Maintaining "Citizen Standards of Behaviour"

[Iskar]

I understood your reply to wudan_clown as criticism of the fact that there is no "proper" escalation in what I suggested in contrast to the escalation of penalties (Censure, suspensions, even longer suspensions, removal) currently employed by the triumvirate.

Also, there is some sort of (necessarily) informal escalation in what I suggested, in so far as involving more and more opinions if no consensus is reached, starting from a PM over PMs with multiple people, a thread and finally an ostrakon bill. I took wudang's remark to refer to that. There was no need to address his remark on the Tribunal as you had already done that.

So, no, the reply was properly directed to you.

[wudang_clown]

There are no absolutes in human behaviour, human behaviour isn't mathematics or logic. Given I'm not a sociopath and have a reasonable awareness of social norms in western society I can make reasonable decision about whether or not a certain action or series of actions is suitable behaviour for a citizen.

But no one here is trying to define the absolutes of human behaviour. Was it possible to define a set of rules on how all users should behave? Yes, it was. It's called Terms of Service. But it somehow isn't possible to define on top of the ToS another layer of standards for citizens? How is that impossible to come to a consensus on what sort of behaviour we don't want to experience from other citizens? It's totally possible and has nothing to do with defining absolutes. It's simply shaping this community by agreeing on an inter-subjective code of conduct and not by leaving the judgement to someone's caprices (in the worst case).

monitoring of citizen behaviour

Absurd.

You're right, ultimately it's hex's circus and hex's monkey's and as a member of hex I can state with authority that the probability of the Tribunal judging citizen behaviour, above and beyond their remit of ensuring moderation follows the ToS which includes when infractions are issued to citizens, is exactly 0.

Perhaps you might detail how that statement is arrogant and condescending? Is my statement as a member of hex stating the tribunal will not be used in the manner you want also condescending? If not why? What's the difference? Both of us are making statements of fact from out positions of authority on this site. Is it unbecoming because you don't like the fact or the matter of fact way in which it is presented or some other reason?

The difference is in that you've made an effort and wrapped your authoritative statement in some argumentation.

Another difference is that I recognise your statement as the end of discussion on the Tribunal dealing with citizens' behaviour, because you are one of the admins, and GoR is not. He isn't in a position of authority on this site, you are. Your statement is a decision, his statement was perhaps a display of knowledge he has on politics on this site. He has a position of authority in the Tribunal and in the Curia, and nowhere else. What he said was not a fact until you confirmed it. It's simply beyond his powers to decide on any policy.

He could have said what he said in a normal way, like you've just done it. Instead he chose to be bossy, when he has absolutely no grounds to be bossy here. I don't really think GoR's behaviour was unbecoming a citizen, I said that for the sake of argument, and even if it objectively was in some other dimension, I would be the last to go crying to the Curia about it, but I did expect from him a lot more, and I mean a lot more given he's a Tribune and a Curator.

[PikeStance]

I would not call two people a group. Elections do next to nothing to make the verdicts less subjective, as in most cases the electorate, having no access, cannot even judge the "reasonings" of the incumbents.

I do not see checks and balances here. Nobody can really check the triumvirate, unless one of its members screws up epically and gets VoNCed, because their respective reasonings are not based on a specific code of behaviour as common premise. Hence when someone criticises your verdicts as Censor, you can always retreat to your "subjective interpretation of citizenlike behaviour subject to your reasonable awareness of social norms".

Couldn't the same argument be made about Magistrates?
The only true decision one could make is through comments made in the debate thread.

The discussion of citizen behavior is a age- old one that will probably never being fully resolved. The best and only way to maintain "standards" is through eternal vigilance.

He could have said what he said in a normal way, like you've just done it. Instead he chose to be bossy, when he has absolutely no grounds to be bossy here. I don't really think GoR's behaviour was unbecoming a citizen, I said that for the sake of argument, and even if it objectively was in some other dimension, I would be the last to go crying to the Curia about it, but I did expect from him a lot more, and I mean a lot more given he's a Tribune and a Curator.

I honestly took GotR comments to be if the mandate of the Tribunal ever changed to include citizens' behavior then he would not be a part of it. I should also note (especially since you are not fully aware of this) is that Hex chooses not to become involve with the internal matters of the Curia. Most Hex members make it clear that they are posting as "citizens" and not has Hex.

