The Age of Aquarius: Seriatim [Discussion of the Triumvirate System]

[PikeStance]

Age of Aquarius: Seritim
[Discussion of the triumvirate system and the Purpose and role of the Curia]

Age of Aquarius

OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE:
For the discussion of creating a more responsive, transparent and productive Curia. The issues to be discussed are as follows, but are not limited to;

• The removal of the Censors positions (aka Triumvirate) thus ending the referral system
• The creation of two additional "Curators" replacing the current "Curator's Assistants" system, as well as, the removal of the referral system.
• Redefining the purpose and role the Curia should and ought to play on TWC forums.

REMINDER: This is not a proposal thread. Any views expressed in the OP are suggestions for "talking points." You are invited to add your opinion. You are welcome to make a proposal on any idea discussed here.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. Are Censors necessary for citizen referrals or discipline

2. With he continuing expansion of the responsibilities of the Curator is it time to consider creating more administrative "officers" of the Curia?
3. What is the role of Curia? To what purpose does it serve the Citizens?

Please read the inspiration for this thread here

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Curial Election Commentary Thread

Really though, the whole disciplinary process needs changing, or at least, tweaking. I'm not entirely sure why the Curia can't just make the decision every time anyways. I don't get the point of the censure system and suspended citizenship. Oh someone's done this that's not citizenship worthy, let's send them a fairly pointless censure PM. Oh someone's done this, let's pointlessly suspend rank for 2 weeks - invariably with at least a few days to get the suspension sorted anyway. I don't know why we can't trust citizens to act fairly reasonable, and then simply throw them out with a classic removal of rank/ostrakon Curial vote if they go too over the top. Maybe even combine that with a rule that anyone with an active moderation point, can't have their citizenship rights until the point expires. Ostrakons always got the job done and made things interesting nay? Adds a bit of spice, some shenanigans. Lovely word that...shenanigans.

Maybe if the system was like that, the Triumvirate could be turned into having three Curator's. There's lot's of stuff to be done as Curator if I remember correctly and then you've got three meaty roles to run for, instead of one meaty role, and two roles for censuring people now and then. You could even throw in patronizing a minimum number of people per Curator post into the mix. Something like that. I'm thinking on the fly to be honest - some minor tweaks to plug loopholes would be nice at least.

I agree to certain degree. I would rather have a system where their is some prevention in place before we get to the point of discussing a removal of rank.
Personally, I think suspensions should be done away with as well as the censure. I would like to see probation instead. On occasion, disciplined citizens would choose not to be citizens or refuse to display their badge out of protest. While these decisions are rare, they still happen. Of course a probationary period has its own perils. What happens when someone fail to change?

The next step would be removal of rank or a suspension. If the behavior is really egregious, then removal would most likely be decided. If not, then a suspension (a month or 2 months).

The advantage of the system is for a probation they would be no appeal. If the citizen is given a referral while in probation, then the Censors decide to dismiss or proceed to the next step. The Curia as a committee of the whole then decides to dismiss or proceed further. (without Censor participation). If they agreed with the Censors, then the Curial then debate suspension or removal. (with Censors participation)

Not sure, I am just brain storming here.

Been saying that for years but the CdeC gave people a sense of power, difficult to let go of.

We can simply make it so, scratch the entire disciplinary procedure, make staff and citizen referrals before the curia and make the only thing that's up for decision ostrakon.

I like the idea of the auto-suspension of all citizen rights when you receive an infraction. I also like the idea of public referrals with simply one choice: removal of rank.

Three Curators and no CA's sounds like fun, too. Also there really would be plenty of things to do, including Curial Articles and Curial Blogs. Why wait until the reports when a Bill is discussed or passed? Make it an article. Blog or article a citizen app. Blog forum magnum committees like the recent Modding Awards 2013 ... and so on. Lots and lots of stuff that can be done, enough work for three curial administrators - and you wouldn't even have to change the name of the beast, simply change its purpose ^^

Personally I am also quite fond of keeping things as simple as possible. Usually real life interferes before that can be achieved, or it does so in a sneaky way by gradually making things more complex from the moment a procedure has been agreed upon.
Would that be removal of rank for a period depending on what the good Citizens think is appropriate or do you really mean one simple choice?

