Clarification on the awarding of staff medals

[Halie Satanus]

This thread was unnecessary. The proposal is sensible and reasonable, that any member of Hex thought flexing the Hex muscle was a good idea is disappointing. That members of Hex are still trying to flex that muscle is edging towards embarrassing.

Here's the thing. The constitution is the mechanism employed to define awards, the curia has a remit to define the constitution. If Hex is unhappy with that state of affairs, which has been in place for the best part of ten years, I suggest you change it. Since GeD has owned the site I've never seen him once indicate that is his wish and he doesn't seem likely to change years of tradition for such a minor issue..

Sitting on Hex comes with what some may feel is the unwanted responsibility to respect the curia. While on Hex you have the power/tools to make changes at will, the two exist in what, for some, is an uncomfortable status quo. It's easy to forget, we all do it, that the curia consists of many of the sites most influential members. While you're in Hex you don't have to listen to the curia but kicking it is a road best avoided.

The curia has more power than it's ever had, not in terms of vocal posturing but in granting awards. If you think that's irrelevant, try doing without it for while and see how that works out.

Hex has control over staff awards, and it says exactly that in the constitution. Coming to the Curia isn't necessary and isn't a formality, it's a courtesy.

Kindly bend over while I beat you with my Hex muscle. The kind of courtesy that's really not welcomed.

[StealthFox]

I see you clearly missed the point of my post. The constitution already gives Hex authority to handle staff awards, so the whole argument about "Hex flexing their muscles" is irrelevant.

[Halie Satanus]

I see you clearly missed the point of my post. The constitution already gives Hex authority to handle staff awards, so the whole argument about "Hex flexing their muscles" is irrelevant.

Perhaps you missed the posts in this thread, or this thread, or ''This thread was unnecessary.''

[Hader]

Or maybe it was necessary?

It could have been a quiet proposal in the proth, or technically not one at all and just a quiet edit. But now a whole lot of people will more likely notice the change, the word is out.

[Halie Satanus]

Or maybe it was necessary?

It could have been a quiet proposal in the proth, or technically not one at all and just a quiet edit. But now a whole lot of people will more likely notice the change, the word is out.

Less feathers would have been ruffled with a proposal along the lines of.

Hex would like to make some changes to the constitution and we would like the curia to come up with the wording and ratify it.

[Hader]

Jimmies need rustling and feathers need ruffling every now and then.

[m_1512]

Less feathers would have been ruffled with a proposal along the lines of.

Hex would like to make some changes to the constitution and we would like the curia to come up with the wording and ratify it.

So how does the other one stand out distinctly that it ruffled quite many feathers. But another question could be why. Why did feathers ruffle over a decision taken that had nothing to do with any curial change?

This thread was unnecessary. The proposal is sensible and reasonable, that any member of Hex thought flexing the Hex muscle was a good idea is disappointing. That members of Hex are still trying to flex that muscle is edging towards embarrassing.

I am surprised that this came from a former Hex. You'd be right in saying that Hex has muscles to decide over anything, but you should also know that the Hex has no reason to flex muscles over anything, unless it puts the site into trouble.

[Iskar]

So how does the other one stand out distinctly that it ruffled quite many feathers. But another question could be why. Why did feathers ruffle over a decision taken that had nothing to do with any curial change?

Feathers did not ruffle because of the quite reasonable and necessary change to the Constitution, they ruffled because of the way it was introduced. Instead of simply putting up a proposal in the Proth, as Aik did, a thread was created more or less ordering the Curia to do this. Why use authority when reason does the job as well? I concur with HS that that was unnecessary.

[Halie Satanus]

So how does the other one stand out distinctly that it ruffled quite many feathers. But another question could be why. Why did feathers ruffle over a decision taken that had nothing to do with any curial change?

I am surprised that this came from a former Hex. You'd be right in saying that Hex has muscles to decide over anything, but you should also know that the Hex has no reason to flex muscles over anything, unless it puts the site into trouble.

I'd only ask, on what planet is a change to the constitution not a curial matter.

I am surprised that this came from a former Hex. You'd be right in saying that Hex has muscles to decide over anything, but you should also know that the Hex has no reason to flex muscles over anything, unless it puts the site into trouble.

And yet, this thread.

I suggest you listen to Squid more often.

If this is too difficult for you and you do not understand your responsibilities as a member of Hex beyond the job you have been given please feel free to PM me. As 'a former member of Hex' I'd be happy give you some guidance.

[Squid]

I suggest you listen to Squid more often.

Someone must have put something in my morning coffee if I'm being used as an example of the voice of reason!!

[Halie Satanus]

Someone must have put something in my morning coffee if I'm being used as an example of the voice of reason!!

Voice of reason might be stretching it a bit, but as a Hex member in the curia, you've always been just another citizen. Things like that don't go unnoticed.

[Genius of the Restoration]

or unpunished

[m_1512]

Feathers did not ruffle because of the quite reasonable and necessary change to the Constitution, they ruffled because of the way it was introduced. Instead of simply putting up a proposal in the Proth, as Aik did, a thread was created more or less ordering the Curia to do this. Why use authority when reason does the job as well? I concur with HS that that was unnecessary.

Let us go over this case post by post. The change, as you know, was decided by hex as a policy decision. This was then posted in the Curia as a discussion that there has been a change in the policy, with the request that the Curator take the necessary steps for this. Then when you asked if this was a hex decree or a curial vote, my response was that this was a hex decision that had already been implemented with the suggestion of a direct amendment that seemed to me the most practical approach. I fail to see where the order was given.

