[AMENDMENT] Citizen referrals

[mishkin]

This thread was previously in the Rostra, a forum for non-citizen proposals that was later made redundant.

Section IV - The Judiciary
Article I. Citizen's Behaviour

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen Peregrinus*, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

*As I understand it the correct term according to the constitution for any full user (citizen or not) is Peregrinus. (Peregrinity).

A citizen referral serves to penalize citizens who do not behave according to an ideal or standard. Dont know why this tool to maintain these standards should only be available for a very small number of users, reducing its effectiveness. Some will say that a non-citizen ignores what are those standards (what is "unbecoming of a citizen"). I am sure that any non-citizen aware of what a citizen referral is will also have a notion (as accurate as the notion a citizen can have and of course susceptible of being inmediately dismissed by the Curator) of what are those standards that citizens must fulfill.

Thanks for your time.

[Flinn]

Overall I can support this, even if I need to put some more thoughts on this honestly; as far as I'm concerned, I have no problem in the fact that any member can address the behaviour of a citizen, because in any case it will be scrutinized by elected Censores who might grant to avoid misuse of the same, but on the other hand I'm in doubt what will happen when this will be used from former citizens to harass other citizens or in general as a form of aggression towards a citizen.. I assume that if I hate mr X and start to refer him for all his posts, one day (as a citizen I mean) I can be referred myself for this behaviour, but what happens when it's just a regular member? Also, how to avoid someone to just make an alt account or recovery an unused alt account to refer a citizen ? Waiting to know if an account is an alt of someone else might take a LOT, hence I think some more rules/specifications need to be defined here.

[mishkin]

Overall I can support this, even if I need to put some more thoughts on this honestly; as far as I'm concerned, I have no problem in the fact that any member can address the behaviour of a citizen, because in any case it will be scrutinized by elected Censores who might grant to avoid misuse of the same,

Thanks. I also have the impression that "this can not be that simple".

but on the other hand I'm in doubt what will happen when this will be used from former citizens to harass other citizens or in general as a form of aggression towards a citizen..

Yes, citizen referrals have been used as a form of agression towards citizens. This amendment is not going to change that, sadly. It may increase its frequency, I suppose, but in any case I think the Curator have the power to "dismiss frivolous referrals".
A clarification, just in case. (I hope I'm right). As far as I know there is not such a thing as "former citizens" (ostrakons aside, because right now I am not really sure how this ostrakon thing works). For example, I am a citizen who has abandoned the citizenship group, but I can be the subject of a referral. (Administratively speaking, I have given up my privileges, not my obligations. Thats how cool/stupid I am).

I assume that if I hate mr X and start to refer him for all his posts, one day (as a citizen I mean) I can be referred myself for this behaviour, but what happens when it's just a regular member? Also, how to avoid someone to just make an alt account or recovery an unused alt account to refer a citizen ? Waiting to know if an account is an alt of someone else might take a LOT, hence I think some more rules/specifications need to be defined here.

As far as I know indiscriminately filing referrals is not cause for a referral since it is a particular "problem" between that user and the Curator and I suppose the Curator can always ask for a minimum containment to any user who may be abusing the system. (This would be a very extreme case in my opinion).
I think I do not understand the alt. acounts problem you raise. I do not see a problem with a user using an alt. acount to refer a citizen.

[Veteraan]

I'm not in favour of this proposal, although I can understand why it would be appealing.

For starters, Flinn raises some valid points about why this would not be a good idea IMO.

There is no clear description now and probably not in the foreseeable future also, about the precise standards a Citizen should meet. That is, standards that go above and beyond what is already stated in the TOS. That and the bad blood they can cause, is why I am not in favour of having Citizen referrals at all. The last thing I would want to see is that there would be more of them.

Also there is the work load of the Curator and the Censors to consider. If this would be implemented and the amount of (frivolous) Citizen referrals would go up significantly because of it, then that would be very time consuming. I can think of some scenarios in which this might occur. On the other hand, if nothing much changes and non Citizens would rarely ever refer a Citizen, there is not much point in having the rules changed in the first place.

[Flinn]

Well I'm not an expert about such bureaucratical procedures, I just ventend out some doubts that came to my mind

About using an alt to refer a citizen, as per my view of "higher standards" I would find it really unbecoming of a citizen to do so, because if I have to complain about someone else I will not hide behind any alt. I understand that this might be just my very personal position, still it's how I see it, hence I thought proper to mention the possibility in my reply. Similarly, in my book, if I misuse a feature (such as the referral) for private purposes of harassing another citizen, then I'm accountable of unbecoming behaviour; again just my position about.