Ostrakon was basically the curia dragging it's dirty laundry out into the open for all to see (they were pretty dam entertaining though....). Whether such a system would work now, I don't think so. Too many citizens ingrained with the CdeC system of secrecy and privacy which the censor system continues.

Some oldies, just so you know what exactly you're proposing here....

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-and-or-censor

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Atheist-Peace

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-of-Simetrical

I can think of several scenarios where that would not work well.

One choice only, or to be precise, two: 1 removal of rank, 2 dismiss the case.
If you have an auto-suspension as long as the points are open (an infraction expires after 3 months), you always have that one covered. The only thing all citizens then would have to judge would be whether or not the automated admonishment was sufficient or not and if not, well, then: removal of rank.

All minor off topic infractions which just get dismissed anyway, minor censor bypass infractions in the TD, borderline infractions where one moderator would have infracted while another would not, all situations when the moderator is wrong or simply overzealous (not everybody goes to the trib or knows about it), tribunal cases which drag on and on due to various reasons (rare but they happen) or every single infraction issued by a non-citizen moderator (i don't have a problem with this last one but a lot of people, including pre-moderator Aik, do).

Basically:
"ohai, you posted a Polandball comic after a thread warning and you forgot to censor a tiny in the corner of the last panel, here let me take your posting rights for 2 weeks until your 1 infraction point expires" (somebody really did get infracted for that btw).

Replacing referrals with auto-suspension is not a practical idea.

Referrals are usually put on hold while an infraction is appealed, the same procedure could be used here.

As for the infractions you consider borderline or not so severe, well that would then be up for discussion and vote to all citizens. What would be bad with leaving the judgement to all interested citizens rather than 2 (sometimes 3) elected and the permanent non-voting seats of the CT?

Edit1:
Lets look at this from the 1pointer off-topic, you mentioned. It would come up for discussion with the infraction and a three month suspension already applied, I really have a very hard time imagining me voting yes in such a case - although it of course always comes down to context, so it's still a bit tricky for me to make a generalized statement. :/

Edit2:
Context? Aik has said so many things, Aik needs context.

Well then he comes with this infraction and an auto-suspension to the removal of rank discussion. Don't see me voting yes in this case. Would you?

How is something that is put in place automatically not practical?

As a serving censor i do not think that every infraction should result in autosuspension. Most of the infractions we recieve(mostly off topic posting) result in a censure. And honestly if someone wrote a minor personal remark about someone and got a 1 pointer he shouldnt get his citizenship publicly suspended.

Here in lies the crux of the issue. When Ostrakon was the rule of law the kind of behavior that would get you a censure these days wouldn't have been seen as worthy of any curia action. By and large the only way you'd come before the curia is if that behavior was consistent over time. Censure came before the CdeC and started to be used to settle petty disputes. Then the CdeC was created to hide citizen referrals and stem the tide of those disputes, at least publicly. But all that really did was give those disputes a mechanism to be settled in a more insidious manner.

What you have to bare in mind is should we revert to the original system we have to rely on the same safeguard as we did back then. That citizens would be too embarrassed to have their poor behavior held up to curial and public scrutiny. Of course that never stopped those who went postal. But then no system is going to stop that.

Ostrakon could indeed work. But automatic referrals wouldnt.(unless they were for multiple point infractions, but even there the distinctions are hard)

---

THE FOLLOWING ARE DISCUSSION POINTS ONLY. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON AND ELABORATE AS NEEDED.

