(Moved to vote) Amendment: Extension of the VoNC

[Tom Paine]

Pursuant to discussions here, the Executive proposed the following Amendment to the Constitution, specifically Article 2 of Section 2:

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizens of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer of the Council, or any elected OfficerOfficer, with the exception of Moderation or Technical Staff not on the Council, for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Curia. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto, however the vote is non binding except in the case of elected Staff Officers. The debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamos.

Rationale: This puts the VoNC as a wider tool for range on a wider area of posts, while leaving it at the same status as regards whom it binds. Whilst therefore not increasing forced accountability, it increases accountability in terms of open criticism by VoNC.

Supporters: Patricians: Fabolous (post 20); Garbarsardar (post 24)
Supporters: Citizens: Elrond (post 23); Scorch (post 25)

NB: This is wholly authorised and commenced by the Executive.
Note: I'm not sure this covers Judges. It should. If it doesn't, give us a hand in making it do so please.

(Versions: Latest posted 23/6/07, 15:53 BST)

[Garbarsardar]

I support this.

[sapi]

Support.

[the Black Prince]

i would point out that under this change, members can no longer VONC the Chief Moderator... whether that's a good or bad change is entirely down to you, but he would become the only member of the Council that the VoNC doesn't apply to, unless a permanent officer is given a job explicitly within the moderation branch, such as a Deputy CM.

[Tom Paine]

I don't think that's a bad thing. Moderation is not a political matter. Others may well disagree.

[Garbarsardar]

Is the CoM part of the moderation staff? And even if that is so him/her being part of the moderation staff supersedes him/her being part of Hex?

Hmmm...

If it comes to that we'll have another heated exchange about the legality of that VonC...

[the Black Prince]

Is he part of the moderation staff? constitutionally, yes. The CM is counted as a Senior Mod, the (currently) 5 of whom set Moderation policy and deal with mod issues. Whether that bears any resemblance to reality, i have no idea.

The new language doesn't allow us to VoNC any member of hex though, it allows us to VONC anyone who isn't a moderator, or more accurately, someone who's not on the Moderator Staff, since almost all staff are moderators in some forum or another.

Currently the CM is nominally accountable to us if he acts seriously crazy... i'm not sure if its something we want to lose or not...

[Tom Paine]

He is a Moderation Staff Officer and a Council Officer. You can VoNC him as a Council Officer whilst not being able to as a Moderation Staff Officer, logically, no?

[the Black Prince]

isn't he a council officer who is a member of the moderation staff?

[Perikles]

Does it really matter about the exact wording? Let's just interpret it as meaning we can VonC any member of the council, including the CoM, but not the Strats or Tribs.

Now, I support.

[the Black Prince]

cept it doesn't really say that

[Fabolous]

I agree with tBP concerns. Plus, I wonder why we can VoNC content and technical staff but not moderation? The inseition of judges was much smoother, though I'm perfectly fine with the change to the vote only being binding on those who are elected.

[Garbarsardar]

In practical terms (and I mean the reality of the site) the CoM is the most vulnerable post. We have been through two CoMs already while no other Hex has changed. Think of that. And as Ozy and Peri said he is a Council Officer. He could not be CoM if he was not.

[Elrond]

How about this (or something with the same meaning and better Grammar):

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizens of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer of the Council, or any elected OfficerOfficer with the exception of the NON COUNCIL Moderation Staff for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Curia. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto, however the vote is non binding except in the case of elected Staff Officers. The debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamos.

[Tom Paine]

You can VoNC him in Moderation terms - that is clear, and refers to his (effectively) Strat level accesses. However you can VoNC him as a Council Officer, which he also is.

Fab, perhaps we should include Technical staff, but I think Content staff should be VoNCable - I mean, if we annoy the audience that much, then what are we doing producing content, no?

[Fabolous]

You can VoNC him in Moderation terms - that is clear, and refers to his (effectively) Strat level accesses. However you can VoNC him as a Council Officer, which he also is.

Adding non-council would clear that up in the text, which is where we have been having some issues of late, no?

Fab, perhaps we should include Technical staff, but I think Content staff should be VoNCable - I mean, if we annoy the audience that much, then what are we doing producing content, no?

Technical staff was always intended to be as seperate from the Curia as possible. If you want to include content... well I suppose thats fine, I'm ambivalent.

[Tom Paine]

Adding non-council would clear that up in the text, which is where we have been having some issues of late, no?

cf, latest version.

Technical staff was always intended to be as seperate from the Curia as possible. If you want to include content... well I suppose thats fine, I'm ambivalent.

That's what I mean, they should be excluded in the same line as moderation staff. Me go do that.

[Fabolous]

Well then, I support the present version.

[Elrond]

Perhaps lower content staff should be excluded from VoNC's - if they are hired and fired by the Chief of content and by content editors and arent ratified - therefore if a member of the content staff is receiving allot of criticism he is likely to be fired anyway.

The chief of content would obviously still be subject to VoNC's and perhaps editors.

I admit that I know little about the content branch - my reasoning for suggesting this is so that there is parity between the branches.

[the Black Prince]

similar arguments could be made about the mod and tech staff though.

Elrond's solution is a good one, i think