A wondrous tale about labels
Apologies for the lengthy text, unfortunately it is necessary as otherwise the final paragraph wouldn't make much sense. So let's get it over with:
Some will remember, or even have participated in, the amendment proposal I recently presented in the Prothalamos. It's intend was to assure that the curial officers are obliged to follow ND obligations like any other staff, especially in light of numerous claims by the consul that the officers were not bound by any obligation. The pivotal point for that justification apparently being that it was commonly called 'SND' or 'Staff Non Disclosure' eg curial officers being elected unlike 'staff' that is being appointed.
Rather then the actual situation that there simply is nothing by way of instruction, constitutional or otherwise for curial officers with regards to ND - the very point the proposal addressed.
Fast forward nearly two weeks since the start of the proposal and that's where I request to regard the amendment as abandoned because of the ToS amendment proposal. The reason for abandoning was rather simple: the proposed text addresses the issue raised by my amendment once it comes into effect in about 30 days, depending on changes. Never mind that I pointed out earlier myself that a ToS amendment addressing this would render my proposal obsolete:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gigantus
Should the ToS be amended at a later stage to do the same for the general membership (see challenge to the wording by the consul) then this amendment will be obsolete and can be removed as such.
The amendment proposal was moved into the archive shortly afterward as I noticed when I went back. So far so good.
It was however labeled INVALID. And this is were things get interesting:
Right at the start of the proposal the consul claimed that the proposal was invalid:
Quote:
The Curia is not part of TWC Staff and thus this amendment is invalid and not applicable.
An argument that held no water - as at no point in the proposed change any reference was made to that. The sole mentioning of staff in the introduction was "...commonly referred to as SND." which I removed to stop further confusion.
The consul then went on to prove that while material covered by ND obligations of every other department were not permissible in ostrakon procedure the curial officers themselves were not obliged by any ND regulation whatsoever. The very point the proposed amendment addressed.
The consul did not re-iterate his stance re validity of the proposal after that nor at any point during the remaining 2 weeks the proposal continued to be active. Which means that one could reasonable assume that the question of validity was resolved. After all the proposal would have been archived there and then if the concern of the consul was well founded, would it not?
Fast forward 2 weeks when the proposed change to the ToS was published. It was clear that the proposed change in the ToS addressed the issue raised in the proposed amendment and thus would render it obsolete - once the ToS was actually implemented and binding, which would take at least 30 days as per the normal procedure of public review, possible changes as suggested by the public and finally the binding implementation afterward.
Which theoretically (if you ignore my quote from earlier) left me with three options:
- Do nothing - which would render the proposal abandoned by default roughly 20 days later
- Go ahead, secure the last support required to go to the poll. Which would either end up as 'failed' or would pass and the proposed change would get implemented.
- Acknowledge that 1. is simply lazy and 2. pointless and counter productive as the change would get rendered obsolete just a few days later by the implementation of the ToS changes and thus would require another procedure to remove it again. And in conclusion officially abandon the proposal.
Which raised the question why the proposed amendment was labeled INVALID after I requested that it be considered abandoned. While the consul did leave no indication of any reasoning in the proposal when archiving it he obliged me and responded to my query:
Quote:
Originally Posted by consul
Your amendment is invalid due to over reach (the Constitution does not have any authority over what happens off site) as well as similar language being found in the ToS as such it is invalid.
While stating the obvious regarding authority off site, the argument itself is moot as the isussue isn't being addressed by the proposal other then by disallowing ND information gained off site to be published on TWC:
"Non public information regarding a member or forum department obtained through .../... and from external sources (twitter, other forums etc) are not to be released without the consent of the concerned member\department."I think it's safe to claim that TWC has the authority to enforce that.
The 'similar language' reason is not applicable either as the consul ably demonstrated himself (second quote here). In this case I can only assume that he jumped the gun otherwise: after all the proposed change in the ToS will actually address the issue - once the change is implemented in approximately 28 days
After all the consul demonstrated himself that the current definition of the harassment rule in his opinion only encompasses private information like birthday and e-mail addresses. That's a small fraction of what ND covers and it presents a bit of a catch 22 situation for the consul's argument: either the current rule definition covers ND (see 'covered by similar language') and thus the curial officers, or it doesn't - in which case the consul's objection is mute. Or there is another constitutional passage that I am not aware off that actually covers curial ND obligations beyond mere e-mail and birthdays.
