[Amendment] Patronization Amendment

[Justinian]

Proposed by: [user]Justinian[/user]
Supporters: [user]Ludwig Van Beethoven[/user], [user]y2day[/user], [user]Augustus Lucifer[/user]

(proposed by Justinian on behalf of [user]Astaroth[/user], the bill's author)

Citizens

To qualify for Citizen, a member must have at least fifty posts, been a registered member for two months, and have no warnings.
If a member has been warned, the member must have gone six consecutive months without a further warning.
If a member has received 2 or less warning points, the member must have gone 3 consecutive months without a further warning.
If a member has received 3 or more warning points, the member must have gone 6 consecutive months without a further warning.

Recently, the CVRIA has passed a bill which changed this paragraph. Users who have received a warning now have to wait for the following 6 months (previously: 3 months) before being able to apply for citizenship. That change in itself was not such a bad one - trouble makers should have a hard time getting into the CVRIA. Nobody wants nor needs constant flamers in here, who disturb the site and attack other members.

However, when this decision was made, an important detail was ignored: the bill did not differentiate between the amount of warning points one has received. It is simply aimed at "people with warnings" - it is not taken into account whether you got a single warning point for off-topic posting or a 6 point infraction for especially bad insults and flaming. Any member who received a warning will be punished in the same way, no differences will be made whatsoever. As everyone will agree, that can hardly be considered fair. This proposal aims at changing and improving this.

People who have one (1) or two (2) warning points will have committed one of the following 'crimes':
off-topic posting, hard-to-read posts, signature size violations and censor bypassing.

Those infractions are obviously rather minor compared to other categories such as flaming or posting obscene content. However, of course they are still violations of the Terms of Service - therefore, they shall be punished. A user who received an 1-2 point infraction will still have to wait 3 months before he can apply for citizenship.

This decision will not make the ToS violators less responsible for their actions - it will merely make the amount of punishment proportional to the severity of their wrongdoing. That seems only just and logical.

[Soulghast]

Support's here.

[y2day]

Support

[Squid]

Oppose. Same reason I've given elsewhere. If a member has a warning, except in rare cases, they have received a note and often at least one PM prior to the warning. If they still can't be bothered to post within the rules of the ToS, then they should sit and wait until they can figure out how to post within the rules before being allowed to be citizens.

And for all the comments about, "but I was drunk" or whatever other nonsense is sprouted. Each and every single member of this forum is responsible for their actions, and have to deal with the consequences. If they choose to get drunk and post that is a choice they made and nobody but them is responsible for making that choice, even if it is a poor one.

[Justinian]

This is not about whether a warning is justified, it is solely about the amount of punishment for a warning. A user who has broken the rules in a way as you describe it will still be punished, but in accordance with his infraction. The punishment should be proportional to the ToS violation and I think everyone will agree that posting obscene material or flaming other users is a much bigger violation then a mere off-topic post or censor bypass.

In the criminal justice system, murder and theft are treated as two very seperate crimes with seperate punishments. Obviously breaking TWC's rules are not as serious, but the differences in the rule-breaking should be noted.

If the 6 months rule applied when Crandar, for example, was a moderator, then we would have 99% fewer citizens.

[Augustus Lucifer]

This is not about whether a warning is justified, it is solely about the amount of punishment for a warning. A user who has broken the rules in a way as you describe it will still be punished, but in accordance with his infraction. The punishment should be proportional to the ToS violation and I think everyone will agree that posting obscene material or flaming other users is a much bigger violation then a mere off-topic post or censor bypass.

In the criminal justice system, murder and theft are treated as two very seperate crimes with seperate punishments. Obviously breaking TWC's rules are not as serious, but the differences in the rule-breaking should be noted.

If the 6 months rule applied when Crandar, for example, was a moderator, then we would have 99% fewer citizens.

That reminded me of Law and Order: SVU; "In the criminal justice system, sexual crimes are treated as especially heainous...."

Seriously though, this has my full support. Offensive language, harassment, and obscene content should have the lengthened time period. Lack of off-topic or hard-to-read posts, a good Citizen does not make.(Read this sentence carefully before quoting it, I'm using backwards English )

[Squid]

In the real world, if you have a criminal record, you have a criminal record, and for those jobs where a criminal record is not allowed they don't look at the record and say, well it was only for theft so its not so bad. When I apply for a job that requires that kind of check (similar in nature to the citizen requirement) I have to answer the question "Have you been found guilty of a criminal code offense that you have not received a pardon for?" the type of crime is immaterial. Here the pardon is automatically granted after the warning expires.

