(Moved to vote) Amendment to Discipline

[the Black Prince]

A recent case has highlighted a slight absurdity in the Constitution...

If a member is referred to the CdeC by the staff for getting a staff warning, we hold 2 votes, one to decide on guilt, and then one to decide on sentence, choosing from a range of options.

However, if a member is referred to the CdeC by another member, we hold but one vote, and if found guilty, the member loses his highest rank, which in most cases will mean being stripped of citizenship.

I can think of no good reason why this difference exists, and the only reason it does is that several amendments over time have gradually changed the process for staff warnings, while the referral from member section remained untouched.

Additionally, if a member brings a case against another member, which is rejected, the CdeC must automatically hold a vote on the accuser. The idea behind it was to prevent people bring9ing malicious cases, but it also punishes those who validly brought what they honestly believed to be a just case.
I therefore propose that the procedure be overhauled, and one adopted that is similar to a referral for staff warning.

Proposer: the Black Prince
Supporters: Gigagaia, Scorch, selenius4tsd

Referral from a Member

Any member of TWC may report a Citizen to a member of the Consilium de Civitate for behaviour unbecoming of a Citizen. The accuser is asked to present a written charge to the Consilium de Civitate, who will then ask the accused to produce a defence within seventy two hours. The accused can be shown the charge, but not the name of the accuser. The Consilium de Civitate then has a further seventy two hours to investigate. After the investigation the Consilium de Civitates will hold a vote to decide whether the accused should lose his highest Normal Rank. This action requires seventy five per cent of non abstaining votes.

After the investigation, the Consilium de Civitate will hold a vote lasting 4 days. The options are:

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

If the CdeC vote to take further action, a second poll is opened for four days. the options are:

• Censure
• Suspension of Rank for One Week
• Suspension of Rank for One Month
• Suspension of Rank for Two Months
• Permanent Removal of Rank
• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining votes is required.

If the first vote fails, a second vote is automatically held to determine whether the accuser should have their rank suspended for two months for reckless use of this procedure. This second vote operates in the same manner as the first but lasts only twenty four hours. any elected member of the CdeC, the Speaker, or the Curator, may bring an action against the accuser under this procedure for misuse or malicious use of it.

[Mímirswell]

Support.

[Tom Paine]

Well... its not how I would amend it for that effect, but it works, so support.

[the Black Prince]

i wanted to keep the investigation part. With staff referrals, we don't need to investigate, all the evidence is the staff warning, which we have.

[Tom Paine]

The same contextual investigation is practised in either case anyway, in one case its just ongoing while the vote occurs, in practice. My own idea reads as follows:

Supporters: Patricians: Scorch (post 7); Mimirswell (post 8); Perikles (post 20)
Supporters: Citizens: sapi (post 12)

Article 1 – Citizen’s Behaviour

The suspension and removal of a Normal Rank is handled by the Consilium de Civitates via the following disciplinary process. No Citizen may be subject to more than one process for a single offencepost.

Referral from Member

Any member of TWC may report a Citizens to a member of the Consilium de Civitates for behavior unbecoming of a Citizens. The accuser is asked to present a written charge to the Consilium de Civitates, who will then ask the accused to produce a defence within seventy two hours. The accused can be shown the charge, but not the name of the accuser. The Consilium de Civitates then has a further seventy two hours to investigate. After the investigation the Consilium de Civitates will hold a vote to decide whether the accused should lose his highest Normal Rank. This action requires seventy five per cent of non abstaining votes.

If the first vote fails, a second vote is automatically held to determine whether the accuser should have their rank suspended for two months for reckless use of this procedure. This second vote operates in the same manner as the first but lasts only twenty four hours.

Referral for Staff WarningProcedure

If any Citizen receives a staff warning from an Officer of the Moderation Branch their case will be referred to the Consilium de Civitates by the Chief of Branch or the Speaker of the House, who will open a votethread and post all relevant user notes of the accused. The accused will then be asked by the Speaker of the House to produce a defence within forty eight hours. The accused is allowed no defence. At the conclusion of this period, regardless of whether a defence has been received, a vote shall be opened to conclude after The vote concludes within four days. The options are

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

If the CdeC vote is to take further action, a second poll is opened for four days. The options are:

• Censure
• Suspension of rank for 1 week
• Suspension of rank for 1 month
• Suspension of rank for 2 months
• Permanent Removal of Rank
• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for the vote to pass.
If a member is referred by another member, the process is the same, except that the accusation is substituted for usernotes in the thread, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Speaker of the House.
If the warning that formed the basis of this referral is subsequently overturned by the Tribunal, the Citizen’s Rank is restored
Normal Rank may not be removed except by the procedure outlined in this Article. Honorary rank may not be removed by this procedure. Senatorii may only be removed by the Council at their discretion. Divus and Opifex may only be removed by a Decision of the Curia.