BTW, I would like to express my appreciate for sharing your thoughts in the Curia

[Flinn]

just one question gents, not addressed to anyone but as a general consideration.

It's about how much now, 3 months that we are wasting words about citizen behaviour? (in this session I mean, I'm sure it comes from far far away ) How many real cases we actually had during this period? 1, 2, none? Don't you think we could have invested this time in something more benefical to the site/community? I mean, it is clear now that we have (at least) two opposing fronts here, and no one is going to change position (not anytime soon), so what's the purpose of insisting with this quarrell?

We have a procedure, if we can move on with the voting phase, let's do it, if not, just discard the whole stuff and life goes on. I'm not just referring to this specific matter, but to almost all of the latest amendments/discussions. The only thing that moved on quickly and properly was the "Man of the Hour" award, the rest is almost a continous repetition of the same discussions over and over.

[Iskar]

Words of wisdom. The discussion in this thread has very much moved away from the OP.

I will put up the amendment for the triumvirate reform today, then we can gather support/oppose and be done with it, so we no longer have this Damokles issue looming above.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Another difference is that I recognise your statement as the end of discussion on the Tribunal dealing with citizens' behaviour, because you are one of the admins, and GoR is not. He isn't in a position of authority on this site, you are. Your statement is a decision, his statement was perhaps a display of knowledge he has on politics on this site. He has a position of authority in the Tribunal and in the Curia, and nowhere else. What he said was not a fact until you confirmed it. It's simply beyond his powers to decide on any policy.

He could have said what he said in a normal way, like you've just done it. Instead he chose to be bossy, when he has absolutely no grounds to be bossy here. I don't really think GoR's behaviour was unbecoming a citizen, I said that for the sake of argument, and even if it objectively was in some other dimension, I would be the last to go crying to the Curia about it, but I did expect from him a lot more, and I mean a lot more given he's a Tribune and a Curator.

I'll leave the discussion at this point because I can't see where the problem lies. I fail to see how this post is "bossy", "arrogant" and "condescending":

The Tribunal has nothing to do with this. I say with absolute certainty that it will never be involved as long as I am a member.

Yet this is "said in a normal way" wrapped "in some argumentation":

You're right, ultimately it's hex's circus and hex's monkey's and as a member of hex I can state with authority that the probability of the Tribunal judging citizen behaviour, above and beyond their remit of ensuring moderation follows the ToS which includes when infractions are issued to citizens, is exactly 0.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Squid]

But no one here is trying to define the absolutes of human behaviour. Was it possible to define a set of rules on how all users should behave? Yes, it was. It's called Terms of Service.

And the fact that you think that the ToS is objective or is even objectively monitored at all times is absurd.

But it somehow isn't possible to define on top of the ToS another layer of standards for citizens? How is that impossible to come to a consensus on what sort of behaviour we don't want to experience from other citizens? It's totally possible and has nothing to do with defining absolutes. It's simply shaping this community by agreeing on an inter-subjective code of conduct and not by leaving the judgement to someone's caprices (in the worst case).

It's impossible for the same reason it's impossible to list all possible things for which someone could be issued an insulting others infraction for.

Absurd.

I guess you don't work in the real world, where it is common for companies to have rules stating that you cannot bring the company into disrepute and they don't define what exactly those actions are, but they certainly include various actions that are not against the law and are most certainly not clearly defined and yet people still manage to be understand what is being asked of them, and if they violate that vague but understandable guideline they get punished, worst case they lose their job.

The difference is in that you've made an effort and wrapped your authoritative statement in some argumentation.

I used almost the exact same wording as GoR and certainly didn't justify my statement with any reasoning, so again what was difference.

Another difference is that I recognise your statement as the end of discussion on the Tribunal dealing with citizens' behaviour, because you are one of the admins, and GoR is not. He isn't in a position of authority on this site, you are. Your statement is a decision, his statement was perhaps a display of knowledge he has on politics on this site. He has a position of authority in the Tribunal and in the Curia, and nowhere else. What he said was not a fact until you confirmed it. It's simply beyond his powers to decide on any policy.