Now let me top this off a bit and bring it to an end:
- The wording of the original proposed amendment has only changed in small details, the points that the consul objects to however have not. Letting the proposal continue and at the conclusion labeling it 'invalid' does raise a question about selective, inconsistent and rather unorthodox application of the consul's power.
- So, can I please get the 'abandoned' label for the proposal or alternately a valid explanation why it is invalid (wordplay for the win) and subsequently why it wasn't closed down on day one?
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
As was explained the Curia does not have authority over what takes place off site and as such any amendment related to off site behavior is invalid.
Your post was not immediately archived and invalidated because doing so is unproductive and not conducive to a discussion about the underlying issues which your thread facilitated despite it's invalid proposal.
I grow weary of your repeated misrepresentations of my words.
I find it ironic that for someone who has raised so much stink about personal information that you have no issue divulging the contents of private messages without permission.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
A new Consul election is due May 15th, that will be the best way to deal with these continuing issues.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
As was explained the Curia does not have authority over what takes place off site and as such any amendment related to off site behavior is invalid.
Wait a minute . help mer understand.
When we all registered in TWC we gave some info about us (birthday etc to start from the most innocent ones).
Elecronic fraud pollice in every country says that even the minor info about ourselves can be used by hackers (some use their birhday as password for example).
When we filled that form to register to TWC we did in good faith and under the belief that that info will REMAIN in TWC and wont be subject for discussion or for any other reason.
The DETAIL here is in the phrase "in good faith". That means we were sure that what happens in TWC stays in TWC. Now you come here and tell us (in an other post too) that you discuss about Curia issues (aka you transfare members personal info ) in a discord channel. That way youu brake the rule of trust ... Our info is not a delivary package to take it where you think is more manageble for your use. Do i miss something ? If yes please be spesific.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
As was explained the Curia does not have authority over what takes place off site and as such any amendment related to off site behavior is invalid.
Your post was not immediately archived and invalidated because doing so is unproductive and not conducive to a discussion about the underlying issues which your thread facilitated despite it's invalid proposal.
I grow weary of your repeated misrepresentations of my words.
I find it ironic that for someone who has raised so much stink about personal information that you have no issue divulging the contents of private messages without permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
The Curia is not part of TWC Staff and thus this amendment is invalid and not applicable.
Additionally, this is already covered in the Constitution.
Quote:
4 Subject to the procedures in Section III. Comments which cannot be supported due to either 'Non-Disclosure Agreement,' or existing within restricted forums, are prohibited.
Quote:
Or is this a required clarification since there is no binding instruction as you also suggest?
As you can see above, there are already binding instructions - this essentially would accomplish nothing.
It is not within the Curia's purview to decide who is and isn't staff or covered under staff non-disclosure.
Only the Hexagon council can define who is and isn't staff and therefore who is and isn't bound by SND.
Quote:
If not, and as those aren't necessarily subject to the curia/constitution,
That would simply further invalidate the amendment. The Curia has no jurisdiction over anything that happens outside of the Curia.
Errrgh... You need to make your mind here :hmm:
Can you expand on what motivated such decision? A minimum of explanation would be welcome here because I can't see any valid reason tbh.
To borrow your own words and considering the course of events so far, I'm finding ironic such zealous decision from a person so prompt to criticize TWC Staffs as a whole.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
As was explained the Curia does not have authority over what takes place off site and as such any amendment related to off site behavior is invalid.
I am wondering if you actually read my post, highlight by me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by response to the same argument in OP
While stating the obvious regarding authority off site, the argument itself is moot as the issue isn't being addressed by the proposal other then by disallowing ND information gained off site to be published on TWC:
"Non public information regarding a member or forum department obtained through .../... and from external sources (twitter, other forums etc) are not to be released without the consent of the concerned member\department."I think it's safe to claim that TWC has the authority to enforce that.
--------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
Your post was not immediately archived and invalidated because doing so is unproductive and not conducive to a discussion about the underlying issues which your thread facilitated despite it's invalid proposal.
I am not sure how to respond to that. Humor the participants for a couple of weeks and then invalidate it anyhow as indicated on the first day? It does solidify the 'unorthodox' if not strengthen the 'inconsistent' remark I made.
Never mind that it is addressed in the post as well, highlight again by me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by yet another section in the OP
The consul did not re-iterate his stance re validity of the proposal after that nor at any point during the remaining 2 weeks the proposal continued to be active. Which means that one could reasonable assume that the question of validity was resolved. After all the proposal would have been archived there and then if the concern of the consul was well founded, would it not?