The legend is the normal one. I'd like to note that this allows a defence in either case - I think that's a flaw in the present system, automatic referrals not at present allowing defences.

Note that, since people are treating this as a counterdraft (not my original intention, but I'll run with it anyway), I withdraw support from the original proposal of tBP.

Version posted 2057BST, July 13th

[gigagaia]

Support, naturally.

[Tom Paine]

Support, naturally.

Which proposal do you support, might one ask?

[Muizer]

Which proposal do you support, might one ask?

There only is one proposal per thread: the one endorsed by the author of the OP.

[Scorch]

I support both versions, but the allure of allowing a defence appeals to me more. That is, I support Ozy's ... more.

[Mímirswell]

I will remove my support of the original and support Ozymandias's proposal. His solves a couple of problems I have with the current process.

[sapi]

Ozy, is there any reason your version completely removes the ability to act against malicious use of this procedure?

[Tom Paine]

Because I think the ability still exists; its now not automatic, but surely anyone using it either maliciously or frivolously is acting in a manner unbecoming of a citizen, and therefore may be brought up for member action? It allows for vastly more discretion in that area than previously possible - including the ability to give a censure for misuse, rather than two month ban or nothing.

[sapi]

Because I think the ability still exists; its now not automatic, but surely anyone using it either maliciously or frivolously is acting in a manner unbecoming of a citizen, and therefore may be brought up for member action? It allows for vastly more discretion in that area than previously possible - including the ability to give a censure for misuse, rather than two month ban or nothing.

Okay, I see what you mean. Flexibility is always a good thing.

Support (your version)

[the Black Prince]

i would point out my procedure doesn't have an automatic action, and allows for censure too... my procedure allows for a member referral to be brought for misuse, and the whole point of this amendment is that all the options are on the table for member referral.

there doesn't need to be a defence to a staff warning. a citizen getting a staff warning has acted in a manner unbevcoming of a citizen, because one of the principles of being a citizen is to act within the ToS. This is why citizens who have active staff warnings cannot gain further rank or hold office. The only defence to a referral for a staff warning is to have the staff warning removed, the CdeC cannot do that, the tribunal can, which is why if a warning is cancelled on appeal, then the action ceases.

[Scorch]

i would point out my procedure doesn't have an automatic action, and allows for censure too... my procedure allows for a member referral to be brought for misuse, and the whole point of this amendment is that all the options are on the table for member referral.

there doesn't need to be a defence to a staff warning. a citizen getting a staff warning has acted in a manner unbevcoming of a citizen, because one of the principles of being a citizen is to act within the ToS. This is why citizens who have active staff warnings cannot gain further rank or hold office. The only defence to a referral for a staff warning is to have the staff warning removed, the CdeC cannot do that, the tribunal can, which is why if a warning is cancelled on appeal, then the action ceases.

I disagree, I think a defence would include mitigating circumstances and provocation, to show that there were some external factors, not them just acting like a jerk for the hell of it. I still think the bill is needed in one form or another, but as I said, I support Ozy's more. That is, if it comes down to me choosing Ozy's or yours, I'll choose his. Sorry.

[Tom Paine]

i would point out my procedure doesn't have an automatic action, and allows for censure too... my procedure allows for a member referral to be brought for misuse, and the whole point of this amendment is that all the options are on the table for member referral.

there doesn't need to be a defence to a staff warning. a citizen getting a staff warning has acted in a manner unbevcoming of a citizen, because one of the principles of being a citizen is to act within the ToS. This is why citizens who have active staff warnings cannot gain further rank or hold office. The only defence to a referral for a staff warning is to have the staff warning removed, the CdeC cannot do that, the tribunal can, which is why if a warning is cancelled on appeal, then the action ceases.

I disagree. I am enraged by something and flame someone; is my action deserving of the same CdeC punishment as someone enraged by something because it personally insults them at an emotionally bad time? Surely not. And this sort of thing must be taken into account, but cannot be except by the acceptance of a defence. It is a travesty on the face of CdeC discipline that in some cases, defences are not accepted.

[Lord Condormanius]

I disagree. I am enraged by something and flame someone; is my action deserving of the same CdeC punishment as someone enraged by something because it personally insults them at an emotionally bad time? Surely not. And this sort of thing must be taken into account, but cannot be except by the acceptance of a defence. It is a travesty on the face of CdeC discipline that in some cases, defences are not accepted.

Agreed, a defense is always neccessary. I do not like the assumption of guilt or the rationale behind, "a citizen getting a staff warning has acted in a manner unbevcoming [sic] of a citizen". There is too much room for abuse there.

[selenius4tsd]

Either proposal has my support.

[the Black Prince]

its somewhat hard to tell so, do Gig and Ozy support the original proposal in this thread?

[sapi]

Note that, since people are treating this as a counterdraft (not my original intention, but I'll run with it anyway), I withdraw support from the original proposal of tBP.