Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Gaius Baltar]

In the event that both pass and there’s conflicting amendments we’ll probably need to make a Decision poll to decide which.

Conflicting Amendments would require an Amendment.

[Halie Satanus]

Sunday's round here be crazy lately..

Regarding any conflict between the prefect and Ostraka acts. If there are, they are minor and can be discussed and if need be amended between the prefect act passing (if it does) and the Ostraka passing.

[♔atthias♔]

congrats and welcome to Lanjane and Mr_Nygren our new members

[Lifthrasir]

^^ Seconded here. Welcome lads

[Pontifex Maximus]

I demand answers in my recent citizen referral

1. Result of your Referral
   
   Dear Pontifex Maximus,
   
   The Citizen's Triumvirate by vote has decided that with regard to your recent [Staff/Citizen] referral (attached below) your conduct was found to be lacking, and below the standard appropriate to and expected of a Citizen of TWC
   
   As a result, your rank as Citizen has been suspended for [suspension time] effective immediately. If you disagree with this outcome you may appeal your suspension to the Citizenry as per the Constitution. If you would like to make an appeal please let me know so I can begin the procedure. As this is a relatively new process I advise you to familiarise yourself with the procedure outlined in the Constitution under Section IV, Article I, Appeals.
   
   This case will be archived as you requested, or if you didn't clarify please could you let me know if you would like it archived privately or publicly. Should you have any further questions feel free to PM me. I will inform you when your suspension has expired, after which you may reapply to the Citizen group if you so wish.
   
   Regards,
   General Brewster,
   on behalf of the Citizen's Triumvirate
   
   Referral in question:
   Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
   
   Hi Hitai,
   
   I would like to refer Pontifex Maximus. His conduct consistently seems to be below what one should expect from a Citizen in my view. Many of his posts are disruptive and inflammatory, if not outright insulting, while managing to skirt the Terms of Service. Rather than contributing to the discussion, he seems more interested in denigrating the contributions of others. Obviously he is entitled to his opinion, but the way he presents it, often using highly distasteful language, seems rather unbecoming of a Citizen. Please see below the relevant examples. Thank you.
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   Let the leftist tears flow. The Senate has confirmed a man who has been so unbelievably and irreconcilably slurred and dragged through the mud for political purposes that it is hardly believable they have any position other than that of partisan hack. I cannot wait to see the detrimental impacts this absolutely moronic and ineffective strategy has had on the idiot democrat party on the midterms. They have already squandered a 10 point lead in most states thanks to their dumb ass strategy, and I can only hope to god they lose big time next month. How anyone could ever vote for a democrat given this recent idiotic scandal is beyond me. What a bunch of ing, masquerading morons. We can't trust a single thing any of those idiots say. Oh please lord let any of these moron democrats win their presidential nomination for 2020. Please let it be Booker or Harris. Those unmitigated racist idiots.
   
   The next time any of you absolutely degenerate senator morons want to bring false rape accusations in order to undermine a political process for your own gains, at least make it halfway credible. Absolutely pathetic.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   Ahahaha the UN, what a useless organization. Cut off all funding from the US and see if they're still standing. Those hypocritical, worthless, moronic sons of whores.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   Opposed. His temperament in the D&D cannot be less than awful. His debate mechanic is absolutely abysmal. Having debated with him over the course of at least five years I will assert here that his strategy and contributions to debate are not only subpar- they are denigrating to debate over the entire forum. His contributors are brainless and negligible at best. This is the sort of application which makes me doubt there is any possible value to any citizenship value should this applicant be granted citizenship.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   I'm completely unconvinced this wasn't proposed in a self serving way in which those holding opposite opinions won't be bludgeoned to the benefit of those holding "rights" based on this proposal; "Offensive speech" being among those things which can be punished. It seems like a transparent and frankly puerile attempt to censor the speech of others based on what someone subjectively defines as offensive speech.
   
   Awful proposal.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   you're not a citizen. Your opinion counts for less than nothing with regards to a citizen application.
   
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   Not a single actual, substantive argument made, Elfdude, and you've completely ignored every legal argument. Hilariously predictable. I accept your surrender of the actual content of debate since you are obsessed with the manner in which an argument is made. Absolutely pathetic. Yes, I'd love to see the likes of that "argument" made before a judge. I could sit down, smile, and let him rule. In my experience it is the most arrogant parties which fall in court. It's always nice when reality imitates internet.
   