So my statement wasn't a post showing bad behaviour because I have more power on the site?!?!

What is a reasonable degree of awareness of social norms? In which western society? American, British, Spanish, Canadian, German, Swiss, ...? Why not eastern or southern or whatnot? In how far is your decision "reasonable"? Can you give reasons that led to it? What premises would you base your reasoning on, seeing as we do not have a commonly agreed code of behaviour to start from?

Wait so let me make sure I understand this clearly. The same group of members, citizens, that you argue, in the Triumvirate reform proposal, have exhibited better than ToS expected behaviour to become citizens, and hence have at least a minuscule ability to determine what better than ToS expected behaviour is and don't need to be monitored because they are aware of what said better behaviour is are also incapable of judging if others are exhibiting said better behaviour. You do realize that makes absolutely no sense. This also goes against established fact which has shown that just because someone becomes a citizen doesn't mean they don't start behaving like an ass and should no longer be a citizen.

I would not call two people a group. Elections do next to nothing to make the verdicts less subjective, as in most cases the electorate, having no access, cannot even judge the "reasonings" of the incumbents.

If the results of the decisions aren't being appealed, and I'm confident that most citizens would appeal if they felt the reasoning was wrong and the decision unjust, then the reasoning isn't faulty. If it is found the reasoning was faulty and/or unjust and the curator did not report it and ask for a VonC then I'd argue the curator is not doing their job and they should be VonC'd.

I do not see checks and balances here. Nobody can really check the triumvirate, unless one of its members screws up epically and gets VoNCed, because their respective reasonings are not based on a specific code of behaviour as common premise. Hence when someone criticises your verdicts as Censor, you can always retreat to your "subjective interpretation of citizenlike behaviour subject to your reasonable awareness of social norms".

If as you have said in the Triumvirate proposal thread that citizens in general behave better than average behaviour and do not need to be checked because they always will behave better than average that means that they know what better than average is and can when acting as censor determine if others are meeting those expectations or not. You can't have it coming and going that in some cases a citizen knows how to behave but in others they don't or that they can recognize if they themselves are behaving well but are incapable of determine if others are doing so. As for their being no checks and balances, as already said part of the curator's responsibility would be to ensure that the censors are being reasonable, as would each citizen that is being judged, and to a lesser extent is hex who can monitor as well. Since every can potentially be made public by the defedant, and I'd personally encourage all to be made public, then even citizens can for public cases determine if the judgement was fair and equitable.

[Iskar]

Wait so let me make sure I understand this clearly. The same group of members, citizens, that you argue, in the Triumvirate reform proposal, have exhibited better than ToS expected behaviour to become citizens, and hence have at least a minuscule ability to determine what better than ToS expected behaviour is and don't need to be monitored because they are aware of what said better behaviour is are also incapable of judging if others are exhibiting said better behaviour.

Nope, that is not what I said. I have little doubt that the group as a whole can well articulate its collective expectations of behaviour and judge its members based on that. That is why I have included the ostrakon bills in the triumvirate reform amendment.
What I am doubtful about is the significance of a single member's "reasonable assessment of western social norms". In the group arbitrariness and personal preferences are mostly averaged out, in the individual they are fully present.

If as you have said in the Triumvirate proposal thread that citizens in general behave better than average behaviour and do not need to be checked because they always will behave better than average that means that they know what better than average is and can when acting as censor determine if others are meeting those expectations or not.

Sorry, but that argument is inconsistent. You start with (hypothetical) premise that citizens behave better by themselves and then use this to argue that they should be able to judge other citizen's behaviour - but that is not necessary due to the premise you started with. So at least that is not a valid argument against my position.

As for their being no checks and balances, as already said part of the curator's responsibility would be to ensure that the censors are being reasonable

Based on what would the Curator judge whether the Censores are being "reasonable"?

[wudang_clown]

I'll leave the discussion at this point because I can't see where the problem lies. I fail to see how this post is "bossy", "arrogant" and "condescending":

Yet this is "said in a normal way" wrapped "in some argumentation":

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Okay, I know you can take one sentence out of context, well done.