I'd only ask, on what planet is a change to the constitution not a curial matter.

And yet, this thread.

I suggest you listen to Squid more often.

If this is too difficult for you and you do not understand your responsibilities as a member of Hex beyond the job you have been given please feel free to PM me. As 'a former member of Hex' I'd be happy give you some guidance.

Yes, change to the constitution is a curial matter but the main content of the change is not. My post there was only my opinion that the ratification of a vote for this did not seem much point to me coz the change has been implemented.

[Iskar]

Let us go over this case post by post. The change, as you know, was decided by hex as a policy decision.

Yep, naturally, as staff policy is not subject to the Constitution.

This was then posted in the Curia as a discussion that there has been a change in the policy, with the request that the Curator take the necessary steps for this.

That is quite the point. Why not just post a proposal in the Prothalamos, saying "Hey, Hex changed this policy, it would be good if the constitution reflected that." instead of 'requesting' (Hex request = de facto order) the Curator to fix it?

Then when you asked if this was a hex decree or a curial vote, my response was that this was a hex decision that had already been implemented with the suggestion of a direct amendment that seemed to me the most practical approach. I fail to see where the order was given.

My question was not about the implementation of the staff policy but about the change of the constitution. The policy is of course not subject to a curial vote, but any change to the constitution is. Telling the Curator to change the constitution in a more than formative way repeatedly without reference to a vote (or even with advising against it) is what I consider Hex ordering the Curia around:

We request that the curator update the constitution accordingly to reflect this

This is (more or less) a direct order to "update" (perceived, at least by me, as "change quickly without vote") the constitution and I fail to see any reason why this would be better than simply posting the proposal in the Proth which would have respected the fact that the constitution is only changed constitutionally lest rendered absurd. It is highly unlikely that the Curia would deny such a reasonable proposal to reflect reality its support and even if it did it would idiotify itself by that and thus be rendered utterly irrelevant. So, there was no reason to not do this the constitutional way.

[Hader]

My question was not about the implementation of the staff policy but about the change of the constitution. The policy is of course not subject to a curial vote, but any change to the constitution is. Telling the Curator to change the constitution in a more than formative way repeatedly without reference to a vote (or even with advising against it) is what I consider Hex ordering the Curia around:

This is (more or less) a direct order to "update" (perceived, at least by me, as "change quickly without vote") the constitution and I fail to see any reason why this would be better than simply posting the proposal in the Proth which would have respected the fact that the constitution is only changed constitutionally lest rendered absurd. It is highly unlikely that the Curia would deny such a reasonable proposal to reflect reality its support and even if it did it would idiotify itself by that and thus be rendered utterly irrelevant. So, there was no reason to not do this the constitutional way.

Well, if that's your perception, I'd definitely color it as an overreaction, and you use the term "order" as if it always has a negatively authoritative connotation attached to it.

My supervisor asked me to update and scrub some records the other day, and I did without trouble. Technically, he is my commanding officer and was really an order, but it isn't like he had to march up to me a bark the order at me to get me to do it.

I asked that the constitution be updated "accordingly to reflect this". I can objectively perceive that as meaning "by the most appropriate means", and not as some sort of direct order telling you exactly what to do and how.

[PikeStance]

The proverbial mountain out of a mole hill.
There isn't anything new being done. The wording is out of date. The amendment could pass or fail and it would change nothing.

[m_1512]

The proverbial mountain out of a mole hill.
There isn't anything new being done. The wording is out of date. The amendment could pass or fail and it would change nothing.

Exactly. I guess this was the trial to see where we as stand - more practical and action oriented or the bureaucratic and tradition oriented. Btw, even if there was to be any addition to the medals, it would have been the same thing.

[Ngugi]

The point here is that we are to rephrase the Constitution, not affect the award conduct, in a manner that the citizreny can agree upon make the award conduct by Hex clear and obvious when reading the Constitution, because we have only a single problem: the current phrasing cause confusion and do not make the awarding conducted by Hex clear and obvious to the citizenry.

We have a process by which to amend the Constitution and there is no reason at all to side-step it, as it is the [currently] best process to ensure that the citizenry understand the Hex conduct, as expressed in the Constitution. And what we want currently is proper understanding, agreed upon by the readers in question (readers; not executers).
Hex may just as well repharse it "We award medals as we use to do" if the amendment process is ignored, and that is perfectly sufficient from a practical 'non-bureaucratic' perspective for those who execute it, I will sign that, but it will not resolve the problem that called for a change of the Constitution in the first place, as it would not help us to secure that the citizenry can understand the award conduct, by reading the Constitution.
The best way to secure an agreement of understanding is that citizens are allowed to express that we agree on that the phrasing correlate with what is executed by the amendment process: after all the amendment is for the citizenry's sake and not Hex here.

Only if we do not thoroughly care whether members reading the Constitution can understand how concerned medals are awarded, or not, we should side-step the amendment process. But then again if we do not care if people understand, then there is no point in changing the Constitution in the first place.

[Halie Satanus]

Exactly. I guess this was the trial to see where we as stand - more practical and action oriented or the bureaucratic and tradition oriented. Btw, even if there was to be any addition to the medals, it would have been the same thing.

To simplify what Ngugi said.

''The world didn't stop because you got a red badge and it'll keep turning when you have a different badge'' - Anon: former Hex member.

Perhaps someone could follow you around whispering 'Memento Mori....'