Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[PikeStance]

If it is on another page, I would recommend pointing to the post's permalink eg, yours I reply to has #8257 on the top right. Not as elegant but it will do the trick. An anchor can only operate on the current page.

I'm afraid I cannot play with it hands-on because I still need LM access in the Curia sections

PM sent to help resolve the mattter

damned VBulletin

linking it seems the only solution then @Pike (suing the URL command we mean)

Yeah, that was my conclusion. I think I knew all of this in the past. It all seems too familiar.

[PikeStance]

Yet more nonsense that is being put forward purely to drive up activity.

I have no idea why you think this is the purpose. It is literally the same half dozen or so voting and even less bother to post an opinion. You cannot create interest and activity this way.

It was intimated to me that the Constitution have issues. I was not told anything specific. I am just going through and "correcting" anything I do not find to be clear.

[PikeStance]

I don't know why you responded to me in the CCT, but I moved here where I think it is much more appropriate.

Now now, some drama is healthy, come on

As per the discussion taking place around this amendment, and in particular about this comment from Pike


Well no. As you can see by the Curial reports themselves, starting from here, there are no more disciplinary procedures reported, other than Ostrakones (which are public in any case). This is because during that term, the amendment which made suspensions automatic and removed the Referrals passed (see here). As far as I can see no other following report has any mention about suspended Citizens after that date. This might be intentional, as I believe, or an omission.

But I think we need to expand on this, going by steps.

First of all, as a long term Staffer (in particular Moderator and Administration) to me the reason why automatic Citizen suspensions connected exclusively to Moderation infractions are not publicly reported is pretty obvious: moderation interactions are a business between the member and the Moderation team (or Administrators, in some cases). This was a custom since basically the earliest days of TWC. Let me put down some examples of the boundaries of this habit:

- no Moderator will ever share or discuss any disciplinary action taken towards any member other than with said member themselves (and only in private) or other than in the Moderation Den (which again is a private forum). Any Moderator who would have broken this rule has been immediately fired and the evidence of their wrong doings removed.
- every interaction regarding public discussion about Moderation actions will be carried out by Moderation Overseers (and other Hexers in some limited form); this is the case of the Moderation Commentary Thread (ModCom) and the Tribunal. The latter allows the infracted members to post publicly about their infractions and have them reviewed by the Tribunes/Magistrates (please notice that as a previous step to public appeals to the Tribunal, moderation offers the opportunity to appeal to the Preatorium, which again will be in private). The former is for discussing moderation actions (or lack of) and for discussing Moderation policies in general: scroll it, there's no one case of any Overseer telling things like "yes we infracted the member for that post", at the most you will read about why Moderation did not feel like that particular post was worth an infraction and wasn't actioned or "only" edited without any extra disciplinary consequence for the member(s) involved.

Then, it is of course possible to imagine that a member has been infracted, because some consequences of this might be visible no matter what (i.e. the suspended or indefinitely suspended (aka banned) statuses) but again Moderation won't release any info about why it is so, unless required by the Tribunal procedures. The are (or where) other cases which might be "dubious" so to say, i.e. back at the time Citizens could be suspended for either a Staff Referral (connected to Moderation interactions) or a Citizen referral (connected to lack of higher standards, so to say, as interpreted by the Citizen who cast the Referral) either case none of the Censores/Curator would discuss publicly the case unless the accused member would request that to be public. Similarly today if you see a member that you know is a Citizens not showing the badge, you might guess they got suspended, but that's not the only possible explanation (as discussed in the Amendment thread itself). So as long as a doubt remains, privacy is still granted.

Therefore I do believe that the Consul (or any other Curial officer) is bound to respect this custom and in no way release any info about Moderation disciplinary actions connected with any Citizen they might become aware of because of their role. To change this state of the things it would need an Amendment to state clearly in the Constitution that they have the power to break the SND because of Curial disciplinary actions, and should it pass, then to inform the Hex promptly to see if they are ok with it or will Veto it, then again should the Hex give the green light, to inform all the Citizens of this new important change in the rules of the Curia and contextually made another amendment to reflect that (i.e. like in Pike's amendment the fact that the Consul can use the Suspensions to initiate an Ostrakon).