   ...I'm going to abstain from listing your half dozen logical fallacies because it's just not worth it.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   @ spartan
   
   Yeah so the rules apply when you want to apply them and they don't apply to democrats, your argument has fallen apart on you. There's really nothing more to say. Your moral relevancy really undercuts your white knighting here.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   Colored me shocked the Europeans don't understand due process of law. This is why we fought in 1776. The leftist idiots overplayed their hands in this case because as it turns out when you accuse someone of gang rape you actually need evidence. I'm not surprised really, but the libtards will be when they lose in a catastrophic way in November. Congratulations you senatorial idiots: Booker, Feinstein, and other stupid as hell black democratic congresspeople. I'd be ashamed to vote for any of those idiots.
   
   
   
   
   Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
   What a load of ad hominem riddled drivel. If you can't form a counterargument or debate just say so.
   
   I accept your surrender.
   

1. 
   
   I demand to know who voted in this referral, why, and their basis for doing so. Furthermore, I demand that all discussion be made public.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

[General Brewster]

I demand answers in my recent citizen referral

I demand to know who voted in this referral, why, and their basis for doing so. Furthermore, I demand that all discussion be made public.

You demand nothing from me mate. If you had indicated you wanted to have your referral public it would've been so already. I'm only the messenger and I do not appreciate anything being demanded from me.
Your referral can be viewed here and here. Your appeal is forthcoming.

[Love Mountain]

An open and shut case if you ask me. The decision makes sense to me and I don't see what there is to be miffed about.

[General Brewster]

The appeal is live.

[Elfdude]

[King Athelstan]

Wait, wrong fantasy

[Halie Satanus]

Curators assistant’s (in training) editing posts in the Curia is not a good thing, under any circumstances. Not to mention, at best, a contentious interpretation of the constitution and TOS. Regardless of good intentions.

[Aikanár]

Curators assistant’s (in training) editing posts in the Curia is not a good thing, under any circumstances. Not to mention, at best, a contentious interpretation of the constitution and TOS. Regardless of good intentions.

Can you help me what specific posts you're referring to? We actually discuss posts which might need action beforehand and only after affirmation action should be taken, hence you could help me a lot, when you can pm me links to the posts.

Cheers

[Halie Satanus]

Ironically.

[Halie Satanus]

Have there been many posts discussed and then edited. ?

[PikeStance]

When we added the line "acts as a moderator" it was specifically mentioned that CA's would NOT act in that capacity. It is for the Curator only as an elected official to act as a local moderator. CA's are meant to do grunt work, not moderate discussions.

[Iskar]

Have there been many posts discussed and then edited. ?

Whereever a post is edited or deleted a bold purple message indicates such. No silent edits or deletions will be made. Ongoing discussions on and the number of reported posts are subject to non-disclosure as with any moderation matter. That these are being discussed in the Pol instead of the Global Moderation forums does not change that.

That being said, a couple of posts have been removed for discussing moderation as well as resulting continuity.

[PikeStance]

Have there been many posts discussed and then edited. ?

When we added the line "acts as a moderator" it was specifically mentioned that CA's would NOT act in that capacity. It is for the Curator only as an elected official to act as a local moderator. CA's are meant to do grunt work, not moderate discussions.

Whereever a post is edited or deleted a bold purple message indicates such. No silent edits or deletions will be made. Ongoing discussions on and the number of reported posts are subject to non-disclosure as with any moderation matter. That these are being discussed in the Pol instead of the Global Moderation forums does not change that.

Edited for continuity. ~Iskar

[Halie Satanus]

The curators office has no constitutional remit to edit posts in the curia. In addition, there is no non-disclosure policy.. Hex moderates the curia, whether they are pro-active, or not, is an issue to be addressed by the curia. But as things stand, any required editing should be reported to Hex.

I find it highly disconcerting the curators office is making up policy without consulting the curia, and in the current climate it's a blatant disrespect. I wish I could say I hope the office has something better than 'Local moderator of the Curia' to support this breech of trust. But I know it doesn't.

I'm not going to bother with a VonC, there's too much drama here already and I'm tired of it.

I was going to resign any way, might as well call it a day now.

It's not personal, but I cannot abide.

Laters.

[Iskar]

There is strict non-disclosure for the Politia as well as for all moderation related issues such as reports.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I was going to resign any way, might as well call it a day now.

It's not personal, but I cannot abide.

Laters.

I'll join you. Sadly the constitution has been flagrantly ignored in favor of...something.