Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

  1. #41
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    3,437

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    The entirety of the procedure is identical for the non-binding staff VonCs and an appropriately worded Decision, not just the last part: Proposal thread in the Proth, three days discussion, three supporters, one week voting in the Curia Vote, passing with two thirds majority, effects only an advisory message to Hex.

    Just saying "No, it isn't" without further arguments is not exactly helping your position.
    Last edited by Iskar; Today at 07:22 AM.

    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops and Frunk.

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

  2. #42
    Lifthrasir's Avatar Carnival Season is over
    Content Director Citizen Curator Censor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    5,967
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Quote Originally Posted by Tango12345 View Post
    Article II: 'Elections'.

    If 'Staff Member' is intended to mean curial staff member (so, Curator, Magistrate, Censor) it would be redundant since 'Curial officer' covers that. If it is intended to refer to Site Staff (ie Moderation, Content, Gaming, Hex, Tech, Tribune), then it is beyond the Curia's remit. Whilst technically such an act could be advisory rather than binding, as indeed mentioned in the final part of that quote, any such VonC's allowed under the current wording (neglect of duty or abuse of authority) will only have limited public evidence available in the case of Site Staff (due to SND, private staff fora, etc.). As such, it is difficult to see a case where issues brought up in a VonC wouldn't already have been seen and dealt with within Staff itself. Both the above offences lead to being fired instantly in the cases I can think of. At that point a VonC is irrelevant, because the staff member in question has already gone.

    Whilst I would hope such a situation remains entirely theoretical, the Hex veto also doesn't actually have any exemptions, as mentioned later in that section. If Hex wanted to veto a VonC (and they wished to, which is another variable), then they would.

    Its up to the Curia at large what does and doesn't go into the constitution, but there is no point putting in something that has no chance of being enforced.
    ^^ This.
    You can agree. You can disagree. But the point is there.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Nominations open!!!



  3. #43
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire!
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    7,436
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    The entirety of the procedure is identical for the non-binding staff VonCs and an appropriately worded Decision, not just the last part: Proposal thread in the Proth, three days discussion, three supporters, one week voting in the Curia Vote, passing with two thirds majority, effects only an advisory message to Hex.
    Procedural similarity doesn't make a decision and VonC the same. Intent is the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Just saying "No, it isn't" without further arguments is not exactly helping your position.
    Is this necessary? I obviously didn't just say it isn't if you quoted a specific argument
    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    ...The entirety of the procedure is identical for the non-binding staff VonCs and an appropriately worded Decision...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by Lifthrasir View Post
    ^^ This.
    You can agree. You can disagree. But the point is there.
    Tango is referring to the unlikelihood of a Vonc of a staff member. I would agree entirely; it is unlikely for the Curia to VonC a staff member for "whatever reason" before Admin removes the person themselves.
    I see it has a symbolic power. It is the Curia way of voicing their concerns towards a staff members. This is true regardless if Admin carries it. It is actually irrelevant; the voice s made clear.

    Just a reminder of the purpose of the Curia
    Come to discuss matters of the republic, complaints, grievances, and nominations. Citizens only!
    Let's note the word "discus." The key isn't "power" or remit, it is the opportunity to have a voice. That is the nature of the advisory. The term "VonC" makes that specific grievance explicit.

  4. #44
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    3,437

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    The intent of a Decision saying "The Curia recommends the removal of XYZ staff member." and a non-binding VonC against XYZ staff member are exactly the same.

    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops and Frunk.

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

  5. #45
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire!
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    7,436
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    The intent of a Decision saying "The Curia recommends the removal of XYZ staff member." and a non-binding VonC against XYZ staff member are exactly the same.
    I already covered this, so it is now a circular argument.

  6. #46
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    3,437

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    I cannot find any conclusive coverage by you on that. Could you make your argument explicit as to what the differences in intent between a Decision recommending the removal of a staff member and a VonC recommending the removal of a staff member are?

    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops and Frunk.

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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

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