PIKE'S Talking Points

CITIZEN REFERRAL PROCEDURE I would be for any system that is more transparent. I advocated a system similar to the tribunal, so that the referred citizen could at least argue his points more vigorously and be available for further questions. However, the whole system is like pouring salt on the wound. No one likes to suffer consequences for a post. Anyone who has ever issued an infraction knows what I mean. If you add a Censure or a suspension of rank and you exacerbate the entire situation. If you act on the premise that citizens are expected to behave "above the ToS" then logically, any infraction should receive some form of admonishment. This argument isn't given if you consider the most recent case an uncontested infraction and a fair number of citizens thought no additional action was needed. Ironically, the arguments presented would had best been suited for the Tribunal, but no appeal was ever made. Let's ask some questions What exactly are we asking Censors to do? They judge whether or not a citizen acted unbecoming a citizen. If citizens are suppose to adhere to the ToS (be model members) then by nature they should never violate the ToS. The consequence should be a given, especially if it is a probation. If the behavior was incidental, then probation still makes since given they shouldn't have another "technical violation. What about the standards above other members. 1. This would have to be initiated by citizen. 2. what exactly are those limits? Moderators receive training and there is a place where they could discuss various issues relating to the "enforcement" of the ToS. Citizens are not given training and only rely on a plethora of opinions on what the standards are. They make a referral and two other citizens then decide if it has merit. If the referred citizen does not like the decision, then the drama continues in the appeal before the whole Curia. I will get to the drama issue later, but we would all be better serve having a more automatic system. As I mentioned above, I am not in favor of an automatic suspension. I would be in favor of a probationary period. And if, the citizen commits another ToS, then I might be in favor. In effect, I suggest a compromise. A ToS violation results in a Censure with a one month probation period. If the citizen commits another ToS'able offense, then a 1 month suspension. This has the safeguard against "minor" and "incidental" ToS violation that DS fears, but an increase of punishment advocated by others. We can even create a gradual system as well. A second probation violation would be 2 months suspension, then 4 months suspension. Something like this could work really well. It could look something like this,... Probation System As for probation period, the easiest way to handle it is to base it on the points given for the infraction. Infractions range from 1- 12 points. 1-2 > 2 weeks probation 3-6 > 1 month probation 8-12> 2 Months probation Three probation in one year> 1 month supension Violation of probation (any length) 1 month suspension 3 Suspension> Curia Vote Membership Suspension > Curia Vote Curia Vote First Vote -Dismiss (the three suspension could be over a long period of time) -Further Action Second Vote -"X" months suspension -Removal of Rank 2/3 vote in favor of removal with a quorum with a % of active citizens. If no quorum requirement, then I would prefer 3/4 votes in favor to ensure it is the will of the Curia. CURIA TRIUMVIRATE Three Curators. It has been suggested more than once (including from me) that CA's be elected. I was told that the Curator needed someone they could trust and could work with. I agree there is more than enough work. If elected, should they be elected for specific task? Or, do they self- assign themselves. I prefer the first option with safeguards in place in case one cannot perform their elected responsibilities. I think the system may work best if; They have their own title and responsibilities being the sole "judge" for their respective areas. In the event one cannot perform his or her responsibilities, then the we can establish a process. Less complicated the better. To promote discussion... I Offer Curator Responsible General Curia Affairs Supervise all proposals to the Constitution Supervise all ideas and proposals to the site Maintain the Constitution Organize elections for Praetura Maintaining and posting in Curia blog and wiki Censor Responsible for Citizenship Affairs Citizenship application Maintains a list of Citizens Citizen Referrals Supervise the Qaestiones Perpetuae subforum Praetura Responsible for awards and special tasks Moderate all proposals for large awards Organize site and modding awards Administers elections for Magistrates and Censor and Curator. Organize/ administer special tasks (e.g. tagging)

---

There it is..... feedback,... comments,.... thoughts,....

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

After reading all that I don't feel too passionate either way. I think the current system works. I think the proposed system could work. I don't really have any strong opinions on these issues at the moment, so I'll sit this one out for the time being.

[Aikanár]

@Referrals:
I could imagine some sort of a combination of probation and auto-suspension. The technicalities would have to be discussed, out of the blue 1st recorded (note/infraction) moderation action = citizen behavior on probation, 2nd recorded moderation action = suspension for as long as this moderation action is active (infraction) or if it's a note for three months (the time that an infraction takes to expire).

I can imagine that being independent of all possible curial procedures.

As for curial procedures, I'd really be in favor to have all citizens have a say in that kind of procedure. We do decide who will join our ranks, why not have a say in who is cast out. We don't need to have this viewable outside of citizens, we could have that though - no preference there. I would be in favor of having simply two options: dismiss the case and removal of rank.