But it didn't apply then, and as all warning expire it doesn't exclude anybody from the position, it just makes them wait, so even those 99% that wouldn't have made it under Crandar, would still eventually have been eligable since all those warning have long since expired. If they really want to be a citizen, then they'd hopefully learn to post in a more ToS abiding manner.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Support.

[Garnier]

Oppose, not a big deal to me but I can't think of a good reason to make it easier for those who break the rules to become citizens. And yes, it definitely takes more than one breaking of the rules to get even one or two warning points.

[Fabolous]

Oppose, not a big deal to me but I can't think of a good reason to make it easier for those who break the rules to become citizens. And yes, it definitely takes more than one breaking of the rules to get even one or two warning points.

This.

Support. Minor point counts (1-3 points) should be three months. Anything inappropriate, like flaming, or x-rated pictures/links should be treated harshly.

Flaming and obscene content are both, generally though not always, 3 point warnings. So that is hardly a minor point count. However, if you said 1-2 points instead (as the bill does), then your argument is valid.

[Justinian]

Oppose, not a big deal to me but I can't think of a good reason to make it easier for those who break the rules to become citizens. And yes, it definitely takes more than one breaking of the rules to get even one or two warning points.

This proposal is not about whether a warning is deserved or fair, it is merely about the amount of punishment for a certain offense. Do you consider it appropriate and just that someone who bypasses the censor or makes off-topic posts is put on a level with a flamer and trouble-maker who attacks other members?

The requirements were put up to 6 months in order to keep mischievous troublemakers and harassers from having easy access to a rank they don't deserve - which is obviously necessary. However, I don't see the point in punishing considerably smaller infractions in the same way. A thief will never get the same punishment as a murderer, at least not in the modern era -- we don't cut off your hand for stealing a loaf of bread anymore.

Obviously, thievery is still a crime and will be punished. The same applies here, someone who does not abide by the rules and commits minor 'crimes' will have to wait 3 months as well. That was the sufficient waiting period for a very long time, why is it now inappropriate?

According to the site's policy, higher amounts of warning points will result in stricter treatment and more punishment - for example, a user with 3 warning points can no longer use the social group function, once he has 4 he can no longer display nor give reputation on top of that.

All 'crimes' shouldn't be put on the same level, it hardly seems fair. And regardless of eligibility or not, the CdeC can be trusted to reject those who are inappropriate for Citizenship. I know this for a fact.

[Mímirswell]

If the moderating system works right (and we have a Tribunal to ensure it does); then except for very serious infractions, you have to commit two separate violations before a warning is applied. Ergo, someone who has any warning, no matter how minor, is repeat offender. Repeat offenders (even for mild infractions) have no place as citizens.

Oppose.

[Justinian]

Ergo, someone who has any warning, no matter how minor, is repeat offender. Repeat offenders (even for mild infractions) have no place as citizens.

But the current system does not keep repeat offenders from becoming citizens, it simply postpones it. By what you're saying, we should just ban anyone who's ever gotten a warning from becoming a Citizen, which I disagree with. One lapse of judgment isn't enough to judge someone's character on.

Besides, moderators are not required to hand out notes before warnings. It's all subjective, and I think with that subjectivity in mind, a strict six month limit for all offenses is unnecessary and too strict -- it isn't subjective like the rules on moderation are. The CdeC can undoubtedly be trusted to exercise judgment on whether or not someone deserves to get in, regardless of warning levels or eligibility.

[Fabolous]

This proposal is not about whether a warning is deserved or fair, it is merely about the amount of punishment for a certain offense. Do you consider it appropriate and just that someone who bypasses the censor or makes off-topic posts is put on a level with a flamer and trouble-maker who attacks other members?

If you want to up it to 12 months for flaming, I suppose I could consider that, but it seems overly harsh to me.

[Heinz Guderian]

support this.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Opposed.

[finsternis]

Support.

6 months is too much. I would agree to 3 for the smallest amount of points and 6 for high ones (and even higher for even higher ones).

[Legio]

Support. Minor point counts (1-3 points) should be three months. Anything inappropriate, like flaming, or x-rated pictures/links should be treated harshly.

[Justinian]

The right to see infractions probably should be a right of CdeC members, though I'm not so sure of how approved of that would be -- but that's for another time, I guess.

It just seems to me, to not make very much sense to punish everyone the same amount for offenses that very greatly.

[gigagaia]

Are we kidding here? This bill overturns a decision we made how long ago? A Month? What has changed so drastically to want the majority of the curia to change its mind all over again?

The person who drafted the bill for Justy is curious too... Shifting goalposts anyone?

Strongly opposed.