Grievance: unprecedented censorship of a grievance against moderation.

[PointOfViewGun]

Report it..
Historically the curator would post a thread warning. For the most part these have been respected.

So, let's say, if I open a thread titled VoNC and then talk about tomato soup recipes, the Curator (given he is the local moderator) should report the opening post and issue a thread warning? I'm asking this within context of what Lifthrasir asked you.

[z3n]

I'd guess a referral, with the end result for that topic would probably be a censure or two week warning if it was the first time. And more severe punishments if it was worse.

[Halie Satanus]

So, let's say, if I open a thread titled VoNC and then talk about tomato soup recipes, the Curator (given he is the local moderator) should report the opening post and issue a thread warning? I'm asking this within context of what Lifthrasir asked you.

There is no specific definition of what is 'frivolous' in the case of a VonC. But that would certainly meet the definition...

[Gigantus]

Yep, I agree.

The only thing that has really brought me to check the curia frequently of late is the modding staff proposal that was left in limbo for some time before being resurrected.

Preparations, tests etc are nearly finalized, should role out during this week.

[PikeStance]

As you know the VONC Aikanar thread has been archived, but I wish to bring attention to this statement:

'We simply disagree upon what local Moderator means in practice for the Curia. I see it in a way more progressive and proactive role than the local mods of a hosted mod forum' from Aikanar

Does this not start or even continue a very dangerous precedent for the future, not only here in the Curia, but throughout the forum in general. What if a Local Mod, such as myself then starts deciding as to what is best for their forum and members. Why should the Curia be special, should it not be the same, if the Constitution cannot be upheld, what is the point of having one. If we allow individuals to interprete the rules as they see fit, how can any citizen know exactly where they stand.

NJ

This was the point of the VonC.
I guess we need to experience the danger before we act upon it.

----

A year ago, Curator had no real powers including interpretation of the Constitution (which is actually in the hands of the citizenry, anyway). When I proposed to add local moderator this was a point of contention. Apparently, the pendulum shifted in one year and now the Curator has wide discretionary powers. I abandoned the VonC because it is better to have events unfold to see where they go.

[Lifthrasir]

So, let's say, if I open a thread titled VoNC and then talk about tomato soup recipes, the Curator (given he is the local moderator) should report the opening post and issue a thread warning? I'm asking this within context of what Lifthrasir asked you.

Unless I miss something, a LM can also delete an off-topic post (soft deletion of course).
And as far as I underdand it, the curator is the LM of the curia (despite what some may think), right?

So, taking these points into consideration, was that VoNC valid? And if not, can it be considered as off-topic?

[PikeStance]

Unless I miss something, a LM can also delete an off-topic post (soft deletion of course).
And as far as I underdand it, the curator is the LM of the curia (despite what some may think), right?

So, taking these points into consideration, was that VoNC valid? And if not, can it be considered as off-topic?

How was it off topic? The Prothalomos is the designated place for proposing a VonC including those against staff. Plus the Constitutional has a specific provision for frivolous VonC to determine its validity without the interference of the Curator.

[Lifthrasir]

Sorry I should have made myself more clear. By a valid VoNC I mean the procedure itself, not its content. Considering that in the present case, it was based on a single fact and about moderation, an appeal in the praetorium seems to have been the right way to proceed.
Now, I'm not saying it is off-topic. I'm asking if you haven't noticed it.

[PikeStance]

Unfortunately, there is no guidance on what constitutes a valid VonC. The Curia Guide provide some guidance on structure and procedure as well as a Guide for patronization.
Would it be more prudent to develop a "guide" on what constitutes a VonC especially a staff member?

I think we often look too often at reactive measures rather than proactive measures for dealing with issues.

I would also add that it may be a good idea to define what "Local Moderator" means within the context of the Curator.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is no specific definition of what is 'frivolous' in the case of a VonC. But that would certainly meet the definition...

And it would be up to the Curator to judge whether that is the case or not, as he did with this case.

How was it off topic? The Prothalomos is the designated place for proposing a VonC including those against staff. Plus the Constitutional has a specific provision for frivolous VonC to determine its validity without the interference of the Curator.

Unfortunately, there is no guidance on what constitutes a valid VonC. The Curia Guide provide some guidance on structure and procedure as well as a Guide for patronization.
Would it be more prudent to develop a "guide" on what constitutes a VonC especially a staff member?
I think we often look too often at reactive measures rather than proactive measures for dealing with issues.
I would also add that it may be a good idea to define what "Local Moderator" means within the context of the Curator.

You seem to have made fundamentally conflicting statements there. Basing a VoNC solely on a single infraction seems quite off-topic to me.