@Curator / Citizen Triumvirate

I was against elected CA's because the role of CA is specific, he's the Curators worker and has to follow his orders by the letter. However, I don't see that issue with more than one Curator because I don't see the additional Curators in the role of CA's but as a peer to the former single Curator. I think the name Triumvirate well, nomen est omen, eh? I wouldn't necessarily be in favor of fixed departments, simply because of the relatively low number of curial participants atm and the number of people who apply for a position right now. I'd say make three positions with same powers and have them sort it out among themselves in the politia. I mean, what's the worst thing that could happen? Drama. Well drama is a good traffic creator

[PikeStance]

@Referrals:
I could imagine some sort of a combination of probation and auto-suspension. The technicalities would have to be discussed, out of the blue 1st recorded (note/infraction) moderation action = citizen behavior on probation, 2nd recorded moderation action = suspension for as long as this moderation action is active (infraction) or if it's a note for three months (the time that an infraction takes to expire).
I can imagine that being independent of all possible curial procedures.

As for curial procedures, I'd really be in favor to have all citizens have a say in that kind of procedure. We do decide who will join our ranks, why not have a say in who is cast out. We don't need to have this viewable outside of citizens, we could have that though - no preference there. I would be in favor of having simply two options: dismiss the case and removal of rank.

Just to elaborate, or perhaps belabor, but wait, I added something

What exactly are we asking Censors to do? They judge whether or not a citizen acted unbecoming a citizen. If citizens are suppose to adhere to the ToS (be model members) then by nature they should never violate the ToS. The consequence should be a given, especially if it is a probation. If the behavior was incidental, then probation still makes since given they shouldn't have another "technical violation.

What about the standards above other members. 1. This would have to be initiated by citizen. 2. what exactly are those limits? Moderators receive training and there is a place where they could discuss various issues relating to the "enforcement" of the ToS. Citizens are not given training and only rely on a plethora of opinions on what the standards are. They make a referral and two other citizens then decide if it has merit. If the referred citizen does not like the decision, then the drama continues in the appeal before the whole Curia. I will get to the drama issue later, but we would all be better serve having a more automatic system.

Probation System

As for probation period, the easiest way to handle it is to base it on the points given for the infraction. Infractions range from 1- 12 points.
1-2 > 2 weeks probation
3-6 > 1 month probation
8-12> 2 Months probation

Three probation in one year> 1 month supension
Violation of probation (any length) 1 month suspension
3 Suspension> Curia Vote

Membership Suspension > Curia Vote

Curia Vote

First Vote

-Dismiss (the three suspension could be over a long period of time)
-Further Action

Second Vote

-"X" months suspension
-Removal of Rank

2/3 vote in favor of removal with a quorum with a % of active citizens.
If no quorum requirement, then I would prefer 3/4 votes in favor to ensure it is the will of the Curia.

@Curator / Citizen Triumvirate

I was against elected CA's because the role of CA is specific, he's the Curators worker and has to follow his orders by the letter. However, I don't see that issue with more than one Curator because I don't see the additional Curators in the role of CA's but as a peer to the former single Curator. I think the name Triumvirate well, nomen est omen, eh? I wouldn't necessarily be in favor of fixed departments, simply because of the relatively low number of curial participants atm and the number of people who apply for a position right now. I'd say make three positions with same powers and have them sort it out among themselves in the politia. I mean, what's the worst thing that could happen? Drama. Well drama is a good traffic creator

I do not think this is best course to take,...

Let me adress the "drama" issue. IMHO, the Curia would be better serve if it had one post made by 80 members than 4 posts by 20 members. Drama is not increase activity it is a wasted effort. It is self- defeating. You can't expect anyone to feel like the Curia is worth their time if the only time its worth noticing is when there is drama. I do not think a debate over responsibilities is productive. I would prefer that my elected administrators (or any admin) to spend their time doing the task assigned than waste time in a "pissing contest." This forum is a source of recreation. Real life takes precedence (or at least I hope it does). The limited time you have to spend on leisure shouldn't be used fighting over who does what, but ding that "what." Real life drama sucks, especially when you are the wrong end of it. To want to bring it to a place of recreation is plain crazy.

Anyway, I do not know how best to split the responsbilities. I am sure there are better ways to do it. I am sure I would not want them to fight over it either. To put it another way, I group functions best when they have assigned task to perform. If you put people together without it, then there are wasted energy and time determining how best to proceed. It is not the most efficient way of doing anything.

[Aikanár]

^Yes. Good points there Pike all along. Food for thought, cheers taking the time for this reply

[PikeStance]

Thanks,...

