Citizenship Requirements: Is the bar set too high, or is it just par for the course?

[AngryTitusPullo]

You have been involved in major mod projects. You will always pass.

Have been is the key..

Let say someone who's very active in 2005-2006 and have made many small mods. Maybe not part of any big team at that time which if he/she had been patronized during that time there's no issue that the citizenship will be granted.

But what if only now with the current CdC will vote for someone who have made contribution to the site 5 or 6 years ago but have not made anymore until today.

How will it be ? Do past contributions which goes back to the last decade still counts ?

[Aikanár]

According to my opinion, contributions don't come with an expiration date.

[AngryTitusPullo]

According to my opinion, contributions don't come with an expiration date.

I'm just curious since I've some citizens have renounce their citizenship and I wonder whether they did it because they've felt that they have no longer contributed to the site or else.

[Squid]

I think there's a distinction to be made with someone who's never been a citizen before and someone who's had their rank stripped. If you've already had contributions counted in one successful citizenship attempt you shouldn't get to reuse them if re-applying after being stripped of your rank.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I'm just curious since I've some citizens have renounce their citizenship and I wonder whether they did it because they've felt that they have no longer contributed to the site or else.

......

No, basically they just became fed up by petty site politics, beurocracy, and drama. Many people reach that level and surrender their citizenship badges. I don't beleive it has anything to do with contributions to the site.
They have all done their fare share and then some...

[Genius of the Restoration]

I think there's a distinction to be made with someone who's never been a citizen before and someone who's had their rank stripped. If you've already had contributions counted in one successful citizenship attempt you shouldn't get to reuse them if re-applying after being stripped of your rank.

Why not?

[Squid]

They threw what that contribution earned them out the window, why should they get to use it again?

[Genius of the Restoration]

I don't think they threw out their contributions, I think they've had behavioural issues that have seen them lose their rank indefinitely. I see removal as an ongoing suspension except the member has to actively reapply and convince CdeC he's changed.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Squid, I'm not talking about those ostrakonzied (whatever the word). Like Mega said someone who on their own give up their citizenship. I do agree with you those who were stripped of citizenship due to breaking TOS or something should start a new and all pass contribution should not be counted.

[Squid]

I don't think they threw out their contributions, I think they've had behavioural issues that have seen them lose their rank indefinitely. I see removal as an ongoing suspension except the member has to actively reapply and convince CdeC he's changed.

What you see is not what the constitution says. The last option for CdeC is a removal of rank, not an indefinite suspension of rank. The rank is removed and the person is removed from the list of citizens.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I know the Constitution doesn't say that but that's how I see it. The Constitution doesn't say anything about making previous contributions either, so it's safe to say that neither of our positions are based on it. I don't think the contributions are nullified and so the only thing would stop a removed citizen from being readmitted, in my books, is whether the behaviour is adequate. That's why I view it as an indefinite suspension; because they will continue to not be a citizen until a time when they apply and convince CdeC that they are worthy of the rank again.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

But the constitution says "removal", not "temporary removal pending better behaviour". I for one would never consider pre-oskrakon contributions as a principle. You use up your credits when you get kicked out, and should need to have to earn your way back like a non-citizen would. If anything an offence worthy of ostrakon should make you have to do MORE to make up for your transgression.

[Genius of the Restoration]

But the constitution says "removal", not "temporary removal pending better behaviour".

The Constitution doesn't say whether contributions can remain or not and I don't think pointing out it says "removal" does anything for either argument.

You use up your credits when you get kicked out, and should need to have to earn your way back like a non-citizen would.

I don't think you use up your credits. Earning your way back like someone who had never been a citizen is exactly what I'm advocating. There aren't any restrictions on their contributions, so I don't think there should be for those who were removed either.

If anything an offence worthy of ostrakon should make you have to do MORE to make up for your transgression.

Quite possibly, but that's a separate issue to whether previous contributions should count or not.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

The Constitution doesn't say whether contributions can remain or not and I don't think pointing out it says "removal" does anything for either argument.

This was in reference to your comment to Squid about it being "an ongoing suspension" - i.e. it's still his he's just quarantined from it. I see it as a permanent removal.

I don't think you use up your credits. Earning your way back like someone who had never been a citizen is exactly what I'm advocating. There aren't any restrictions on their contributions, so I don't think there should be for those who were removed either.

In any walk of life, if you are removed from membership of something you need to complete a set of remedial measures to regain your status, be it an accountant's charter, a legal bar, or your driver's license. In none of these are your previous achievements relevant. If you are disqualified from your driver's license does already knowing to drive prevent you from having the test again?

[Omnipotent-Q]

I'm not saying I disagree or agree as I haven't formed an opinion. But I am curious. If you can't consider the prior "contributions" to get a first citizenship, then surely the associated ostrakon with it similarly cannot be considered as relevant using the same logic? Does the principle here only work one way? How can you not use any positive "contributions" from the first citizenship, yet you can use the negative "mistakes" from it? How can the supporters not use the past contributions in favour, yet the opposition can use the past mistakes to oppose? I'm struggling to get my head round it.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Person has positive contributions, an ostrakon negates that, so he has to start again from zero - or less than zero, perhaps. Why is that hard to understand?