As I said, I'm positive towards the amendment, but I'm waiting to listen others' opinions before officially supporting it, due to my scarce (I would say embarassing ) skills with this stuff.. my problem is that I tend to see the things in a very simplistic way, but the story here told me I'm usually worng when assuming anything simple for what concerns the Curia in general .

edit: ninjad by the good ol' Vet (jeek it took me 30 minutes to write this reply ...)

[Veteraan]

edit: ninjad by the good ol' Vet

Old I am, that is something I cannot deny.

[♔atthias♔]

Old I am, that is something I cannot deny.

well technically you still can but if you do it then you are lying

[mishkin]

@Vet
I agree. For the reasons you have exposed (subjectivity and potential bad blood) citizen referrals are not the best solution to maintain the required standards in citizenship, and I think it is even a worse system (and its faults are accented) because it can only be used by some users from a microcommunity prone to feuds and cronyism.

How much "bad blood" can be increased if the number of potential denouncers is increased? I dont know. I think we should also assess the positive side: the potential reduction of inappropriate behavior by citizens.

Anyway, this is the current system. We should try to improve it, but meanwhile, what can a user do if he sees a citizen harassing or bullying (clearly without breaking the ToS) another user? Contact any citizen and ask him to act on his behalf? Hope that a citizen will see and denounce that behavior? Is this serious?

Regarding a possible increase in the workload of the triumvirate, really we expect a large increase in the number of citizen referrals? If currently there is a citizen referral every, lets say, three months, we would be talking about one citizen referral per month?

Edit: ninjaed by three guys

About using an alt to refer a citizen, as per my view of "higher standards" I would find it really unbecoming of a citizen to do so, because if I have to complain about someone else I will not hide behind any alt. I understand that this might be just my very personal position, still it's how I see it, hence I thought proper to mention the possibility in my reply. Similarly, in my book, if I misuse a feature (such as the referral) for private purposes of harassing another citizen, then I'm accountable of unbecoming behaviour; again just my position about.

Now I understand you, thanks. I share your view. It would be a very complicated case I guess.

[Halie Satanus]

And your clause for frivolous use of referral by a non citizen would look like what and contain what punishment?..

Much as I'm sure Stav would keep us all entertained for weeks with referrals.

No.

[Frunk]

Opposed.

I do not see why Peregrinus should be given the right to refer Citizens, particularly when it can easily be abused by individuals with ill intentions. Even a referral which is unsuccessful, or which is dismissed, can be very disruptive and damaging to a Citizen's character and I believe that only another Citizen should have the right to initiate such a thing, if anyone at all, and that they earned this right when they were accepted as a Citizen (pretty much what Flinn and Veteraan said), in addition to remaining an active participant of the Curia. "Containing" Peregrinus who abuse the system seems like an extra headache (pretty much what Halie said). If referrals are not suitable for the "microcommunity" (which is a separate issue entirely), why expand it to the wider community?

Moreover, I'm firmly of the position that the Citizenry (nota bene, as distinct from the Curia) should not be disestablished in favour of a "Curia for all" approach, and I believe this amendment would serve to that end.

[mishkin]

And your clause for frivolous use of referral by a non citizen would look like what and contain what punishment?..

Much as I'm sure Stav would keep us all entertained for weeks with referrals.

No.

As far as I know, nothing happens when a citizens referral is considered frivoluous/inmediately dismissed by the curator.
Good point anyway how to deal with users (and citizens) abusing of the system (Stav example) or using alt. acounts. I think are extreme cases, but I have no solution.

Broadly speaking, I think this "bad blood" we talk about regarding citizen referrals is amplified because these acusations occur between members of a very small group. We know each other, but expanding the system user X would be symply "reporting" a certain citizen Z behaving like a jerk. In this regard, any realistic solution for this:

what can a user do if he sees a citizen harassing or bullying (clearly without breaking the ToS) another user? Contact any citizen and ask him to act on his behalf? Hope that a citizen will see and denounce that behavior? Is this serious?

[Iskar]

I support this. If we uphold the referral system to maintain whatever standards of behaviour, and citizens are supposed to be role models to everyone, then we should be so consequent to allow everyone to at least officially voice their opinion on whether that is the case. Thus allowing non-citizens to refer citizens would only make the system fairer.

As for the concerns that this might lead to a wave of referrals:
If the referrals are frivolous it is within the remit of the Curator to ignore them. (Administrative cost: One ignored PM.)
If the referrals are justified it only helps us to gain a clearer picture of what our nebulous higher standards probably should be.

For the above reasons I deem this a sensible and logical adjustment of the referral system and while I dislike referrals in principle I support this to at least make them a tad less inconsistent while we're stuck with them. If in the end a ludicrous increase in referrals adds to showing how silly the system as a whole is, all the better.