Another benefit of the changes would be to allow Moderators to be apart of the Curia. Since none fo the positions would be a conflict of interest, they would be open to all, except of course the Magistrates.
Possible addition of a position

Prefect: Curia Moderator- responsible for moderating the Curia. Citizens should be above the ToS at all time, so they may be little reasoning for this. However, on occasions, we certainly could use better "politeness" in the Curia. A Moderator could be appointed by the Curator, elected, or rotate among interested moderators. You would obviously be required to be a Moderator to hold the position.

Just an idea!

[Aikanár]

Now I have a few minutes to address this a bit more in detail:

Probation System

As for probation period, the easiest way to handle it is to base it on the points given for the infraction. Infractions range from 1- 12 points.
1-2 > 2 weeks probation
3-6 > 1 month probation
8-12> 2 Months probation

Three probation in one year> 1 month supension
Violation of probation (any length) 1 month suspension
3 Suspension> Curia Vote

Membership Suspension > Curia Vote

I actually don't like this progression, mainly because it doesn't take the seriousness of those warning levels into account. You earn a 12 point infraction for posting porn, this should get you banned indefinitely and there should be no second thought on stripping you off of your citizen rank right with it. Or a 6 pointer, f.e., is the second highest obscene content and the highest disruptive postings, defying moderator and insulting others escalation level, which means you must have done quite some things to earn you one of these. Basically everything upwards of 3 points are usually really serious steps in the escalation level of infractions and usually require some sort of pre-existing moderation history. Simply putting citizens on probation for such offenses seems highly inappropriate when we consider citizens to behave above average.

Curia Vote

First Vote

-Dismiss (the three suspension could be over a long period of time)
-Further Action

Second Vote

-"X" months suspension
-Removal of Rank

2/3 vote in favor of removal with a quorum with a % of active citizens.
If no quorum requirement, then I would prefer 3/4 votes in favor to ensure it is the will of the Curia.

That's basically what we have now without censure. What % of what number of active citizens do you think would be a fitting quorum, also how do you define "active citizens" and how do you figure them out? Why would that be needed? And if it's needed, why don't we have this with citizen apps? What's the difference in gravity between stripping somebody off of his rank or approving a rank that the former would require a quorum or an absolute super majority while the latter simply needs 60% majority of a not further defined number of votes (which could easily be simply 2 out of 3 citizens)? I mean, we trust the CT to do this job with a maximum of 3 voting participants, I see no reason why 3 citizens couldn't make the same call in public.

I do not think this is best course to take,...

Let me adress the "drama" issue. IMHO, the Curia would be better serve if it had one post made by 80 members than 4 posts by 20 members. Drama is not increase activity it is a wasted effort. It is self- defeating. You can't expect anyone to feel like the Curia is worth their time if the only time its worth noticing is when there is drama. I do not think a debate over responsibilities is productive. I would prefer that my elected administrators (or any admin) to spend their time doing the task assigned than waste time in a "pissing contest." This forum is a source of recreation. Real life takes precedence (or at least I hope it does). The limited time you have to spend on leisure shouldn't be used fighting over who does what, but ding that "what." Real life drama sucks, especially when you are the wrong end of it. To want to bring it to a place of recreation is plain crazy.

Yes, you do have a point with regards to productivity. However it still can be fun and it was partially fun in the past - then again, it was not sometimes. So yeah, I concede this.

Anyway, I do not know how best to split the responsbilities. I am sure there are better ways to do it. I am sure I would not want them to fight over it either. To put it another way, I group functions best when they have assigned task to perform. If you put people together without it, then there are wasted energy and time determining how best to proceed. It is not the most efficient way of doing anything.

If you split functions or portfolios, you first of all have to define them. Then you need to assign substitutes for them or are they simply going to have CA's too? And then you need to find sufficient people applying for each position. These are quite some "then's" actually.

Another benefit of the changes would be to allow Moderators to be apart of the Curia. Since none fo the positions would be a conflict of interest, they would be open to all, except of course the Magistrates.
Possible addition of a position

Moderators can run for Curator, they only cannot run for Magistrate or Censor. But I agree with you that then 2 more functions could potentially be filled with citizens who are also moderators.

