Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 132

Thread: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

  1. #21

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    How could we do it? Moderation is going to talk to me about somebodys history just because I am interested in patronizing a certain user? Patronizing or trying to patronize someone does not give me that privilege in my opinion.

    The amendment is simple and practical (as long as a moderator or Hex does not state the opposite) in my opinion.
    No,... No one would disclose anything more than "Yes" or "No"
    It is already implicit that consent is given to ascertain adherence to the requirement for citizenship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radzeer View Post
    The only good alternative I see to this proposal if the applicant himself reveals the patron that his moderation history contains a warning in the past six months (as per #1). A member's moderation history is strictly his own. I never liked when random citizens jumped in to ask about moderation history in the discussion thread.

    Under normal circumstances, the applicant should tell the member that he would not pass the moderation requirement before anything is posted. If applicants are not aware of this, the Curator should catch this. The easiest way would be to report the OP of the application with the request to get moderation clearance. This could be then easily answered by any moderator online at the moment.
    I agree with asking about moderation history. I would prefer to avoid a public spectacle. It would be preferred that the patron PM the Curator prior to submitting the application for review.

  2. #22
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I agree with asking about moderation history. I would prefer to avoid a public spectacle. It would be preferred that the patron PM the Curator prior to submitting the application for review.
    Then why not let the patron contact moderation directly instead of building in an unnecessary intermediate step where the Curator would really just forward PMs from the patron to moderation and vice versa?

    On the public spectacle: That would probably be even the best deterrent to undiligently crafted applications.

    In any case, the point about the moderational requirement is that unlike the other technical requirements (post count, membership time) it cannot be checked by just anyone assessing the application, so an official "Go ahead" note from moderation should either be present in the application (thread) or at least be sent to the Curator to archive it non-publicly and then give the patron green light.
    Last edited by Iskar; August 30, 2015 at 11:02 AM.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
    "Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  3. #23

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    It would be ideal if the patron forwarded a PM to the Curator in conjunction with submission that the applicant meets the requirement. Ideally, whatever system created should avoid any public embarrassment.

  4. #24
    Ngugi's Avatar TATW & Albion Local Mod
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,687

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    "public spectacle"?
    Are you trying to legislate a complex system for a theoretic scenario now, lads...?

    Kingdom of Lindon preview video out





    DCI: Last Alliance
    - WIP Second Age mod | DCI: Tôl Acharn - mighty Dúnedain Counter Invasions |
    Additional Mercenary Minimod - more mercs; for TATW and DCI | Family Tree minimods - lore improvements | Remade Event Pictures - enhance cultures trough images |
    Favorite TATW compilation: Withwnars Submod Collection
    Patron of Mank, Kiliç Alì, FireFreak111, MIKEGOLF & Arachir Galudirithon, Earl of Memory

  5. #25
    m_1512's Avatar Quomodo vales?
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,128
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Radzeer View Post
    The only good alternative I see to this proposal if the applicant himself reveals the patron that his moderation history contains a warning in the past six months (as per #1). A member's moderation history is strictly his own. I never liked when random citizens jumped in to ask about moderation history in the discussion thread.

    Under normal circumstances, the applicant should tell the member that he would not pass the moderation requirement before anything is posted. If applicants are not aware of this, the Curator should catch this. The easiest way would be to report the OP of the application with the request to get moderation clearance. This could be then easily answered by any moderator online at the moment.
    This could probably be the best suggestion to this. Although I agree that this is for the patron to check, one cannot really expect everyone of them to follow the entire checklist. So the fact about the curator reporting the OP should do the trick - inform the curator about the eligibility and not reveal anything publicly.


  6. #26
    Mega Tortas de Bodemloze's Avatar Let's Get After It
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    11,588

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Radzeer View Post
    I never liked when random citizens jumped in to ask about moderation history in the discussion thread.
    Yes..... "Random" here... Substandard's muh brother, but he could'nt make it today.



