Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Parafix]

Then you may wish to put a halt of obvious derailing before people removed from GS and the HS community come in and derail? Especially after a post by Hex predicting

Sure, the HSeating is an "heated" area of the site, so I'm sure that some members will show up and contest this application basing on personal "grudges"..

When the same individual did the same in my Novus, the post was immediately removed, then returned with only on topic discussion "Indeed he's done a lot of hard work", which he requested removed. (It was something on those lines). Few days later he no longer had the GS badge. This is indeed not the first time something like this has happened, by the same individual, but this time has been allowed.

[Lifthrasir]

Didn't you start with his patronization actually?

[Frunk]

Just to be clear, the only "moderator" within the Curia is the Curator, who generally speaking will be reluctant to directly intervene and/or "moderate". Citizens are expected to self-police, and may find themselves on the receiving end of a reminder to comply, or request to edit their post, from the Curator, as opposed to finding their post edited or removed by the Curator. As they do anywhere on the site, Hex has unrestricted authority in the Curia, but may choose not to exercise it, I believe. Moderators, even including Global Moderators, have no authority here.

EDIT: So, in summary, consider directing your concerns to the Curator and/or Hex directly.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Conflating GS with HS and HS moderation seems to be an issue as well. Bureaucratic layers of gaming moderators and managers is a problem that faces other areas of the site as well, but it has never bled over into the Curia so substantially. As for reports blowing the whistle on SND violations, I find it humorous that non-staff would report what are essentially violations of staff policy. Ah haven't we all dipped our toes into the tepid waters of staff policy enforcement a few times each at least? Old habits die hard

[Sir Adrian]

^Save time for moderators, I know ya'll must be getting a lot of "SND" reports atm, this is clearly stated by Hex in public domain.

If you see someone breaking SND on or off-site you contact his director or hex (if it's a moderator you contact hex directly). If you see a director breaking SND you contact hex.

If you see someone try to derail your curia thread you either take it to the commentary where hex will deal with it (not preferable) or your report it to the curator (preferable). You do not engage that person. You do not transform the thread into the pathetic circus you created there. If you did not ask for the curator's intervention you do not and moan that he did nothing.


And you do not under any circumstances ask for votes off-site, even jokingly. Understood?


Now, I believe you and Jadli owe the Curia several apologies for the disgraceful spectacle you created and you may try again in 3 months time.

[StealthFox]

Amazing how many people are keen for a couple of days work as opposed to 4 months!

Evidence of my concern about boosting election terms from 3 months to 4 months?

[Veteraan]

Evidence of my concern about boosting election terms from 3 months to 4 months?

The short period was certainly not what motivated me to apply.

[PikeStance]

Me too

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Aaaahhh.... in record timing. Not signed onsite but five minutes, and I have received the 1st PM query about Citizenship. Hope still stirs that we may yet breath some life back into the Curia...

[Frunk]

Evidence of my concern about boosting election terms from 3 months to 4 months?

There's been no decrease in nominees since the change. In fact, it's probably boosted a bit, but then again so has the activity of the Curia in general.

Citizens seemed no less reluctant to nominate when it was 3 months, in any case.

you may try again in 3 months time.

That's not mandated via the Constitution. Technically, Parafix may re-submit that proposal any time he likes; whether that would be a prudent thing to do is another issue.

The only thing stipulated in the Constitution is that a proposal which fails a vote may not be resubmitted for 28 days. This one did not make it to vote.

This is arguably an oversight, as it's rare historically for any proposal to be either withdrawn by the proposer, or closed by the Curator or Hex.

[General Brewster]

I'm seconding what Frunk has already explained.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Snap-Vote has gone live here. It'll run for 24 hours so don't forget to get your vote in while you can!

[Genius of the Restoration]

Also, what are the rules (or at least expectations) regarding supporters and listing their ranks? Halie and Tango made comments on my amendment proposal that its not relevant/the done thing.


Here's one application (from 2014) that lists the "required supporters" (I don't know whether that's still a thing, but I reckon it's a good idea) and has the rank of the supporters indicated via their name colour.
Here's Frunk's application for Man of the Hour for GED. User's ranks are indicated via their name colour.
Here's Frunk's application for Curia Service Award for Iskar. User's ranks are indicated via their name colour.
Here's Arandir Tur-Anion de Bodemloze's application for Opifex for UndyingNephalim. User's ranks are indicated via their name colour.
Here's Pikestance's application for Opifex for Swiss Halberdier. User's large awards are indicated.
Here's my application for Opifex for Dresden, no-one commented on me listing the user's who have large awards.

FYI - we dealt with a similar thing a few years ago, removing names from the voting threads in this amendment. I'd say that the spirit of that amendment is clear.

"Purpose & Rationale: This bill aims to create a clean ballot in which vote threads only contain the legislation as well as the link to the debate thread. Put differently, this bill eliminates the practice of naming the proposer and supporters in the vote thread. The rationale is simple: this bill will push voters to make a decision based on merit and not the politics behind the bill. Naming names amounts to adverse influence, as it can distract voters away from the bill and lead to decisions based solely on who proposes/supports the legislation. This potential bias must be eliminated."

Personally I find username colour far less important here than actually putting the rank/award in brackets after the name. That is definitely irrelevant.

Couldn't agree more. Bolding my name and making it black as if that holds weight by itself, for why else would we do it, is exactly the sort of thing that we voted to remove in 2012. It shouldn't be about who you are. Long live the republic!

Evidence of my concern about boosting election terms from 3 months to 4 months?

[Flinn]

Aaaahhh.... in record timing. Not signed onsite but five minutes, and I have received the 1st PM query about Citizenship. Hope still stirs that we may yet breath some life back into the Curia...

Isn't that Mega??? Good Dude, just few days ago we were mourning () about your absence and there you are!

welcome back mate, you just came back when you are more needed... the atmosphere has been quite heavy in the recent times

[♔atthias♔]

welcome back mega

[General Brewster]

Aaaahhh.... in record timing. Not signed onsite but five minutes, and I have received the 1st PM query about Citizenship. Hope still stirs that we may yet breath some life back into the Curia...

I almost fell of my chair when I saw your name appear.
As you may see it has been rather active the last couple of days

[PikeStance]

The Curia is always better with the voice reason posting; that is if you can always follow poetic prose!

[StealthFox]

Regarding the Snap Election, it would have been nice to have a debate thread go up at the same time as the nomination thread and stayed open through voting. I guess this would require an amendment?

[General Brewster]

In the heat of the moment and trying to get stuff moving asap I initially allowed people to discuss in the application thread as well. I'll re-open it for now
You can make an amendment if you like but in light of recent events I am working on some more revisions which will include this part

[Frunk]

Long live the republic!

As a monarchist, I resent that comment.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Snap elections are probably pretty rare, but I reckon the Curator should private message applicants (after they've put their name up for the position) telling them who they'd be judging as a Magistrate/Censor/Curator.
The whole reason for a snap election is that there's been a conflict of interest amongst the current curial staff, so it's a bit useless if the new temporary staff member also has a conflict of interest but doesn't realise because they don't know who they'd be judging.

I don't think people should know who's being referred/appealing a decision until they've applied though.