Prefect: Curia Moderator- responsible for moderating the Curia. Citizens should be above the ToS at all time, so they may be little reasoning for this. However, on occasions, we certainly could use better "politeness" in the Curia. A Moderator could be appointed by the Curator, elected, or rotate among interested moderators. You would obviously be required to be a Moderator to hold the position.

Just an idea!

I'm not sold on this idea. I like the fact that the Curator moderates the curia (aside from when it comes to issuing infractions, which is then up to HEX). As for the politeness, this is a place of politics and in political discussions tensions can rise. I agree with you that we should not break the ToS here, but what would a moderator do here if people are not polite? A moderator can only act if people break the ToS, if they don't break the ToS, there is no grounds for actions. If you want a moderator take moderation actions because people are not polite to each other you would have to define that in a code which then needs to be passed by legislation in order to be enacted here.

[PikeStance]

Just to reiterate, this is a discussion, not a proposal. I do not have all of the answers. The OP are meant to be talking points!
I will adjust the OP to be more clear.

Now I have a few minutes to address this a bit more in detail:
I actually don't like this progression, mainly because it doesn't take the seriousness of those warning levels into account. You earn a 12 point infraction for posting porn, this should get you banned indefinitely and there should be no second thought on stripping you off of your citizen rank right with it. Or a 6 pointer, f.e., is the second highest obscene content and the highest disruptive postings, defying moderator and insulting others escalation level, which means you must have done quite some things to earn you one of these. Basically everything upwards of 3 points are usually really serious steps in the escalation level of infractions and usually require some sort of pre-existing moderation history. Simply putting citizens on probation for such offenses seems highly inappropriate when we consider citizens to behave above average.

Interesting, except what would you suggest?

That's basically what we have now without censure. What % of what number of active citizens do you think would be a fitting quorum, also how do you define "active citizens" and how do you figure them out? Why would that be needed? And if it's needed, why don't we have this with citizen apps? What's the difference in gravity between stripping somebody off of his rank or approving a rank that the former would require a quorum or an absolute super majority while the latter simply needs 60% majority of a not further defined number of votes (which could easily be simply 2 out of 3 citizens)? I mean, we trust the CT to do this job with a maximum of 3 voting participants, I see no reason why 3 citizens couldn't make the same call in public

I am just rhowing the idea around. I did the same thing with citizenship application as well. However, in that case, a citizen not participating could be interpreted as indifference. Indifference suggest a lack of strong conviction to object. I see a difference in a removal of rank case.

You either want 2/3 people to decide or the Curia.

They are discussion points in which I can see a valid argument either way.

If you split functions or portfolios, you first of all have to define them. Then you need to assign substitutes for them or are they simply going to have CA's too? And then you need to find sufficient people applying for each position. These are quite some "then's" actually.
Moderators can run for Curator, they only cannot run for Magistrate or Censor. But I agree with you that then 2 more functions could potentially be filled with citizens who are also moderators.

I think you would need to define them first. I cannot tell you like delineation or not.
The problem with the Censor position is they are not attractive positions. The nature of the position leads very little knowledge of the quality or lack of quality being done. With three open position we increase the pool and the attractiveness of the positions.
The Censor position was a quick solution cause by the conflict of interest of the Magistrates and the removal of the CdeC. Moreover, since the removal of the CdeC the responsibilities of the Curator has increased. Instead of overseeing everything, he/she is now directing.

I'm not sold on this idea. I like the fact that the Curator moderates the curia (aside from when it comes to issuing infractions, which is then up to HEX). As for the politeness, this is a place of politics and in political discussions tensions can rise. I agree with you that we should not break the ToS here, but what would a moderator do here if people are not polite? A moderator can only act if people break the ToS, if they don't break the ToS, there is no grounds for actions. If you want a moderator take moderation actions because people are not polite to each other you would have to define that in a code which then needs to be passed by legislation in order to be enacted here.

First; "Politeness" was in quotes. It was the best term to use while maintaining a nice flow to the sentence. In effect, it is nothing different than the moderator reminding people in other forums to watch their "P's & Q's."