Your behaviour was condescending as in displaying a patronizingly superior attitude: "you can discuss as long as you want and say whatever you want, but this is my circus and my monkeys and nothing's going to change". Stating the truth or the facts has nothing to do with it, because as far as your attitude is concerned you simply were patronising.

Of course you will not admit it, so yeah, let's leave the discussion at this point.

And the fact that you think that the ToS is objective or is even objectively monitored at all times is absurd.

It's impossible for the same reason it's impossible to list all possible things for which someone could be issued an insulting others infraction for.

I guess you don't work in the real world, where it is common for companies to have rules stating that you cannot bring the company into disrepute and they don't define what exactly those actions are, but they certainly include various actions that are not against the law and are most certainly not clearly defined and yet people still manage to be understand what is being asked of them, and if they violate that vague but understandable guideline they get punished, worst case they lose their job.

So it's impossible to define a code of conduct here, but it is common for real life companies to have a code of conduct? Hmm. Have you ever seen a single code of conduct? Because it's enough to use google, and you'll find plenty. Neither complicated nor listing all possible offences. So, again, how is this impossible?

I haven't said anything about the ToS being objective. Where did you read that, between which lines? Not those written by me, that's for sure.

Yes, it is totally possible to define a code of conduct on top of the ToS. In regards of its level of specificity - that's a different matter, which I haven't even touched, so I certainly haven't suggested to list all possible infractions.

I used almost the exact same wording as GoR and certainly didn't justify my statement with any reasoning, so again what was difference.

So my statement wasn't a post showing bad behaviour because I have more power on the site?!?!

Yes, you're absolutely right, your post was condescending, too.

However, the difference in my reaction was linked with practical relevance of decisions behind statements from both of you.

GoR's "decision", again, is not really a decision, because he has absolutely no control over the Constitution, thus he has no control over how the Tribunal will or will not proceed. The only thing he could do in a hypothetical situation would be to leave the Tribunal when he disagreed with a new set of rules, since being a Tribune is voluntary. Therefore, not only him being bossy was completely unnecessary, but he has absolutely no grounds to be bossy: talk what you want, my circus, my monkeys, so it won't happen.

That's why I focused on GoP's attitude so much, and initially haven't noticed flaws in yours. I can oppose your attitude, I can't really oppose your decision, so when I read "won't happen" from you, that was effectively end of story.

So, yeah, I mixed two things. There you have it.

[PikeStance]

I know there was a code of conduct written some time ago. It was linked in a discussion about two years ago. I think I may have found it here.

The original was posted by Garbarsardar and re-posted by Elrond as a separate thread.

The Citizens Handbook

A. Code of conduct regarding Citizens demeanor.

1. The rank of Citizen is given by the CdecCuria with staff approval and your patron’s initiation. Your manner of posting should reflect their trust.
2. Your actions reflect upon the whole class of Citizens. Think twice before pressing the submit button.
3. Always use discretion in addressing moderating actions. Use PM instead of posts whenever possible.
4. Be welcoming and polite towards the new members. A display of aloofness is the worst form a Citizen can exhibit.
5. Try to support your posts with evidence, and never display texts without links or proper attribution to the authors.
6. Avoid one-liners. That is if they’re not extremely good one-liners.
7. If you are after SM’s record you are totally wasting your time here. I assume, based on context SM is short for a member's name.
8. Try to visit the help and technical forums. Many of us had their encounter with TWC there, and therefore we should make it pleasant for new members.
9. Avoid ad hominem arguments. When extremely incensed move slowly away from the keyboard.
10. Before proceeding to an Ostrakon or a Censure, consider bringing any grievances in front of the CURIA.
I would probably add that anything that purposely circumvents the ToS is also unbecoming. Maintaining the spirit of the ToS is important distinction between regular members and citizens.

B. Code of conduct regarding Patron-Client relationship

1. Your relationship with your patron/client is what you make of it.
2. The patron should advise his client in terms of etiquette and demeanor during his first days as Civitates.
3. The patron should not in any other way attempt to influence the actions of his client.
4. The client should respect his patron and try to keep a friendly relation with him.
5. The patron should not make any demands upon the client.
6. The client should consider obtaining advise from his patron on matters regarding the constitution and ToS, he feels unsure about.
7. In case where the client wishes to become independent or change patron it is good form to inform his former patron in advance Outdated concept
8. The patron has no right of denying such request and he should ensure a smooth transition.
9. The client’s opinion is his own. The patron’s too. Political collaboration is more obvious than a pimple in Charlize Theron’s thigh and should be avoided.
10. The patron should attempt to mediate when one of his clients in behaving in a manner unbecoming aCiviotatesCitizen.