--------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
I find it ironic that for someone who has raised so much stink about personal information that you have no issue divulging the contents of private messages without permission.
I am assuming you noticed that I didn't reveal your birthday or e-mail, so yes I am taking personal information seriously, even more so according to your own comment on 'private information' so I think I should be fine. Never mind that the explanation as to 'invalid' should have been included as a closing comment in the proposal, so it's hardly 'confidential' information either - in fact it's an official statement by a curia officer. Information like your health revealed to me in that PM would not have made here either, of that I can assure you, even so you didn't cover that in your definition of private information, plus I took care to only quote the direct response to my question, so it wouldn't have made it anyhow.
Seeing that you insist on obfuscation: I 'made a stink' over ND obligations, or rather it's absence in the curia.
--------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Baltar
A new Consul election is due May 15th, that will be the best way to deal with these continuing issues.
Ultimately it is, and the more info one has the easier the choice.
--------------------------
So, can I please get the 'abandoned' label for the proposal or alternately a valid explanation why it is invalid (wordplay for the win) and subsequently why it wasn't closed down on day one?
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Sharing private site information off-site with people who would not normally have access to it is not ok.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sir Adrian
Sharing private site information off-site with people who would not normally have access to it is not ok.
Agreed, but as the consul pointed out correctly that is beyond the jurisdiction of TWC, never mind technically not possible to enforce\prevent***. TWC however has jurisdiction when information gathered that way then comes back to TWC. Only the latter was addressed by the proposal.
Edit: *** unless the external site is under administrative control of TWC in which case the 'local' rules apply by default.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sir Adrian
Sharing private site information off-site with people who would not normally have access to it is not ok.
Sharing private site information off-site with people who would have access to it on TWC is not OK either. Such info should not be discussed 'off the record'.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Sharing private site information off-site with people who would have access to it on TWC is not OK either.
:doh:
There's zero chance I ever switch back to using the Politia rather than discord for the majority of communications. TWC is not an instant messaging service and as such drastically limits your ability to carry on a conversation between two people.
Quote:
Such info should not be discussed 'off the record'.
The idea that there needs to be a record of every single thing the Consul and the Censors say to each other is laughable.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Can we get back to the topic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gigantus
So, can I please get the 'abandoned' label for the proposal or alternately a valid explanation why it is invalid (wordplay for the win) and subsequently why it wasn't closed down on day one?
I have received two reasons why the proposal was labeled invalid:
The first one wasn't even touched by the proposal: the Constitution does not have any authority over what happens off site.
The second one is an unsubstantiated teaser: as well as similar language being found in the ToS
Never mind the 'I didn't do my job on day one because the discussion was so interesting' with regards to the last part. Which would necessitate to actual having a valid reason to declare it invalid.**
So, do I need to wait for the new consul to raise the issue again or can I get a valid explanation from the present one?
**wonder why moderation hasn't caught up on that approach: Be aware of rule (procedure) violation, do nothing, bin whole thread several pages later with 'great discussion but multiple rule violations' comment. It certainly would liven up the modcomm again.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Can we get back to the topic?
Everything so far has been on topic.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Nice dodge on the rest of my post.
I can't recall your preference to discuss matters on discord having any relevance to the topic. Nor the initial notion by Adrian that off site discussion is not OK.
Now that we have all indulged ourselves in that aspect (yes, I am including myself) can we get to the topic? A refresher, just in case:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gigantus
So, can I please get the 'abandoned' label for the proposal or alternately a valid explanation why it is invalid (wordplay for the win) and subsequently why it wasn't closed down on day one?
It's two days and I am still waiting.
For a valid response, aka one that is actually supported by facts aka one that is not a unsubstantiated generic reference.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
The Proposal was not labelled invalid when we spent two weeks debating it. If it were invalid the parties involved would not have debated it for two weeks.
The Proposal was abandoned and should be changed to this because setting it as invalid sets a precedent where good ideas may be thrown away.
Ultimately the discussion resulted in a strengthening of the TOS on privacy issues which is positive so the Curia carried out a discussion which helped move something which benefits the wider user base.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
As was explained the Curia does not have authority over what takes place off site and as such any amendment related to off site behavior is invalid.
There goes my plan to ban pineapple in pizza.
I think I heard this argument before. Sounded idiotic the first time, sounds idiotic still.