The Curator is a "local moderator." I see no reason why that would discontinue. However, I would prefer not to have a elected official subjected to scrutiny because a citizen was reported and infracted for a post in the Curia. I think most citizens who refrain from the feature falsely believing that the ToS are lax in the Curia. The only difference is that active moderation is not present because of the assumption that citizens on a whole knows how to behave. Also, in some cases, certain allowances are made for personal reference (e.g. Citizen application), but they are limits. However, if those limits are exceeded, I would prefer a moderator "take the heat" over an elected official who may be under scrutiny if his actions are viewed as "heavy handed."

This was more or less my thinking...

[Aikanár]

^Will reply when I find time, sorry it's a busy week. Just wanted to say that I'm aware that it's a discussion, I'm not dead set against anything, simply raising my concerns at the moment. I don't have a very clear vision of how exactly I would go about things at the moment, if I would have, I would have posted so please bare with me and my simply concerned comments being the only thing for now. Feel assured that I appreciate your initiative here (even though I disagree with parts of it )

[PikeStance]

Below are the ToS violation with the possible point value for each. I ranked them according to severity

LEVEL 1:
Signature Size Violation (1)
Off-topic Posting (1, 2)
Censor Bypassing (1 or 2)
Hard-to-Read Posts (1 or 2)
Disruptive Posting (1)
Defying Moderators (1)
Insulting Others (1)
Obscene Content (1)
Using Modders' Work Without Permission (1)
Other (1 or 2)


LEVEL 2:
Off-topic Posting (4)
Contempt of Court (1 or 2)
Disruptive Posting (3)
Defying Moderators (3)
Insulting Others (3)
Obscene Content (3)
Evading a Suspension (1)
Impersonation (1)
Promoting Illegal Activities (1)
Harassment or Invasion of Privacy (1)
Other (3 or 4)

LEVEL 3:
Contempt of Court (3 or 4)
Disruptive Posting (6)
Defying Moderators (6)
Insulting Others (6)
Obscene Content (6)
Using Modders' Work Without Permission (3)
Evading a Suspension (3)
Promoting Illegal Activities (4)
Harassment or Invasion of Privacy (4)
Other (5 or 6)

LEVEL 4:
Contempt of Court (5+)
Obscene Content (12)
Using Modders' Work Without Permission (6)
Evading a Suspension (6)
Impersonation (4)
Promoting Illegal Activities (8)
Harassment or Invasion of Privacy (8)
Other (7+)

Member Conduct
You agree that you will not use any aspect of this service including -but not limited to- the wiki, social groups, tags, visitor messages and private messages, to perform the following actions:

1. Signature Size Violation (1 point)
2. Off-topic Posting (1, 2 or 4 points)
3. Censor Bypassing (1 or 2 points)
4. Hard-to-Read Posts (1 or 2 points
5. Contempt of Court (variable)
6. Disruptive Posting (1, 3, or 6 Points)
7. Defying Moderators (1, 3, or 6 Points)
8. Insulting Others (1, 3, or 6 points)
9. Obscene Content (1, 3, 6, or 12 points)
10. Using Modders' Work Without Permission (1, 3, or 6 points)
11. Evading a Suspension (1, 3, or 6 points)
12. Impersonation (1 or 4 points)
13. Promoting Illegal Activities (1, 4, or 8 points)
14. Harassment or Invasion of Privacy (1, 4, or 8 points)
15. Other

Violation Accumulated penalties
3 Ability to view social groups and leave visitor messages removed
4 Can neither give nor display reputation
5 No posting in politics, history, or ethos forums
8 Suspension for 1 day and no custom title or invisible mode
12 Suspension for 3 days and cannot use avatar/signature/profile picture
16 Suspension for 7 days and placement in probation in addition to a permanent resetting of the user's reputation points to 0
20 Suspension for 30 days along with all of the above penalties.

[mishkin]

I would rather get rid of referals before implementing such a complicated system / any new more complicated system.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Raises an interesting question, should Citizens be held to a higher standard of behaviour?

I think it kind of depends on what Citizenship is. Is it a reward for contributions? If so, why should people who contributed need to 'behave' better. Or is it a way of recognising model members, hence the behavioural requirement? If so, why are contributions used to judge who gets it.

[mishkin]

I think on an a citizenship application we value and reward the past contributions and value, reward, and look forward in the future a remarkable behavior. That said, I think it simply should be left to the moderators, within the warning level, the right to temporarily take away our rights as citizens. (3 points, say bye to your badge, office and privileges). Simple (apparently) and we get rid of a lot of duplicated work.

