sure Censors should be barred from discussion. While I did not, I feel a Censor has as much of a right to justify his action as the appellant is free to do so him or herself.

The use of color is fashionable. I am visual person. I like colors.

It's quite simple, the Curator moderates the Curia. Shank asked the Censores who sat on the case to not partake in the Appeal. This request is similar to a request by any other given moderator in his assigned forums. You read that. You understood that. You deliberately decided to defy that request. That's extraordinarily clear cut to me. You're an elected curial officer. It's pretty obvious that a VonC is in order.

[PikeStance]

It's quite simple, the Curator moderates the Curia. Shank asked the Censores who sat on the case to not partake in the Appeal. This request is similar to a request by any other given moderator in his assigned forums. You read that. You understood that. You deliberately decided to defy that request. That's extraordinarily clear cut to me. You're an elected curial officer. It's pretty obvious that a VonC is in order.

I acted in accordance to the Constitution and Shanks directive. I did not add anything to the discussion nor attempted to sway opinion.

[Garbarsardar]

[*]I did not violated any part of the Constitution.

1. While there is no constitutional provision that bars the Censor of participating in the public discussion of an appeal, there is the request of the Curator that Censors do not participate in appeal threads, in the interest of fairness.

---------------------------------------

[*]I added nothing to the discussion nor did I say anything to prejudice the preceding for or against the appellant.

His reply is a collage of his previous posts on the matter, which have been already linked to in the OP by the curator and were immediately accessible by everyone interested.

---------------------------------------

Moreover, I am not even sure Censors should be barred from discussion. While I did not, I feel a Censor has as much of a right to justify his action as the appellant is free to do so him or herself.

1. While there is no constitutional provision that bars the Censor of participating in the public discussion of an appeal, there is the request of the Curator that Censors do not participate in appeal threads, in the interest of fairness.

---------------------------------------

Thank you for replying to what you have not been accused of. How about addressing now the simple point of contention:

The Curator asked you not to post. He asked you not to post since he already had linked two threads in the OP. In these two threads you had ample space and time to express your opinions. And you did. Then you did not adhere to the Curator's reasonable request. And you reiterated your points directly replying to the appellant. Meaning, doing what the Curator asked you not to do. Two threads were not enough for you, you wanted your opinion plastered everywhere, as if it was possible for someone to miss it.

If you considered that the Curator's request was irrational you should have said so. You did not. Instead you went and ignored that reasonable request.

Ignoring the reasonable request of the Curator does not an appropriate Censor characterize.

[mishkin]

I acted in accordance to the Constitution and Shanks directive. I did not add anything to the discussion nor attempted to sway opinion.

Why you posted?

Edit: Brutally ninjaed

[Aikanár]

I acted in accordance to the Constitution and Shanks directive. I did not add anything to the discussion nor attempted to sway opinion.

No, you did not act in accordance to the Constitution and the Curator's request.

This was the Curator's request:

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.

I neglect your next posting in the Appeal due to the time stamp. But your postings after that are in direct defyiance of what the Curator requested you to do.

Do not partake in the appeal discussion. What's difficult with this request to understand?

Also, you did re-fromatt your postings. The postings of you that you quoted are signiffically changed the format of particular sentences to what purpose? To make them less readable?

As for the Constitution, while the TWCC does not excempt Censores from Appeals per se, it is pretty clear about who moderates the Curia. The Curator. He also is by tradition master of procedure and by the TWCC too, btw, he is the Curia's administrator and manages the day-to-day activities.

There is no way around you defying a request made by the highest elected curial officer, the moderator of the Curia. This casts a huge shadow of doubt on whether or not you're suited for the office of Censor. Hence the vote.

[Halie Satanus]

Much as I want the new post CdeC system to work it also has to be seen to work. With that in mind I can't see any defence for doing the equivalent of stamping your foot and screaming..

Pike I tried to warn you in that thread but you are prone to hubris.

[PikeStance]

Thank you for replying to what you have not been accused of. How about addressing now the simple point of contention:
The Curator asked you not to post. He asked you not to post since he already had linked two threads in the OP. In these two threads you had ample space and time to express your opinions. And you did. Then you did not adhere to the Curator's reasonable request. And you reiterated your points directly replying to the appellant. Meaning, doing what the Curator asked you not to do. Two threads were not enough for you, you wanted your opinion plastered everywhere, as if it was possible for someone to miss it.

I did respond

I acted in accordance to the Constitution and Shanks directive. I did not add anything to the discussion nor attempted to sway opinion.

If you considered that the Curator's request was irrational .

I think there is a difference between what I understood and what you understood.

Why you posted?

A statement was made that was incorrect. I re-posted my comment to show it was incorrect. I didn't add any comment that was already stated.

[mishkin]

Pike, from my point of view, you were told you should not participate and your presence was not crucial.

[PikeStance]

No, you did not act in accordance to the Constitution and the Curator's request.

This was the Curator's request:
I neglect your next posting in the Appeal due to the time stamp. But your postings after that are in direct defyiance of what the Curator requested you to do.
Do not partake in the appeal discussion. What's difficult with this request to understand?

I did not particpate! I offered guidelines. Then reposted my comments.
Moreover, there is nothing prohibiting me from posting in the thread or participating. If you ant to argue that I did not follow the Curator's directive that is one thing. For you to say I violated the Constitution; that is plain dishonest statement.

