Going by your prerogative, I would wonder why I started talking to you again
Going by your prerogative, I would wonder why I started talking to you again
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
I don't think adding this extra layer is necessary. If the main thing you are trying to accomplish is a person to review referrals to dismiss frivolous ones, why not make a slight adjustment to our current procedure.
Allow the triumvirate to decide if a referral goes through the complete process or not. They already hold a vote now to dismiss or take further action, have that be the first step before requesting a defense. If a referral stinks then it gets dismissed. If it has some legitimate claims the trium votes for further action and the process continues. Further action doesn't have to be a punishment vote as it is now though, it can have the punishments as well as a dismissal option.
"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.
I am sorry but I do not classify repeated attempts at negatively interfering in curial procedures because of personal grudges as enjoying oneself. I classify it as being a pest and will reply accordingly.
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
The first line of my post was not directed at you, sorry if that was not clear (I edited in the @Pike part just a second later).
Can you provide a reply to those "stupidly simple" questions, then?
Concerning mishkin, I should think everyone is perfectly entitled make their opinion on Curial matters known in the CCT. That is hardly "interfering with curial procedures".
"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.
In Pike's defense, which is not something I would leap to generally.
It has been suggested he ignore Mishkin, on many occasions. Hard to do when his posts are copied to the curia and Pike is asked to respond..
For once he can respond to the questions without regard to the author, if other citizens echo them as pertintent.
And secondly, the rude reply was not in response to such an instance, but a wilful act in the CCT, where he obviously did not ignore Mish's posts.
"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.
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
The AI Workshop Creator
Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)
My Responses to some questions and concerns expressed;
In Regards to the issue concerning changes to procedure.
Changes | Remains unchanged
Initiation Inform Defendant/Request defense Deliberation/1st Vote Deliberation/2nd Vote Appeal Process
Citizen Curator Triumvirate Triumvirate As per Constitution
Paefecture Praefecture Triumvirate Triumvirate As per Constitution
Should be noted that the defense is sent to the Triumvirate as it is stated in the Constitution.
Citizens can still make a grievance to the Prefecture. It is the Praefecture that determines a referral is initiated. The process stated above will be followed.
The Goal was not to add any additional layer to the process.
In Regards to the issue of my usage of the Citizens Handbook.
It was I used to rationale the grievances. It was intended to be an FYI only.
In Regards to concerns of Praefecture involvement with the Triumvirate
The Praefecture has no involvement at all with the decision made by the Triumvirate outside the argument made for initiating the referral process. The decisions will act as a guide for the Praefecture. So, the influence is the other way around. It is this influence that will guide the Praefecture to become more effective in executing the duties of the office.
In Regards to concerns of job Effectiveness of the Praefecture.
The Triumvirate has been rendering citizens on the concept f conduct unbecoming a citizen for years now. Before that, it was the CdeC. This proposal is reinventing the wheel. If the codification is what the Curia desires then this is something that would have to be worked out. Given the Curia has functioned without one while enforcing citizen behavior, it is a prerequisite for the Praefecture. In fact, every proposal made thus far has yet to suggest a code.
The Praefecture is an elected official, so it is incumbent on each citizen to vote for the person that will execute the duties to the best of their abilities. All referrals issued by the Praefecture is reviewed by the Triumvirate. If the Praefecture is not making referrals when appropriate, then this would be apparent.
In regards to concerns of Jurisdiction of the Praefecture
Jurisdiction is purposely left out. Obviously, citizens are expected to behave conduct becoming their citizenship but it was correctly pointed out,t his would be a Monmouth undertaking. The objective of this proposal is to monitor the behavior of citizens within the Curia and by logical extension the CCT. Out of concern for the behavior of citizens throughout the site, I made this proposal in regards to Staff Referrals. As indicated there, citizens commit ToS at a rate consistent with non-citizens. The proposal eliminates dismissal as an options to ensure some action is taken. Lastly, another reason grievances were included is that citizens can draw the attention of the Praefecture to issues outside of the area of focus, the Curia.