[Veteraan]

I like this simple approach. Those "better standards" Citizen have to live up too are way too vague. We could get rid of the whole censor business.

It leaves the question though what to do with those who misbehave in the Curia itself. This place is only moderated by the Curator/assistant and they do not issue infractions, do they?

[PikeStance]

In my level system; I took a few things into account
One, where the ToS is ambiguous, I gave leeway, like the Off- topic. The violation would be more incidental. While more serious offenses, like Defying moderators, impersonations and using modders work without permission, were treated more serious. Anyway, the ToS violation is tangible and their some logic to the severity that could be applied. The so- called higher standard for citizen is too vague and is not codified to develop anything tangible that would be fair. I think it is reasonable to expect citizens to at least follow the ToS. Even when they do apply for citizen it is part of the requirement. When people state we only judge contribution that is not exactly accurate.

Concerning moderation. I go out and say I prefer the Curator to act as a local moderator and have a trained moderator deal with any inappropriate behavior. Let the Curator whether 1 or 3 deal with other responsibilities rather than policing the forum.

[Halie Satanus]

Raises an interesting question, should Citizens be held to a higher standard of behaviour?

I think it kind of depends on what Citizenship is. Is it a reward for contributions? If so, why should people who contributed need to 'behave' better. Or is it a way of recognising model members, hence the behavioural requirement? If so, why are contributions used to judge who gets it.

I feel I raised this before.

I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the current system of suspension/removal of awards that people earned for contributions due to later 'behaviour.' It was all good when the site was much smaller and citizens were very much part of the promotional side of TWC, when their behaviour reflected what kind of site this was or wanted to be. Things have moved on so much since those days. Moderation is far more tuned and we have a tribunal system which is fairly unique, we also have a content branch which took a lot of weight off the curia. Is punishing citizens for their behaviour really necessary or even viable. It looks like the curia trying to hold a power that it doesn't really have or need anymore.

It's been proven that a few off colour comments in a debate are unlikely to result in scorn from the curia, or at most will divide opinion. If I call you ignorant or a hypocrite I might pick up a note from moderation, but if you were being ignorant or a hypocrite the curia is likely to give me a pass, and probably a few reps for pointing out your short comings.

Still, the curia felt that splitting citizenship and awards was to bold a step to take. A more clear cut ostrakon system is better than the constant nonsense of petty punishments for farting.

[mishkin]

It leaves the question though what to do with those who misbehave in the Curia itself. This place is only moderated by the Curator/assistant and they do not issue infractions, do they?

As far as I know Hexes act as moderators here issuing infractions on the rare occasions it is necessary.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Still, the curia felt that splitting citizenship and awards was to bold a step to take.

Interesting... we could make Citizenship (i.e. the current badge) an Award granted to contributing members, and then have another system for 'model' members where there are suspensions etc. for unbecoming behaviour, or turn Citizenship into the 'thing' for model members, and create an Award to give to contributing members with no behavioural strings.

Or just get rid of the whole model member thing all together.

Not sure myself on what I think, just throwing some ideas around.

[Halie Satanus]

Or just get rid of the whole model member thing all together.

Or have citizenship for those who wish to participate in the curia without the caveat of 'behaviour threats' and a seperate award for contributions... [you might have actually said just that].....

Ie: You have been awarded 'X' for contributions, blah blah. Your award confers citizenship and the privilege of participation in the curia.

No more referrals/censors or BS. Just members who get awards for services rendered and those wish to participate in the curia...

When it's put that simply it seems very possible.

Cue the curia vulture lawyers...

[Admiral Piett]

Or have citizenship for those who wish to participate in the curia without the caveat of 'behaviour threats' and a seperate award for contributions... [you might have actually said just that].....

Ie: You have been awarded 'X' for contributions, blah blah. Your award confers citizenship and the privilege of participation in the curia.

No more referrals/censors or BS. Just members who get awards for services rendered and those wish to participate in the curia...

When it's put that simply it seems very possible.

Cue the curia vulture lawyers...

Wow, finally a proposal that goes in the direction we need. Take the complicated out of the Curia. Contributions are rewarded more substantially than just giving people a right to convene here.