[Navajo Joe]

Person has positive contributions, an ostrakon negates that, so he has to start again from zero - or less than zero, perhaps. Why is that hard to understand?

Robin,

Why should an Ostrakon disallow a members contributions? I cannot understand how you think an Ostrakon cancels out somebody's contributions, no matter how much they were, what there significance was. Surely if depends on what the Ostrakon was for and how they contributed before and after, should be by a case by case basis, not as simple as 'your out'

[Omnipotent-Q]

Person has positive contributions, an ostrakon negates that, so he has to start again from zero - or less than zero, perhaps. Why is that hard to understand?

So the ostrakon cancels out the contributions. That ostrakon is done then though - they've had removal of citizenship and been punished. Surely then the only question in any future context is "are they now citizenship material"? I'm pretty sure this version of the constitution was written deliberately not to use the line "permanent" in the removal of rank clause. There's a suggestion, maybe I misread, that you can't take any positives from the previous citizenship the member had, but you can take the negative. Why would one be considered, and not both? Surely the whole context of any situation should be considered, as opposed to subjectively concluding what was a "contribution" when the member was previously a citizen and what was one after the fact. I mean, how do you even start to judge what was a "contribution" back then and not after ostrakon? How do you start to judge what contributions can or can't be included in the future patronization of a previously removed citizen? If someone was working on a mod then, got their rank removed, but then carried on working on the mod and developing it, are you saying you can't then consider it for a future application? I'm sorry; it's just not making sense to me. I don't understand why you wouldn't consider all factors that are relevant instead of picking, choosing or imposing some sort of driving license system.

It seems obvious to me that all contributions are good whenever they are, so long as the mistake/s that caused the ostrakon in the first place have been rectified and learned from. If someone goes on a massive insulting rant but has created a bunch of good mods - it doesn't make those mods any less good. It just means they've made a mistake they've got to learn from it by returning to the right track. Maybe I'm misinterpreting here...

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Robin,

Why should an Ostrakon disallow a members contributions? I cannot understand how you think an Ostrakon cancels out somebody's contributions, no matter how much they were, what there significance was. Surely if depends on what the Ostrakon was for and how they contributed before and after, should be by a case by case basis, not as simple as 'your out'

The contributions still exist. They just shouldn't be used a second time to make the point the person is citizen material. He was promoted once and fluffed it up. In your opinion once he behaves for a few days he should be re-promoted, because he's made stuff before?

So the ostrakon cancels out the contributions. That ostrakon is done then though - they've had removal of citizenship and been punished. Surely then the only question in any future context is "are they now citizenship material"? I'm pretty sure this version of the constitution was written deliberately not to use the line "permanent" in the removal of rank clause. There's a suggestion, maybe I misread, that you can't take any positives from the previous citizenship the member had, but you can take the negative. Why would one be considered, and not both? Surely the whole context of any situation should be considered, as opposed to subjectively concluding what was a "contribution" when the member was previously a citizen and what was one after the fact. I mean, how do you even start to judge what was a "contribution" back then and not after ostrakon? How do you start to judge what contributions can or can't be included in the future patronization of a previously removed citizen? If someone was working on a mod then, got their rank removed, but then carried on working on the mod and developing it, are you saying you can't then consider it for a future application? I'm sorry; it's just not making sense to me. I don't understand why you wouldn't consider all factors that are relevant instead of picking, choosing or imposing some sort of driving license system.

It seems obvious to me that all contributions are good whenever they are, so long as the mistake/s that caused the ostrakon in the first place have been rectified and learned from. If someone goes on a massive insulting rant but has created a bunch of good mods - it doesn't make those mods any less good. It just means they've made a mistake they've got to learn from it by returning to the right track. Maybe I'm misinterpreting here...

I'm not sure what's clear here. When a previously ostrakoned citizen returns for an application, I would consider everything he's been doing since he was a non-citizen again, i.e. from a level playing field as someone who's never been a citizen to begin with. I have a belief that ostrakoned citizens should be judged at a higher standard than first timers because they've already proven themselves unable once to uphold the standards of a citizen.

If someone goes on a massive insulting rant but has created a bunch of good mods - it doesn't make those mods any less good. I just wouldn't care very much about it, since he's already benefited from it once. Given how much crap one has to do to be ostrakoned, I consider it such a big stain on his behavioural track record that only significant NEW contributions AND better behaviour post ostrakon would make him suitable for promotion again. Someone who's been thrown out should have to earn their way back, not be welcomed back like nothing has happened after a few days of good behaviour.

I have high standards regarding behaviour. You don't. Fine - councillor's discretion and all that. Feel free to contest my position when it next becomes available so I may no longer be able to express my opinion in votes.

[Aikanár]

I think it's only fair to consider the entire history of an applicant. But like with everything else, councillors are free to weight every contribution and wrongdoing according to their own discretion. For some councillors, moderational actions that have expired are neglectable, for others not and so forth. Same goes out for positives. Some may very well consider ante ostrakon (removal of rank to be precise, the "permanent" got removed some time ago) not that heavy weighted or at all. That does not render the contribution void, but just displays that the behaviour has a more severe impact on that case.