The Curial Reports is a chronicle of all Consul/Curators. All actions, which include but are not limited to the adding and removing, both temporary and permanent, should be listed in the Curia Reports. It is to ensure transparency. There is no discernible difference between an indefinite/permanent suspension and a temporary suspension. When a member is suspended from the site, it is not done in secret. It is known by color.

Minimum Requirements: At least fifty posts, have been registered for at least two months, and have not received a Moderation Warning within the past six months.

We have a minimal requirement. We expect all citizens to maintain the minimal behavior expected at the time of their applications. If their actions results in the citizen's failure to adhere to the ToS, then they should and ought to be removed. If their misdeeds are done in secret then there is no way we maintain any standard of behavior.

If a Citizen believes an offense by another Citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostracon.

How does a citizen know that a citizens offense is egregious? Outside of the minimal requirement, there isn't a benchmark. Anything that is "egregious" would be removed by Moderation. In essence, a citizen can violate the ToS, then have his transgression removed, thus wiping the slate clean and, according to you, it can all be done in complete secrecy. Unless, I happen to notice the same citizen without a badge on multiple occasions, then I can take the quantum assumption that offender has acted egregiously.

[Flinn]

I don't know why you responded to me in the CCT, but I moved here where I think it is much more appropriate.

Because there are members, who are not citizens (ie. mishkin) who might want to partake in the discussion. In general I'll do all I can to allow as many people as possible to partake in the discussion, that's what I consider an appropriate behavior.

The Curial Reports is a chronicle of all Consul/Curators. All actions, which include but are not limited to the adding and removing, both temporary and permanent, should be listed in the Curia Reports. It is to ensure transparency. There is no discernible difference between an indefinite/permanent suspension and a temporary suspension. When a member is suspended from the site, it is not done in secret. It is known by color.

Citizenship suspensions are not site suspensions, the latter come because of serious misbehavior, they are on a completely other level.

We have a minimal requirement.

No we don't. Point me where those minimal behavior requirements are listed, thanks.

We expect all citizens to maintain the minimal behavior expected at the time of their applications.

No we don't, just see above.

If their actions results in the citizen's failure to adhere to the ToS, then they should and ought to be removed.

They are. The actual system grants that when a Citizen runs afoul of the ToS, they are automatically suspended and thus effectively removed. If they keep misbehaving, they keep getting infracted and then keep getting suspended. If they come back to their senses and re start to behave properly, they have the right to be back in the usergroup. It's as simple as that.

If their misdeeds are done in secret then there is no way we maintain any standard of behavior.

Secrecy = privacy. The privacy on the interactions between Moderation and any member has been one of the foundations over which this site has been built and has thrived for over 2 decades. None other than the member directly involved in said interactions should be (and currently is) allowed to make those public. it's as simple as that.

How does a citizen know that a citizens offense is egregious? Outside of the minimal requirement, there isn't a benchmark.

Once again, there are no minimal requirements.

Anything that is "egregious" would be removed by Moderation. In essence, a citizen can violate the ToS, then have his transgression removed, thus wiping the slate clean and, according to you, it can all be done in complete secrecy. Unless, I happen to notice the same citizen without a badge on multiple occasions, then I can take the quantum assumption that offender has acted egregiously.

Not according to me, but according to how things work at TWC.

[General Brewster]

This place went to

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

So the prophecy foretold after you consigned us to darkness.

[General Brewster]

Probably fair to put that on me yea

[Pontifex Maximus]

We have a minimal requirement. We expect all citizens to maintain the minimal behavior expected at the time of their applications. If their actions results in the citizen's failure to adhere to the ToS, then they should and ought to be removed. If their misdeeds are done in secret then there is no way we maintain any standard of behavior.