[PikeStance]

No conflict at all. Constitution states if a VonC is frivolous that is cause for a referral. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states the Curator can close a thread. No one is making that argument though. What they are arguing is that the Curator as a "special" local moderator of the Curia has an unknown prerogative to close threads. if the Curator has this prerogative it renders the Frivulous clause superfluous. My subsequent statement is if this is the case, then the Guide should be expanded to include what would constitute a valid VonC. my second post was offering a "solution" to the dilemma.

Basing the VonC on a single infraction seems like a frivolous use as well. Aik's actions which prevented any subsequent discussion and possibly other evidence probably did more to save Ponti from a referral than anything. Any referral now would be tenuous at best.

[PointOfViewGun]

No conflict at all. Constitution states if a VonC is frivolous that is cause for a referral. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states the Curator can close a thread. No one is making that argument though. What they are arguing is that the Curator as a "special" local moderator of the Curia has an unknown prerogative to close threads. if the Curator has this prerogative it renders the Frivulous clause superfluous. My subsequent statement is if this is the case, then the Guide should be expanded to include what would constitute a valid VonC. my second post was offering a "solution" to the dilemma.

Basing the VonC on a single infraction seems like a frivolous use as well. Aik's actions which prevented any subsequent discussion and possibly other evidence probably did more to save Ponti from a referral than anything. Any referral now would be tenuous at best.

I don't see how you manage to connect the Constitution having a specific provision for frivolous VoNC with having no guidance for it. It either does, or it doesn't. I don't see how you explain that with this post as well.

We have already established that a Curator is supposed to act as a local moderator, right? So, there should be no question whether he can or can't close a thread due to its contents. It's part of his job. We don't need a detailed explanation to point out that he can do that.

I also don't see the merit in saying that Aikanar's actions stopped Pontifex Maximus's referral. If it is to happen it should have been done in a new thread. It can still happen, but that too shouldn't be solely done on a single frivolous use of VoNC.

[PikeStance]

I don't see how you manage to connect the Constitution having a specific provision for frivolous VoNC with having no guidance for it. It either does, or it doesn't. I don't see how you explain that with this post as well.

was referring to the two Guides, one for the Curial and one about patronizing. The Constitution only stipulates procedure. There is no guide in determining anything. It is left for individual citizens to determine it. The Guide to patronizing new citizens gives some guidance for patronizing, but there is no "guide" for voting on citizenship. It is up to each citizen to determine that. The same is true for what constitutes "frivolous." The best you can do is quote a definition, but can you apply it to TWC? If you can, then by all means do so.

We have already established that a Curator is supposed to act as a local moderator, right? So, there should be no question whether he can or can't close a thread due to its contents. It's part of his job. We don't need a detailed explanation to point out that he can do that.

Up until now, they have been strong objections to the Curator acting so independently of the Constitution. For now, we see how it goes. For now, the prerogative contradicts the "Frivulous Clause."

I also don't see the merit in saying that Aikanar's actions stopped Pontifex Maximus's referral. If it is to happen it should have been done in a new thread. It can still happen, but that too shouldn't be solely done on a single frivolous use of VoNC.

We will never know if that is the end of the evidence. You never know if someone else would provide additional evidence or if the proposer when pressed provides more details. What "new" thread?

[PointOfViewGun]

was referring to the two Guides, one for the Curial and one about patronizing. The Constitution only stipulates procedure. There is no guide in determining anything. It is left for individual citizens to determine it. The Guide to patronizing new citizens gives some guidance for patronizing, but there is no "guide" for voting on citizenship. It is up to each citizen to determine that. The same is true for what constitutes "frivolous." The best you can do is quote a definition, but can you apply it to TWC? If you can, then by all means do so.

The posts I quoted specifically talked about VoNC. I'm not sure about your tangents... The moderation have been deciding on a daily basis on the validity of any thread. I'm not sure how that VoNC thread was any different. So, yeah, we can apply it to TWC. We've been doing that for years.

Up until now, they have been strong objections to the Curator acting so independently of the Constitution. For now, we see how it goes. For now, the prerogative contradicts the "Frivulous Clause."

That's the thing. The Curator did not act independently of the Constitution as it does grant him to moderate his sub-forum.

We will never know if that is the end of the evidence. You never know if someone else would provide additional evidence or if the proposer when pressed provides more details. What "new" thread?

We can know to a great certainty. It's not like that thread was the only time we heard him talking. He's talking all over the forum. So far, we have not seen any additional evidence whatsoever other than the claim that he has evidence but that he was threatened not to post it. Nothing is stopping him from posting said evidence here as well. I asked him about the threat somewhere but he didn't explain the nature of it either. We can say with certainty that there would be no additional evidence in that thread, not that the infraction he posted was evidence.