Or as a wise old man once wrote:
"The ToS does not apply beyond TWC. How could it? We cannot suspend your facebook account. The ToS applies within TWC and in the majority of cases for actions that have been perpetrated on TWC. However, in exceptional circumstances (there are two cases I remember: the first involved threats to hack the site, posted on another website, the second deviation from Staff Non Disclosure by posting material from the DEn on another website) actions outside TWC, that have an impact on TWC and it's members will be taken into account. I saw no one complained about the suspension of the Tony83 account. The reprehensible actions of this member happened 99% outside TWC, still he was suspended here."
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
The Proposal was not labelled invalid when we spent two weeks debating it. If it were invalid the parties involved would not have debated it for two weeks.
As I said, it wasn't labeled invalid immediately because it could have been reworked to be valid. Labeling it invalid with no discussion is pointless and just leads to more issues.
Quote:
The Proposal was abandoned and should be changed to this because setting it as invalid sets a precedent where good ideas may be thrown away.
It being marked invalid doesn't mean "a good idea was thrown away", it just means that the proposal wasn't valid. A good idea did come from it as the ToS was changed.
Quote:
Ultimately the discussion resulted in a strengthening of the TOS on privacy issues which is positive so the Curia carried out a discussion which helped move something which benefits the wider user base.
Right - so how can you say that a good idea was thrown away?
@Garb
We're talking about The Curia, not the ToS.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garbarsardar
There goes my plan to ban pineapple in pizza.
I think I heard this argument before.
Sounded idiotic the first time, sounds idiotic still.
Or as a wise old man once wrote:
"
The ToS does not apply beyond TWC. How could it? We cannot suspend your facebook account. The ToS applies within TWC and in the majority of cases for actions that have been perpetrated on TWC. However, in exceptional circumstances (there are two cases I remember: the first involved threats to hack the site, posted on another website, the second deviation from Staff Non Disclosure by posting material from the DEn on another website) actions outside TWC, that have an impact on TWC and it's members will be taken into account. I saw no one complained about the suspension of the Tony83 account. The reprehensible actions of this member happened 99% outside TWC, still he was suspended here."
I have always wanted to quote Garbarsardar and agree with him and here's my chance.
But I also agree that information, meant to be confidential, acquired from TWC should not be communicated in any form.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
@Garb
We're talking about The Curia, not the ToS.
Ah, alright then, I thought we were talking about principles.
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
Day 4 - still no response to my initial challenge to the reason for declaring the proposal.
I think it can be reasonable stated by now that the consul isn't bothered to respond. Which leads me to the assumption that his decisions are final and the reasoning for it beyond reproach - regardless whether they are not applicable or so vague to be generic. Final decision, reasoning beyond reproach - the basic of papal infallibility if I am not mistaken.
It does explain why there was no further response to the challenges after declaring the proposal invalid on day one, and provides a secure base for the letting the discussion continue regardless.
This appalling stance couldn't be in starker contrast to the one in the modcomm where the consul hardly misses an opportunity to demand accountability from moderation.
There is no avenue like the tribunal to appeal the consul's decisions which leads to the inevitable 'Don't like it? VonC him!' - The procedure demands a time consuming gathering of evidence to make a compelling case - after all it's not an ostrakon where one may tell a story about official action taken without ever going into the details of it. But rather requires to prove that the consul did act in a manner that is not supported by the rules, and not just in one case but over a longer period.
Add to that the time it will take to deliberate and finally vote and a result can hardly be expected before the next consul election has concluded.
Rather then putting faith in the VonC process and vonc'ing a consul that very likely is not in office anymore I'll rather put the same faith with the electoral process by taking part - middle of next month the process starts I think?
Re: A wondrous tale about labels
I've answered you and others both here and elsewhere multiple times.
If you don't feel satisfied with my answers, that's fine - but to act like you received only silence from me is disingenuous.
Quote:
But I also agree that information, meant to be confidential, acquired from TWC should not be communicated in any form.
Okay but that's not what this thread is about.
Quote:
Ah, alright then, I thought we were talking about principles.
We're talking about whether or not the Curia has the authority to say what you can and can't do off site and whether it has the authority to punish you for what takes place off site. It does not.
Quote:
Rather then putting faith in the VonC process I'll do the same with the election - middle of next month the process starts I think?
The 15th, yes.
You could always do both, though. What's a 7th VonC between friends?