In Regards to concerns of removal of office
In the OP, I indicated a preference for two Praefecture. Ideally, we want a bored Praefecture. It isn't the end of the world to go a couple of weeks without Praefecture. Post do not just disappear, so a post that exhibited conduct unbecoming a citizen will still exist and can be dealt with.
In Regards to the concern of interest int he position
I propose a Historical Archivists and I had a half dozen people interested in volunteering and it was not approved. I have absolutely no one stating they were interesting modding staff and that passed. I am not sure why this is even a pertinent question.
In Response to Stealthfox
Yes, that would be a reasonable alternative if that was the only concern. The proposal deals with citizens reluctance to issues referrals, in addition, tot he issues you mentioned.
Thank you for your questions, if I missed a question please let me know.
So much blabla for nothing. Honestly, it doesn't add anything that is not already done/can be done by the Curator. Despite what you're trying to demonstrate, this is an extra and unnecessary layer. Opposed.
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader
I would echo this; I don't see the need for the office other than it adds something new for a curial office that really isn't needed, though isn't necessarily bad either.
But in the end I still don't see the current referral system needing much, if any change, in the first place. Certainly not this much.
So the Prefect would actively only monitor the Curia, because misconduct is less important in the other parts of the site for what reason exactly?
And you're effectively renaming citizen referrals for misconduct outside of the Curia into "grievances" and adding another layer before they reach the Triumvirate (now: citizen with referral -> Triumvirate; then: citizen with grievance -> Prefect -> Triumvirate).
This sounds like very little change, introduction of an unneeded office with high workload and another post to fill in times where we even struggle to find Curators. I don't see the merit in this.
Also, it is factually wrong that none of the proposals so far has offered a written code of conduct. There are codified minimum standards in the Ostrakon proposal that go beyond the ToS.
Last edited by Iskar; October 20, 2018 at 04:49 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.
I do not object. Offer suggestions if you have any.
What is the point of this statement? I stated clearly that there is no limitation to jurisdiction. By far the largest problems in regards to citizen behavior is the lack of courtesy in the Curia and not adhering to the ToS on other parts of the site. The staff referral amendment deals with the latter. This proposal deals directly with the former, the Curia. I do not want to remove citizens recourse, so "grievances" was added. That "layer" is there to safeguard against frivolous referrals. Ironically, this is why you added that step in your own proposal which makes this objection very strange.
This doesn't see very simple
First of all, ostraka should only be the last resort in any case, a sharp and heavy sword not to be wielded lightly, as has come to be the case with the anonymous citizen referrals.
Therefore, if someone takes exception at someone else's behaviour there should be two main options:
1. Just talk it over and work it out in direct communication, if the overall relationship allows for it.
2. Otherwise and as a general fallback where direct dialogue fails, the Censores would be there to help and mediate. Any issue can be brought before them informally and privately and they may hear both sides, offer a third party view, give advice and counsel how to proceed.
This duty could be codified in the Constitution in principle but left to the Censores to flesh out in practice really. It also fits with the personality and outlook of many of our best Censores over the years, I think, whose intention it always seemed to be to correct and gently direct rather than to punish and break.
No, you do not.
I see absolutely "zero" references to any "code of conduct."If all of this fails, an Ostrakon may resolve the issue. It could work as follows:
- A citizen files an Ostrakon against another citizen and sends it to the Censores.
- The Censores check the Ostrakon for formal criteria. They do NOT judge the content of the allegations. Criteria could include:
- Has at least one attempt at mediation been made?
- Is the Ostrakon based on publicly available material?
- Is the wording neutral or does it purvey emotional bias?
- If approved by the Censores the Ostrakon can be posted in the Prothalamos by the accuser.
- If it is not approved, the Censores would give formal reasons to the accuser why it was rejected.
- Once posted an Ostrakon would work like a regular proposal. If it collects enough support it can be voted upon after some time of discussion.
- The periods of discussion and vote can be further adjusted. Perhaps a longer discussion and shorter vote than for regular proposals would be beneficial.