[PikeStance]

The posts I quoted specifically talked about VoNC. I'm not sure about your tangents... The moderation have been deciding on a daily basis on the validity of any thread. I'm not sure how that VoNC thread was any different. So, yeah, we can apply it to TWC. We've been doing that for years.
That's the thing. The Curator did not act independently of the Constitution as it does grant him to moderate his sub-forum.

We can know to a great certainty. It's not like that thread was the only time we heard him talking. He's talking all over the forum. So far, we have not seen any additional evidence whatsoever other than the claim that he has evidence but that he was threatened not to post it. Nothing is stopping him from posting said evidence here as well. I asked him about the threat somewhere but he didn't explain the nature of it either. We can say with certainty that there would be no additional evidence in that thread, not that the infraction he posted was evidence.

We are talking in circles here. The original question/ statement was that it was off-topic. It was not. VonC's against staff members are allowed in the Prothalomos. Whether or not if it had sufficient evidence is a question of debate within the Curia. The process was interrupted by the actions of the Curator. You cannot compare local moderators to other boards to the Curia because of the uniqueness of the Curia to other boards. In the past when discussions of increasing the moderation powers of the Curator, citizens objected. Now, they accept it. We will see how all of this plays out.

[Lifthrasir]

No, my original question was/is if a VoNC isn't valid as such regarding the procedure and not its content, can it be dealed by the curator as any LM would do with any off-topic post, considering that the curator is the LM of th e curia?

I'd also specify that here, that VoNC thread was not deleted but archived. But to not make things more complicated, let's agree that it is not the main point here.

Regarding your posts Pike, it looks like you're putting the constitution ahead of the TOS. From my opinion, the TOS comes first, here and anywhere else on the site. So if the curator is LM of this place, why is he not allowed to act as such? There's something wrong here

[PointOfViewGun]

We are talking in circles here. The original question/ statement was that it was off-topic. It was not. VonC's against staff members are allowed in the Prothalomos. Whether or not if it had sufficient evidence is a question of debate within the Curia. The process was interrupted by the actions of the Curator. You cannot compare local moderators to other boards to the Curia because of the uniqueness of the Curia to other boards. In the past when discussions of increasing the moderation powers of the Curator, citizens objected. Now, they accept it. We will see how all of this plays out.

I do not know about the contents of past discussions on Curator's moderation powers at the top of my head but closing down a thread that seemed to have abused its purpose comes across as a very simple job of a local moderator. Now you seem to be holding the position of a Curator at a unique level that requires extra interpretation when the Constitution seems to grant it simple local moderator powers which kinda goes against your initial position. I understand how that particular VoNC was off-topic and provided the reasoning for it as did many others. I see you claim that it's not but I don't see you addressing any of those points. Your arguments insistently tries to stay at high level that seems to ignore the context we're in. So, I have no reason to be convinced on this matter.

[PikeStance]

I think you are confused. I am not attempting to convince you of anything. I gave my reasoning in the VonC and in this thread prior to the VonC and I gave my explanation on why Ponti's VonC was not off-topic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as I said, we will see the wisdom of these choices as they play out from this point forward.

[Halie Satanus]

And it would be up to the Curator to judge whether that is the case or not, as he did with this

Since such a thread would meet his remit as spam as well as frivolous use of a VonC, yes. However, should the Curia decide tomato soup is integral to the sustenance of citizenship, both physically and spiritually. He could be facing a VonC.

There is ambiguity. Seems silly now in this instance, perhaps. We have a good curator and a team around him. However, we cannot simply allow the curators office the rule of law over the Curia. The citizenship must always have oversight and the ability to question and challenge the curators office.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think you are confused. I am not attempting to convince you of anything. I gave my reasoning in the VonC and in this thread prior to the VonC and I gave my explanation on why Ponti's VonC was not off-topic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as I said, we will see the wisdom of these choices as they play out from this point forward.

Any argument has the veiled purpose of convincing others... I know you gave your reasoning. What I said was lacking is addressing what people said about those reasonings. You continue to participate in this discussion and continue to hold the reasonings you mentioned before as if they're the indisputable truth. We disputed them yet saw no defense while you continued to use them. I don't find that productive, hence, pointed out their fallacious nature.

Since such a thread would meet his remit as spam as well as frivolous use of a VonC, yes. However, should the Curia decide tomato soup is integral to the sustenance of citizenship, both physically and spiritually. He could be facing a VonC.

There is ambiguity. Seems silly now in this instance, perhaps. We have a good curator and a team around him. However, we cannot simply allow the curators office the rule of law over the Curia. The citizenship must always have oversight and the ability to question and challenge the curators office.

And we did just that. Did we not? We had a VoNC against Aikanar and it met with virtually unanimous rejection from the Citizens. Many of us did not see use of a single infraction as a valid basis for a VoNC with a Praetorium process going on in the background.