    Citizenship Requirements Any Citizen who has held their Citizenship for three months can patronise a Peregrinus for Citizenship subject to the requirements in Article I above. The process of patronisation is as follows:


    1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, or a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
    2. The patron writes an introduction letter outlining why they are nominating the candidate.
    3. The candidate and patron formulate an application which highlights the candidate's contributions along with any supporting evidence/information.
    4. The patron posts the introduction letter and application in a new thread in the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum.
    5. After two days discussion period have passed the Curator adds a poll lasting for five days.
    6. The discussion period can be extended at the discretion of the Curator provided an explanation is given.
    7. If the applicant achieves sixty per cent of non-abstaining votes they are entitled to the award of Citizenship.
    8. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result. If the candidate does not pass, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply. If the candidate passes they may apply to Citizen usergroups which the Curator accepts.


    If an applicant fails they are not eligible to apply again for one month after the conclusion of the of the poll.


    Did I miss something? For the past six years the process has worked, so why rock the boat?
    A Lion serves in Winter, then perhaps a Unicorn for the Spring.


    ****************
    If you cannot stand behind what you say.... then do not speak. If your words are taken out of context,
    then the weight of the evidence will still fall in your favor and carry the day

    The Casual Tortoise: Mega's Guide to Fast Turtling

  7. #27
    Ngugi's Avatar TATW & Albion Local Mod
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,687

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze View Post
    Did I miss something? For the past six years the process has worked, so why rock the boat?
    Yeah, the more I see this being debated, the more it seems an amendment solely to appease those around here who can not restrain themselves from make things convoluted and bureaucratic, if they only get a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by m_1512 View Post
    This could probably be the best suggestion to this. Although I agree that this is for the patron to check, one cannot really expect everyone of them to follow the entire checklist. So the fact about the curator reporting the OP should do the trick - inform the curator about the eligibility and not reveal anything publicly.
    How? If the application is closed or taken down, it will become public anyhow.

    Kingdom of Lindon preview video out





    DCI: Last Alliance
    - WIP Second Age mod | DCI: Tôl Acharn - mighty Dúnedain Counter Invasions |
    Additional Mercenary Minimod - more mercs; for TATW and DCI | Family Tree minimods - lore improvements | Remade Event Pictures - enhance cultures trough images |
    Favorite TATW compilation: Withwnars Submod Collection
    Patron of Mank, Kiliç Alì, FireFreak111, MIKEGOLF & Arachir Galudirithon, Earl of Memory

  8. #28
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    The point is that a generic (non-moderator) patron cannot confirm that the candidate meets the moderational requirements by himself and no non-mod can check that his account is actually correct, so unless we want the (sensible) requirement for a clean record to be just nice, but not implementable idea there needs to be some attestable checking.

    The Curator reporting the OP and getting the "Go ahead" privately from moderation should do the trick. He would PM the patron privately if there is some problem and if nothing is heard of him everyone can assume that everything is in good order.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
    "Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  9. #29
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,693
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze View Post
    Did I miss something? For the past six years the process has worked, so why rock the boat?
    Noone checked, during the process, that our last candidate/now citizen was clean (neither if he was another citizen alt. acount, btw)
    (Of course the last candidate was clean)

  10. #30
    Mega Tortas de Bodemloze's Avatar Let's Get After It
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    11,588

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Actually the time and energy we've all spent arguing over this minusia could have been better spent lining up our next citizenship applicants. We should all tender one applicant each to atone for our sins here today....
    A Lion serves in Winter, then perhaps a Unicorn for the Spring.


    ****************
    If you cannot stand behind what you say.... then do not speak. If your words are taken out of context,
    then the weight of the evidence will still fall in your favor and carry the day

    The Casual Tortoise: Mega's Guide to Fast Turtling

  11. #31
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,693
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Thanks Mega. Really cool.

  12. #32

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Well, sorry for random () Hex triggering some hairsplitting here, but it is unlikely that moderation would (should) give out such information to the patron. As far as I know, it is the Curator who oversees the technicalities of the application, hence he has the authority to request such information and handle this in the confidential manner it requires. From a moderation perspective, a patron is just like any other member, with no particular reason to have more information than what the applicant would like to share.

    Again, all this history is known to the applicant himself, so in a perfect world, it should be the applicant raising the issue. In reality, applicants may not even know about the criteria, and when approached by a patron they may think that by virtue of that event they must be eligible. Maybe patrons should ask this from the applicant before they post the application. If that does not happen, let the Curator do this.