I do like the inclusion of the Patron/Client relationship. I think this has been lost over time. I am not in favor of "switching" as that could become over dramatized. The above is going out of its way to define a pastoral relationship as opposed to a political one. In essence, the point of leaving your patron is if some reason your patron fails to provide adequate pastoral care or is a poor role mode for good behavior.,

[mishkin]

I'm afraid unfortunately what there is exposed would be an ideal, not "rules" or the certain minimum requirements some people is looking for. Its interesting anyway, and perhaps it could serve as a basis.
(Pease do not use bold navy blue Pike, I assumed at first that these were notes and corrections from a moderator and not yours).

[Genius of the Restoration]

Okay, I know you can take one sentence out of context, well done.

Your behaviour was condescending as in displaying a patronizingly superior attitude: "you can discuss as long as you want and say whatever you want, but this is my circus and my monkeys and nothing's going to change". Stating the truth or the facts has nothing to do with it, because as far as your attitude is concerned you simply were patronising.

Of course you will not admit it, so yeah, let's leave the discussion at this point.

The funny thing about your "context" is that it's all about things I said after you made the "arrogant and condescending" remark about my post. I'm sure the people on this forum can view the sequence of posts and can see that I had one post, yes one post, before you claimed it was "arrogant and condescending". And in that post, the only thing about the Tribunal was the line I just quoted to you. Here, I'll repost the exact postyou made, including what you quoted me as saying. How's that for context?

The Tribunal has nothing to do with this. I say with absolute certainty that it will never be involved as long as I am a member.

Well, theoretically, if I could define a behaviour unbecoming a citizen that would be throwing exactly the kind of arrogant and condescending remarks you've just made here. No argument whatsoever, just plain "it won't happen". So what's the point of discussing anything if you can always pop in and say "I won't let it happen"?

So you're right, I won't "admit" that my attitude in that post was patronising, because it wasn't - it was a statement of fact to stop you pursuing a line of discussion that wasn't going to lead anywhere. I'm being patronising now, sure, but I do that sometimes. Guess that must be my "superior attitude" and couldn't at all be the fact that you've been throwing mud at me and, rather than simply take it back, you're now just trying to justify it however you can.

Ah well. No damage done.

[wudang_clown]

The funny thing about your "context" is that it's all about things I said after you made the "arrogant and condescending" remark about my post. I'm sure the people on this forum can view the sequence of posts and can see that I had one post, yes one post, before you claimed it was "arrogant and condescending". And in that post, the only thing about the Tribunal was the line I just quoted to you. Here, I'll repost the exact postyou made, including what you quoted me as saying. How's that for context?

So you're right, I won't "admit" that my attitude in that post was patronising, because it wasn't - it was a statement of fact to stop you pursuing a line of discussion that wasn't going to lead anywhere. I'm being patronising now, sure, but I do that sometimes. Guess that must be my "superior attitude" and couldn't at all be the fact that you've been throwing mud at me and, rather than simply take it back, you're now just trying to justify it however you can.

Ah well. No damage done.

But I've specified in my very first comment to that post of yours why I think you're condescending: because you've jumped in and provided no explanation whatsoever to your statement. To me that was basically you waving your badge without any backing in the Constitution. I already knew the tribunes have no powers to decide on site-wide policies, or any policies for that matter. That's why to me it was you waving your badge with no real backing. It wasn't statement of fact on your part, because the fact is you can't decide on site-wide policies. The only real certainty you could have then was that you'll resign if any changes take place. But you've declared that later, so I thought after your first post that if you have any certainty in that there will be no change at all that has to be your illusion of power talking.

There's nothing I can take back, because I haven't been throwing any mud at you. If the above doesn't convince you, then I guess I don't have any influence on that and let the users decide by themselves, indeed.

Thanks for discussion anyway.