[mishkin]

Agree,... citizens exist everywhere on the board. If they cannot recognize when a fellow citizen is acting "inappropriately" then why would we expect a non-citizen to do so.

This is another good point. Citizens covering or ignoring the failures of their friends, or afraid to upset "a fellow citizen". (I have already talked about the capacity of non-citizens to detect "unbecoming of a citizen behavior")

[StealthFox]

Opposed. In addition to the other concerns about abuse (especially alts) the citizenry is a peer membership, and as much as it may be elitist, citizens are voted in by other citizens and answer to them as a whole. Citizens do not answer to Peregrinus about citizen behavior.

[Ngugi]

Before peregrini grant citizenship, and formulate the code of conduct that is not regulated but evolving [or they regulate a conduct beyond the ToS], and elect the persons to evaluate the citizens, I do not see the rational merit of this; because referrals are matters of self-imposed social restraint.

Citizenship is only 'representative of TWC' and 'role models' because the citizenry by our own choice wants it to be so. The citizenry do not have to uphold any standards beside the ToS, but we do this willingly even if it is a restriction on our freedom and can result in penalties [that only affect citizens], and no one can demand that from us, except it be ourselves who decided to.
This 'demand' includes refer us for it, with less than that the citizenry who uphold these restraints ourselves impose it to help us monitor our peers.
It is the citizens who imposed the 'befitting' demand on ourselves and our peers based on consensus, beyond the ToS and by no according to a regulated standard - but we do not impose this demand on peregrini, beyond if a peregrini desire citizenship in an application.

That peregrini shall start to refer citizens for breaches against self-imposed conducts they do not formulate, or are restrained by themselves, or can be penalised for, or are requested to monitor by those who uphold the restrictions, I do not find justified.

[mishkin]

I do not see the difference between a regular user denouncing the inappropriate behavior of a citizen and a citizen denouncing this same behavior. The objectives and results are the same: A citizen behaving badly is called to order (or not) by the citizenry (via triumvirate or via appeal). I get the impression that we are afraid that this tool we decided to have (citizen referrals) is used.

[Halie Satanus]

You are asking that members be allowed to charge members through a system they are not themselves bound by.

Or, do as I say not as I do.

That's a no from me.

mish it does look bad that you put this forward after resigning your own citizenship.

[mishkin]

You are asking that members be allowed to charge members through a system they are not themselves bound by.

Or, do as I say not as I do.

That's a no from me.

Ok. We have different points of view.

mish it does look bad that you put this forward after resigning your own citizenship.

There are a lot of messages in this regard in the Curial commentary thread.
Summarizing:
- I talked about this same idea in October at the curia
- I left the citizenship group voluntarily. I have never received any kind of penalty (triumvirate or moderation). (Well, I received a note in 2012)
- I can be the subject of a citizen referral at any time.
- I can fil a referral at any time.

A bit tired of this, so:
If I wanted to denounce "someone" I would have done it like a month ago, "strangely" coinciding with the dates on which I was denounced. This idea (non-citizens and referrals) came back to my head recently seeing a citizen acting horribly (fortunately, I think he later broke the ToS and moderation took care of him)
Hope this is finally clear.

[Frunk]

- I can be the subject of a citizen referral at any time.
- I can fil a referral at any time.

A genuine question; from where do you draw these conclusions?

[mishkin]

A genuine question; from where do you draw these conclusions?

Genuine answer:
Based on experience (things you hear here and there, ideas you assume, perhaps nothing but stupidities) and in this article of the constitution
Article III. Resignation of Awards
The award of Citizenship and all Awards listed in Section V, Article 3 are honours given to members by the Curia. While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia. As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime. Procedures to revoke or remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them.

I always thought that a citizen could give up their rights (badge and access to the curia) leaving the group, but never its obligations. (Could be referred, but could not refer). I though that if I ever wanted to launch a referral, before doing it I should ask the Curator for my return to the group. Something easy, but a little inconsistent in my opinion.
Aparently, given certain I guess well informed comments at the Curia commentary thread

Also, there is no point in your suspicion for mishkin doing this out of some self-serving motive. If he wanted to refer someone it would be sufficient to write a PM to the Curator saying:
"I hereby rejoin the Citizenry.

I refer citizen xyz for reasons abc.

I hereby resign my citizenship again.

Cheers,
mishkin."

I was not wrong and everything (starting a referral) could be even simpler than I thought.

But at the light of some even more recent discussions (We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.) , man, I do not know what to think, I guess I'm going to stay silent until you (magnificent citizens) clarify all this.