    Normally, this is a non-issue, as most applicants clear this easily. I am just uncomfortable with a bad moderation record coming to light in a semi-public discussion, even if the specific moderator penalty is not revealed. The best is a system in which applicants with prohibitive warnings would not even get to a stage of their application being posted.
    Last edited by Radzeer; August 30, 2015 at 01:26 PM.

  13. #33
    m_1512's Avatar Quomodo vales?
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,128
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ngugi View Post
    How? If the application is closed or taken down, it will become public anyhow.
    Simple, instead of posting something like:

    "Invalid due to applicant having an active infraction for blah blah blah..."

    the Curator could post:

    "Invalid as the applicant fails to meet the requisites for citizenship."


  14. #34
    Veteraan's Avatar TATW Local Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tilburg, Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    4,151

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Radzeer View Post
    (...)
    Normally, this is a non-issue, as most applicants clear this easily. I am just uncomfortable with a bad moderation record coming to light in a semi-public discussion, even if the specific moderator penalty is not revealed. The best is a system in which applicants with prohibitive warnings would not even get to a stage of their application being posted.
    I was thinking about that too. Maybe point 5 should be moved to 2 with a slightly altered text stating that the Patron contacts the Curator who then clears with moderation that all is well (or not) before anything is posted. The new text in point 6 could then be removed.
    Quote Originally Posted by m_1512 View Post
    Simple, instead of posting something like:

    "Invalid due to applicant having an active infraction for blah blah blah..."

    the Curator could post:

    "Invalid as the applicant fails to meet the requisites for citizenship."
    Isn't that almost the same as stating the applicant has an active infraction?


    When writing this reply I noticed something odd about the first point, at least it seems so to me:

    1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, or a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.

    The patron should always check if the candidate meets the requirements, the second part of this line seems unnecessary to me. Also I think it is not at all important if a candidate is contacted by a patron, or vice versa. It is only important that there is a candidate.
    This should be enough:

    1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements.

    Citizenised by Shankbot - Patron of b0Gia - House de Bodemloze

  15. #35
    Mega Tortas de Bodemloze's Avatar Let's Get After It
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    11,588

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Radzeer View Post

    I am just uncomfortable with a bad moderation record coming to light in a semi-public discussion, even if the specific moderator penalty is not revealed. The best is a system in which applicants with prohibitive warnings would not even get to a stage of their application being posted.
    Yeah but this is like not letting your kid play on the monkey bars at the play ground cuz they might get hurt. {Incert over protective parent}.

    Checking the would be citizen's eligibility is the patron's turf. Would be citizen's being publically reviewed is part of the citizenship process. So if you wish to stick your kid in a bubble,
    fine by me....buy leave my kid to the elements, it will tough'n him/her up.

    Pulic scrutuney ehh......Behold...


    Muh Bad Kid [VOID]Applicant: xHerzoGx Patron: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

    [Citizen Application] xHerzoGx (Patron: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze) [PASSED]
    Last edited by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze; August 30, 2015 at 03:19 PM. Reason: Muh english grammar sucks
    A Lion serves in Winter, then perhaps a Unicorn for the Spring.


    ****************
    If you cannot stand behind what you say.... then do not speak. If your words are taken out of context,
    then the weight of the evidence will still fall in your favor and carry the day

    The Casual Tortoise: Mega's Guide to Fast Turtling

  16. #36

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze View Post
    Checking the would be citizen's eligibility is the patron's turf.
    Yes, and it should be done by asking the applicant directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze View Post
    Would be citizen's being publically reviewed is part of the citizenship process.
    Indeed, but a moderation record is a game breaker issue. If it makes the person ineligible, what's the point of reviewing anything else? This is why it should be done before any public scrutiny.

    See, we sort of agree. Tough love and all that.