Also, you did re-fromatt your postings. The postings of you that you quoted are signiffically changed the format of particular sentences to what purpose? To make them less readable?

I didn't not reformt nor added to it. I bold the relevant statements.

There is no way around you defying a request made by the highest elected curial officer, the moderator of the Curia. This casts a huge shadow of doubt on whether or not you're suited for the office of Censor. Hence the vote.

Shanks will find no greater supporter than myself.

Much as I want the new post CdeC system to work it also has to be seen to work. With that in mind I can't see any defence for doing the equivalent of stamping your foot and screaming..
Pike I tried to warn you in that thread but you are prone to hubris.

A post about guidelines to help my fellow citizens to decide on the fate of the citizen is "stomping my foot' Hardly, I was fine with any decision made. If you read my opinion, you can tell I was on the border of dismissal and censure. There wasn;t a decision the Curia can make that I would had objected to. Which brings me to my second post. A false statement was made. I simply made sure people knew what the Censors based their decision on.

I said this once, I say it a 1000 times. I do not have an ego. Yes, not even in real life.

[PikeStance]

Pike, from my point of view, you were told you should not participate and your presence was not crucial.

I do not feel I acted inappropriately. However, if the Curia feels that I acted inappropriately, then I will apologize and go.

[mishkin]

I do not feel I acted inappropriately. However, if the Curia feels that I acted inappropriately, then I will apologize and go.

Do not give up so soon. As usual ( ) , I still do not understand your position

[Halie Satanus]

A post about guidelines to help my fellow citizens to decide on the fate of the citizen is "stomping my foot' Hardly, I was fine with any decision made. If you read my opinion, you can tell I was on the border of dismissal and censure. There wasn;t a decision the Curia can make that I would had objected to. Which brings me to my second post. A false statement was made. I simply made sure people knew what the Censors based their decision on.

I said this once, I say it a 1000 times. I do not have an ego. Yes, not even in real life.

You really don't understand how you're being perceived here.

[Ybbon]

Sorry, but it is simple. You were asked not to participate, it doesn't really matter how benign your intent, your intent was wrong. That is the issue. If you disagreed with a statement made you could have asked Shanks to put your point of view.

[Aikanár]

I did not particpate! I offered guidelines. Then reposted my comments.
Moreover, there is nothing prohibiting me from posting in the thread or participating. If you ant to argue that I did not follow the Curator's directive that is one thing. For you to say I violated the Constitution; that is plain dishonest statement.

Then you and I (and others too) seem to have a very different understanding of what "do not participate" means. To me, and obviously to others too, it means: do not post.

And no, I'm not being dishonest. Simply because you don't happen to like the consequences of not following the request of the Curator doesn't make what I said about the Constitution and the Curator's role not true. Nor does it make my statement dishonest.

I didn't not reformt nor added to it. I bold the relevant statements.

Again, the two of us seem to have a very different understanding of the meaning of the word "format" and "refromat". If you change the format of a post, f.e. by emphasising particular parts of it by bolding or color, that format differes from the original format of the post. The process of applying those changes to the format of the post is called "re-formatting". Why did you do that? Your statement was already availabe in the Referral and Further Action threads. There was 0 (zero) need to put any emphasis on that. Also you was asked not to post there. So why did you not follow this request? If you felt your statements would not be accessible or readable or what not you could have easily asked the curator via pm or in the townhall or even in CT quarters for permission to post. Simple. No big deal. You did not.

Shanks will find no greater supporter than myself.

It is not about support. It is about the system and procedure.

It is important to ensure an as unbiased and as fair public appeal to any given appellant as we can assure. And it is as much important that this is to be seen that way. What you did was:
- defying a request made by the curator not to participate
- posting post already readily available with alterations to the format in a way that highlighted your opinion.
what do you think how that reflects on the due process of the appeal? Or on the process of the referrals?

Its publicly visible that one of the judges does not care for a reasonable request. In contrary he defies that request and even emphasises his opinion. What are we supposed to expect from such a judge in closed quarters if he already acts in such a way in the open?

Pike, it is not about you as a person. It is all about due procedure and a fair appeal.

I hope you can get where I'm coming from. From the exact same direction that made me abstain from this appeal.

[Halie Satanus]

Sorry, but it is simple. You were asked not to participate, it doesn't really matter how benign your intent, your intent was wrong. That is the issue. If you disagreed with a statement made you could have asked Shanks to put your point of view.

Or, since the post was directed at Mongrel, sent it to him via PM.

What was the intent of posting information already available again, and in big bold and coloured letters if not to enforce the censors decision.. Maybe Pike thinks the rest of the curia needs to be spoon fed so it makes the 'right' choice.

At best it was disrespectful of the curia and the curator. At worst it was attempting to manipulate the curia's review of the appeal. Deliberately or unwittingly I'm not sure which is worse.

[PikeStance]

Do not give up so soon. As usual ( ) , I still do not understand your position

First Post: I offered a guideline to be helpful. Shanks specifically stated he didn't have a problem with it
Second Post: I reposted my statement to show the basis of by decision. A post was made that specifically stated I said the opposite of what I had stated. I offered no new statement/ opinion or testimony.

You really don't understand how you're being perceived here.

Yes, you seem to be under the impression I wanted the Curia to vote as I did. When in fact, I inferred in my opinion that I was on the fence for dismissal or Censure. There wasn't a result that would had bothered me in the least.