First I will disagree with this premise generally, because this "requirement" of "minimal behavior" has always been subjective, highly politicized, and applied haphazardly. how do I know this? I am guilty of it, as are any honest formed CDEC members of any era whatsoever. The true minimum standards are the TOS. Everything else is just applied via a layer of personal bias either towards an individual, or in a generalized sense (as I believe, with all due respect, you are doing here).

Secondarily I will say this in regards to this specific era of TWC: we alienate and ostracize one another at our own peril. If your goal is to be the last person playing in the sandbox, let's continue to sew division, hate, and "heightened" expectations. Seems to me that in this twilight era, we could be the things we need for one another to keep this place alive.

[Flinn]

Related to this, just to let you know that the implementation/modification of badges requires a level of tech power that none of the active Hex has. Squid and GED gave been informed, now we have to wait for one of them to pop up and do the dirty work

[Pontifex Maximus]

Related to this, just to let you know that the implementation/modification of badges requires a level of tech power that none of the active Hex has. Squid and GED gave been informed, now we have to wait for one of them to pop up and do the dirty work

I wait for the Lord, my soul waits, and in his word I hope.

[PikeStance]

No we don't. Point me where those minimal behavior requirements are listed, thanks.
No we don't, just see above.

Sure

...To be awarded with Citizenship a member must fulfill the minimum requirements and be proposed by a Citizen, their Patron. Minimum Requirements: At least fifty posts, been registered for at least two months, and have not received a Moderation Warning within the past six months....

They are. The actual system grants that when a Citizen runs afoul of the ToS, they are automatically suspended and thus effectively removed. If they keep misbehaving, they keep getting infracted and then keep getting suspended. If they come back to their senses and re start to behave properly, they have the right to be back in the usergroup. It's as simple as that.

Ironic. The current system has a higher expectation of behavior than the minimal requirement to become a citizen and the previous system.

Secrecy = privacy. The privacy on the interactions between Moderation and any member has been one of the foundations over which this site has been built and has thrived for over 2 decades. None other than the member directly involved in said interactions should be (and currently is) allowed to make those public. it's as simple as that.

Losing your citizenship is a public act. It is not a secret. It is right there in the Constitution. In the proposal, if a citizen meets the minimal requirements for an Ostrakon, then you will know based on the wording in the Constitution. Any "torrid" details will have to be revealed in some vigorous defense by the citizen in question. So where is the violation of privacy?

[PikeStance]

This place went to

If relish oblivion, then you have a home.

[Flinn]

Related to this, just to let you know that the implementation/modification of badges requires a level of tech power that none of the active Hex has. Squid and GED gave been informed, now we have to wait for one of them to pop up and do the dirty work

Related to this, this is still pending. Unfortunately neither Squid or GED have been around these days, hopefully this will be settled before Christmas.. hopefully

[PikeStance]

Gaius Baltar's term has come to its end, therefore it's time for a new Magistrate election!

You may apply here. See the Debate Thread to discuss.

Magistrate Explained

Magistrates serve for 4-month terms and act as judges on TWC. If a member appeals against an infraction then the Magistrates, along with the Tribunes, discuss the appeal and decide if Moderators applied the Terms of Service correctly or not in that given instance. They have the power to have infractions reversed or changed based upon their decision.
Requirements: 3 months as a Citizen, no infraction/warning on record for 6 months, not a current Moderator or Tribune.

[Gaius Baltar]

I do not intend to reapply for this election cycle. This will give a chance for someone else to step up.

[Akar]

I'd offer to do it, but, well...

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Related to this, just to let you know that the implementation/modification of badges requires a level of tech power that none of the active Hex has. Squid and GED gave been informed, now we have to wait for one of them to pop up and do the dirty work

Hex has unearthed an eldrich Squid, who has seen it done...

[Gigantus]

My precious...

[Flinn]

My precious...

Someone owns me a beer

[Squid]

I think I need to retire from hex just long enough to get Divus and then rejoin!