- If successful a second vote would be held to determine the action to be taken: a suspension of three or six months, or a complete removal of citizenship.
- The range of possible verdicts can be further adjusted. A small selection of at least medium heavy verdicts seems good, though, as all minor disagreements should be dealt with by mediation.
- Ostracised citizens whose citizenship has been removed could only reapply for citizenship after a year.
- Ostracised officers would be immediately removed from office.
- An Ostrakon could be appealed once, to account for emergence of new evidence or changes of mind.
To conclude, while this does add a new position, the current procedure remains with only common sense alterations.
Read the amendment on page two of the Ostrakon proposal again. There is a list of bullet points.
"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.
I found it. My apologies for missing it.
You should put the changes in the OP. All but the second seems pretty clear. This should be its own proposal. I would support this.In finally judging Referrals and Ostraka the Triumvirate and the Curia respectively are advised to assess whether there are instances where the accused citizen...
...is in violation of the ToS.
...is bringing the Citizenry or site into disrepute.
...publicly makes false statements about another member or their intentions.
...ignores warnings from staff, including the Curator or representatives of the Curator's office.
...demonstrably lies.
...plagiarises or uses material without credit or reference.
...damages discussions by repetitive posting without adding anything new.
Silly question - why do we need an additional guy for a job that the curator is already doing on the rare occasion that the function is actually needed? Seems like self perpetuating and enlarging bureaucracy: I am failing to see how renaming referrals to grievances and having an additional person doing one (yes, just one) of the curator's jobs is actually going to improve anything.
There is no such thing as a silly question.
The Curator technically role is currently limited in scope. This is why Halie suggested the Curial Directive and I had proposed a Curatorial Summons. I am not opposed to going the route of directly empowering the Curator, but it has been argued that the role is already bloated. While I would argue that CAs can perform much of those duties, resistance is there. Secondly, citizens do not make referrals (argued) an if they do it is viewed as "vengeful" and "toxic" (argued). This is why I added a specific official to act in this compacity. It checks the boxes of concerns/ issues.
A grievance is not a renaming. Only the prefecture can issue a referral. A "grievance is essence a "report" feature for citizens.
Personally, I prefer a system we have now with one added change... a vetting process prior to asking the defendant for a defense. If there is no merit, it gets dismissed outright. However, there is a distrust for the system. There was even a question regarding "trust" here. Unfortunately, every propose system requires "trust."
Ok, I bite, even though I am pretty sure that's simply obfuscation or just not thought through like the response in our recent discussion. So here it is, assuming that you wanted to say 'The curator's technical role is currently limited in scope' :
And yet you wish to limit it further by assigning a minor part of that limited scope (and nothing else) to a member that will have to be vetted via yet another curial election process.
Right, so instead of having a citizen referral we now have a grievance that gets vetted by a member installed for only that vetting purpose. Who then forwards it to the triumvirate for assessment\action as they always do. Unless he dies of boredom first, given the count of 'grievances' - please do not respond that having this post will increase the number of grievances lodged, that would be downright insulting on several levels.
And all of that is not a renaming of the citizen referral or a creating of a superfluous post. I mean going through all the drama of electing a member to a curial position only for the purpose of vetting 'grievances'?
That waste of resources (HR and admin) has my opposition by default considering that there is no convincing argument that it will improve anything in the matter it tries to address. I am guessing it requires a badge as well?
For all this could achieve you could just make it mandatory for the curator to advice the complainant to reconsider and 'talk it out' with the defendant before passing the 'grievance' on to the triumvirate pending the response. But hey, that would be too simple and doesn't create more bureaucratic dead weight.
Edit: on second thought the whole proposal is fairly moot: for a mediation to take place (the only technical difference to the existing process) the assumption of personal conflict between complainant and defendant has to hold true. Which then takes the grievance to a whole new level of complaint beyond conduct unbecoming, and that's not a level that should be encouraged.
But then I don't think a complainant will accede to the assumption to start with - rendering the proposal moot again.