  17. #37
    Ngugi's Avatar TATW & Albion Local Mod
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,687

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin
    Noone checked, during the process, that our last candidate/now citizen was clean (neither if he was another citizen alt. acount, btw)
    (Of course the last candidate was clean)
    It was not an issue, as it might seem.
    Not because it was not legislated about and thus was not needed to be given, or the fact that the applicant was indeed green, but because we, as evaluators and voters, shall be free to trust patrons as well as our fellow members innocence; especially when application support is provided from those who ought to know if there was an issue or not.
    It shall be our right as evaluators and voters to request Moderation confirmation out of doubts, ignorance or pure curiousity, and the fact that we do so in all cases where doubts or ignorance call for it, indeed out of custom, reveals a working system already. A system that do not need more precdurial red tape to hunt down a minimal risk, which we all may avoid with ease by utilizing simple request for validation, on expense of easy accessibility or efficiency of the patronization process. Fear shall not shackle our communial system.


    Quote Originally Posted by m_1512 View Post
    "Invalid due to applicant having an active infraction for blah blah blah..."
    You think so little of Moderation, as to share what it is about, unless already public through the Tribunal or equal? The question is not raised for details, all what's required is a confirmation on Yes; if that is not the case Moderation action on behalf of the case is expected to be respectful, a trust I say their position earn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ngugi View Post
    And I for one have confidence in that Moderation will handle it with proper discretion if there would prove to be an issue.
    Are there any cases where this been an issue, because I can't recall any; in a post-CdeC context?



    Quote Originally Posted by m_1512 View Post
    "Invalid as the applicant fails to meet the requisites for citizenship."
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitution Article 1
    To qualify for Citizenship, a member must have at least fifty posts, been a registered member for two months, and have not received a Moderation Warning or Curial Warning within the past six months.
    Since it will be quite easy to know if a member been registred for over two months (do Article 1 and 2 contradict each other here?) or have 50 posts, it will be known what it's about, indeed.

    Kingdom of Lindon preview video out





    DCI: Last Alliance
    - WIP Second Age mod | DCI: Tôl Acharn - mighty Dúnedain Counter Invasions |
    Additional Mercenary Minimod - more mercs; for TATW and DCI | Family Tree minimods - lore improvements | Remade Event Pictures - enhance cultures trough images |
    Favorite TATW compilation: Withwnars Submod Collection
    Patron of Mank, Kiliç Alì, FireFreak111, MIKEGOLF & Arachir Galudirithon, Earl of Memory

  18. #38
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Some interesting points have been made. While I can see where Mega and Ngugi come from, I mostly agree with mishkin, Radzeer, Veteraan, Pike and m.

    I updated the proposal according to the arguments brought forth. Let me lay out the basic line of argument for this, that I am currently following:

    I) Citizens are expected to upold certain standards. The clean 6-months records is hence a sensible requirement for applicants.
    II) A rule that cannot be enforced is void and useless. Hence if we want to rely on just trusting the applicant that he has a clean record would be as good as abolishing the requirement altogether.
    III) Unlike the other technical requirements the record cannot be checked by a generic patron or a generic citizen reviewing the application. Hence moderation needs to be contacted about this.
    IV) Neither the patron nor a citizen reviewing the application have in general the right to ask for any information of the applicant's record. Hence a viable compromise between privacy and application of the clean-record rule would be to have the Curator act as an intermediary. With the applicant's consent the patron informs the Curator of an applicant, the Curator requests moderational clearance and Moderation simply says "Go" or "No", which the Curator forwards to the patron. That done the patron can carry on with the usual procedure, with the slight change that no "Moderation???" question can occur in the application thread any longer.

    That way one keeps the (in my opinion) very sensible requirement checkable, while ensuring the maximally possible privacy for the applicant's moderation record.

    I think that a much longer discussion on this is not going to be fruitful, so, excepting major points, I think we should somewhat come to a close. If sufficient support is found for the current form of the proposal I'd just try a vote (after the necessary waiting period) and see where it goes.
    Last edited by Iskar; August 30, 2015 at 05:29 PM.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
    "Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  19. #39
    Veteraan's Avatar TATW Local Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tilburg, Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    4,151

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    Excellent. In those seldom cases where infractions may be an issue, unnecessary work and possible embarrassment can be avoided when we approve this.

    Support.

    Citizenised by Shankbot - Patron of b0Gia - House de Bodemloze

  20. #40

    Default Re: [Amendment] Minor Procedural Change to Patronisation for Moderational Clearance

    ^ What Veteraan said. Support.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •