Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Iskar]

Political positions that disregard human dignity and common decency are by themselves incompatible with the community spirit expected from citizens. It requires no ulterior political motivation to reject a candidate for that.

@Para: See Gig's reply in the thread.

[PikeStance]

Political positions that disregard human dignity and common decency are by themselves incompatible with the community spirit expected from citizens. It requires no ulterior political motivation to reject a candidate for that.

This is silly rhetorical nonsense. This is a gaming site. Moreover, it is a gaming site with whimsical titles and distinctions. Community spirit is based on a specific genre of the game published by CA/Sega. In that light, we engaged in other areas for fun and discussion. It is silly to restrict "community spirit" to a specific political ideology or any personal philosophy.

[SoulGamesInc]

Three separate mod developer team leaders revealed issues

The fact that those 'issues' exist and relate to behavior is for me at least noteworthy, otherwise people can become citizens despite any range of poor behavior through simple virtue of it having been dealt with already. The act of it being addressed should not wash away the reality of it having happened. I agree such things should be private but it was not I or Parafix or Inarus that tried so hard to make it public at the time.

Tho for the record I wouldn't have bothered with off-site pictures given how very easily those could be taken out of context.

[PikeStance]

From Frunk

That is precisely the point I am making. Pike's earlier post, which I quoted, does not at all suggest that Mr_Nygren is anything other than "100% bad". It also calls into account the patron for not anticipating that the application would likely not be successful as a result of such.

Odd thing to say about what I said. I left open the possibility of voting "yes" in the future.

I usually discuss with my client any negative aspect of their time on TWC. I also try to anticipate any possible questions about the application. In most cases, it is something the client has dealt with themselves. THis is why I said that. It is important to have a good and clear communication with your client especially if it someone you have not work with a lot or only began to work with. There have been some members I approached in which he both decided it was best not to pursue citizenship. My comment was not meant to be an indictment but advice. if it was taken that way, I do apologize to Atthias.

[Parafix]

The fact that those 'issues' exist and relate to behavior is for me at least noteworthy, otherwise people can become citizens despite any range of poor behavior through simple virtue of it having been dealt with already. The act of it being addressed should not wash away the reality of it having happened. I agree such things should be private but it was not I or Parafix or Inarus that tried so hard to make it public at the time.

I'll echo this.
On other points iv'e seen elsewhere, if i wished to make an personal attack, i could of easily manipulated out of site conversations to do so, as much as he could i. That was not my intention nor do i believe it came across so to most the Curia. Screenshots i provided where purposely edited to avoid such a thing from happening, merely showing admission of stealing content (no matter what the reason, stealing is stealing) and for not caring for the infrastructure of TWC. Both relevant to citizenship.

To avoid such issues happening again, i'd suggest a rule in place for the Curator to be provided out of site evidence / material to him/her first before being made public, it definatly has it's uses, but some seem easily offended by such a thing.

Really?
After having to deal / work with mr_nygren directly, cannot support. One of the poorest behaviors iv'e encountered on TWC.

I had planned on having that post as my only post on the matter, knowing full well anything going into detail is heavily restricted of SND and discussing moderation, and that any attempt of painting a full picture is near impossible, but eh, i'm easily egged on into a debate.
If i was a bit younger in TWC, i'd be inclined to even possibly support the application in hopes that would help improve behaviors from individuals, that mind set has bitten myself and others severely since so my first statement still stands.

On another topic, is their a post limit to awards such as Novus? Souls is in the works and exceptional staff work and contributions doesn't fit into one page even if i remove the recommendations

[Lifthrasir]

This is silly rhetorical nonsense. This is a gaming site. Moreover, it is a gaming site with whimsical titles and distinctions. Community spirit is based on a specific genre of the game published by CA/Sega. In that light, we engaged in other areas for fun and discussion. It is silly to restrict "community spirit" to a specific political ideology or any personal philosophy.

The main fact you seems refusing to accept is that this application didn't failed due to the applicant's political ideology but rather on the fact that his said political ideology make him treatening other members (especially those who don't share his ideas/convictions) under the behavior level requiered by Citizenry. To be simple, you can't treat people like and expect them to support you. Hence the poll's results.

As far as I know, that's also not the only controversial application you submitted that failed. I found ironical you dare to post the following comment in the recent citizen application:

As of right now, I cannot support this application. The belief that it is fine to insult others strikes as the very core of citizenship.

[♔atthias♔]

From Frunk


Odd thing to say about what I said. I left open the possibility of voting "yes" in the future.

I usually discuss with my client any negative aspect of their time on TWC. I also try to anticipate any possible questions about the application. In most cases, it is something the client has dealt with themselves. THis is why I said that. It is important to have a good and clear communication with your client especially if it someone you have not work with a lot or only began to work with. There have been some members I approached in which he both decided it was best not to pursue citizenship. My comment was not meant to be an indictment but advice. if it was taken that way, I do apologize to Atthias.

apology accepted pike we all make mistakes

[PikeStance]

The main fact you seems refusing to accept is that this application didn't failed due to the applicant's political ideology but rather on the fact that his said political ideology make him treatening other members (especially those who don't share his ideas/convictions) under the behavior level requiered by Citizenry. To be simple, you can't treat people like and expect them to support you. Hence the poll's results.

Except this is not what was communicated by many. Those that expressed the above either didn't or couldn't provide any evidence. But that is that.

As far as I know, that's also not the only controversial application you submitted that failed. I found ironical you dare to post the following comment in the recent citizen application:

I stand by each member I patronized. I patronized them because I believe they are important contributors to the community just like the 17 that successfully became citizens.

apology accepted pike we all make mistakes

Appreciate your understanding!

[Genius of the Restoration]

Comment:
I agree with Parafix regarding the problem presented by non-disclosure. Non-disclosure reduces the capacity of the Curia to make an informed decision about the worthiness of an applicant. Example: on one hand you have undesirable behaviour or, as Iskar put it, "Political positions that disregard human dignity and common decency are by themselves incompatible with the community spirit expected from citizens". If we accept and take that statement as fact for a minute and strip away political element, we're presented with the idea that some behaviour is unacceptable whether or not it is against the rules of the site. I think that's something that we all agree on. However, the minute someone behaves in a way that actually breaks the rules of the site, people become bound by non-disclosure. So we end up with the current ridiculous situation, where a moderator will say it's correct to reject someone's citizenship application because of the applicant's politics and will talk about how those politics do not fit with the standards he expects of citizens, yet would prefer all who know about behaviour that actually breaks the rules to remain silent. That's not a slight against the moderator in particular but a comment about the ridiculousness of the situation we're in.

Personally, I'd prefer to have citizenship applications open up a person's moderation history, similar to how it is in the Tribunal. There's no point in judging something when you can't be provided with the facts upon which to make that judgment. If you want the Curia to recognise your contributions to the site and community, it's perfectly reasonable to open up your interactions with the site and community for scrutiny.

[Veteraan]

Comment:
I agree with Parafix regarding the problem presented by non-disclosure. Non-disclosure reduces the capacity of the Curia to make an informed decision about the worthiness of an applicant. Example: on one hand you have undesirable behaviour or, as Iskar put it, "Political positions that disregard human dignity and common decency are by themselves incompatible with the community spirit expected from citizens". If we accept and take that statement as fact for a minute and strip away political element, we're presented with the idea that some behaviour is unacceptable whether or not it is against the rules of the site. I think that's something that we all agree on. However, the minute someone behaves in a way that actually breaks the rules of the site, people become bound by non-disclosure. So we end up with the current ridiculous situation, where a moderator will say it's correct to reject someone's citizenship application because of the applicant's politics and will talk about how those politics do not fit with the standards he expects of citizens, yet would prefer all who know about behaviour that actually breaks the rules to remain silent. That's not a slight against the moderator in particular but a comment about the ridiculousness of the situation we're in.

Personally, I'd prefer to have citizenship applications open up a person's moderation history, similar to how it is in the Tribunal. There's no point in judging something when you can't be provided with the facts upon which to make that judgment. If you want the Curia to recognise your contributions to the site and community, it's perfectly reasonable to open up your interactions with the site and community for scrutiny.

I agree with this, especially if this is made clear to every candidate before the actual procedure is started.

[General Brewster]

Comment:
I agree with Parafix regarding the problem presented by non-disclosure. Non-disclosure reduces the capacity of the Curia to make an informed decision about the worthiness of an applicant. Example: on one hand you have undesirable behaviour or, as Iskar put it, "Political positions that disregard human dignity and common decency are by themselves incompatible with the community spirit expected from citizens". If we accept and take that statement as fact for a minute and strip away political element, we're presented with the idea that some behaviour is unacceptable whether or not it is against the rules of the site. I think that's something that we all agree on. However, the minute someone behaves in a way that actually breaks the rules of the site, people become bound by non-disclosure. So we end up with the current ridiculous situation, where a moderator will say it's correct to reject someone's citizenship application because of the applicant's politics and will talk about how those politics do not fit with the standards he expects of citizens, yet would prefer all who know about behaviour that actually breaks the rules to remain silent. That's not a slight against the moderator in particular but a comment about the ridiculousness of the situation we're in.

Personally, I'd prefer to have citizenship applications open up a person's moderation history, similar to how it is in the Tribunal. There's no point in judging something when you can't be provided with the facts upon which to make that judgment. If you want the Curia to recognise your contributions to the site and community, it's perfectly reasonable to open up your interactions with the site and community for scrutiny.

I feel an amendment in the making here

[Iskar]

Comment:
I agree with Parafix regarding the problem presented by non-disclosure. Non-disclosure reduces the capacity of the Curia to make an informed decision about the worthiness of an applicant. Example: on one hand you have undesirable behaviour or, as Iskar put it, "Political positions that disregard human dignity and common decency are by themselves incompatible with the community spirit expected from citizens". If we accept and take that statement as fact for a minute and strip away political element, we're presented with the idea that some behaviour is unacceptable whether or not it is against the rules of the site. I think that's something that we all agree on. However, the minute someone behaves in a way that actually breaks the rules of the site, people become bound by non-disclosure. So we end up with the current ridiculous situation, where a moderator will say it's correct to reject someone's citizenship application because of the applicant's politics and will talk about how those politics do not fit with the standards he expects of citizens, yet would prefer all who know about behaviour that actually breaks the rules to remain silent. That's not a slight against the moderator in particular but a comment about the ridiculousness of the situation we're in.

Personally, I'd prefer to have citizenship applications open up a person's moderation history, similar to how it is in the Tribunal. There's no point in judging something when you can't be provided with the facts upon which to make that judgment. If you want the Curia to recognise your contributions to the site and community, it's perfectly reasonable to open up your interactions with the site and community for scrutiny.

1) Certain "politics" are inseparable from how people behave in any given community. I am far from rejecting anyone on their thoughts about social security, geopolitics, etc. but basic human dignity is such a fundamental requirement for any coexistence that I find it hard to not take that into account. If you want to call that "politics" then so be it. Take a hypothetical extreme case, for extreme cases are good for testing general statements ("politics shouldn't matter"): A user repeatedly states they actually think a policy of Apartheid would be a good thing. Would you still ignore their "politics" in a potential citizenship application? If the answer is no, then in lesser degrees it is legitimate to not ignore the "politics" either in cases of less extreme views.
Politics is about how people coexist. If this is to be a community then you cannot fully separate people's politics from how we assess people's contribution to how people coexist on TWC - at least not their fundamental convictions and premises.

2) People who break the rules more than once in a relevant timespan are highly unlikely to not have received an infraction. People with infractions in the past six months aren't eligible for citizenship in the first place. There is no need for the Curia to assess the moderation history, as the prerequisites require it to be clear for the past six months. I personally think six months is quite a long time on the internet but if you want to suggest we prolong that period to a year or so, I'd be happy to discuss this.

How is that situation still ridiculous?

[Halie Satanus]

Can't change it. It's a moderation policy, nothing to do with the curia.

The only real issue in the case were accusations bound by SND while current moderators indicated there were no current moderation issues. Which is really all that matters for citizenship. Hex were slow to comment and the curia, fuelled by the spirit of burning torches, pitchforks and a sense of self importance decided a burning was in order. Just like the old days. Hopefully Mr_Nygren has enough of a sense of humour to ride it out and come again, he has gumption that one.

[Genius of the Restoration]

It is to do with the Curia though. In the past, a moderator used to post a summary of the user's relevant moderation history. They'd pop into a citizenship application thread and say 'Nothing relevant' or 'Received a note for insulting a couple of months back and had a few infractions for personal references over the past year'. Moderation policy changed when CdeC disappeared and applications became viewable for all citizens. The result of that change is reduced information being provided to the judges which leads to a reduced ability to make informed decisions.

1) Certain "politics" are inseparable from how people behave in any given community. I am far from rejecting anyone on their thoughts about social security, geopolitics, etc. but basic human dignity is such a fundamental requirement for any coexistence that I find it hard to not take that into account. If you want to call that "politics" then so be it. Take a hypothetical extreme case, for extreme cases are good for testing general statements ("politics shouldn't matter"): A user repeatedly states they actually think a policy of Apartheid would be a good thing. Would you still ignore their "politics" in a potential citizenship application? If the answer is no, then in lesser degrees it is legitimate to not ignore the "politics" either in cases of less extreme views.
Politics is about how people coexist. If this is to be a community then you cannot fully separate people's politics from how we assess people's contribution to how people coexist on TWC - at least not their fundamental convictions and premises.

Eh mate? I said "politics" because you said "political positions". I thought you were referring to an individual's politics. No need to get your knickers in a knot about it.

2) People who break the rules more than once in a relevant timespan are highly unlikely to not have received an infraction. People with infractions in the past six months aren't eligible for citizenship in the first place. There is no need for the Curia to assess the moderation history, as the prerequisites require it to be clear for the past six months. I personally think six months is quite a long time on the internet but if you want to suggest we prolong that period to a year or so, I'd be happy to discuss this.

Yeah... but the problem is that people judge on more than the past six months, don't they? If I've known someone on the site for a couple of years,my judgment is obviously going to be informed by my interactions and knowledge of them over that time. That would also obviously include any behaviour that I thought was unacceptable. If that behaviour is only a little bad and within the rules, I can post to it. If it's really bad and against the rules, it goes unmentioned.

An illustration from the previous page of this thread:

You previously abused your position, this is not a false accusation, it happened.

Halie can mention this and it can be a stick to whack PikeStance with - even though it was more than six months ago. If PikeStance is nominated for x award, this can be brought up and talked about with full disclosure. But if he'd broken the ToS in doing so? Silence. So we're in our current position where behaviour of tiptoeing around the rules (but not actually breaking any) ends up having more weight than actual rule breaks. And they have more weight simply because we can all discuss that thing that happened two years because it didn't break the ToS. However if it was worse than it was, and actually broke the rules, we aren't all able to talk about it.


Anyway those are just my thoughts. I lack the patience, time and will to engage in any form of debate or wrangling to shift the status quo. If someone wants to continue and propose something, be my guest. I'll drift back off into my Curia slumber now. Ciao!

[Lifthrasir]

Except this is not what was communicated by many. Those that expressed the above either didn't or couldn't provide any evidence. But that is that.

I suggest that you read again that patronization. I brought evidence. That's not something I'm proud of, probably not my best or smartest move on TWC but I take the responsability. If you need, I can send you the link to the relevant post.

I stand by each member I patronized. I patronized them because I believe they are important contributors to the community just like the 17 that successfully became citizens.

I'm not pointing the fact that you stood against all odds for the members you patronized (successfully or not). This is not something discutable and does you credit. I was pointing the fact that you opposed to an application for the exact same reason that didn't prevent you to submit 2 applications to which a majority of citizens opposed. So to summarize, it looks that the applicant's behaviour isn't an issue for you when he's one of yours but become an issue when he's not. Don't get me wrong: That's your own right but I find that illogical somehow.

Personally, I'd prefer to have citizenship applications open up a person's moderation history, similar to how it is in the Tribunal. There's no point in judging something when you can't be provided with the facts upon which to make that judgment. If you want the Curia to recognise your contributions to the site and community, it's perfectly reasonable to open up your interactions with the site and community for scrutiny.

I understand your point but for such proposal, you'll also need to tie a SND to Citizenry and to make patronisations viewable only by Citizens. With the current system, basically all members could see your moderation history. I don't think that it would bring more candidates to the Citizenry
As also discussed in the CCT, I think that only elements from this site should be taken into account for a patronization. Citizenry is something purely related to this site. Hence contributions and behaviour for an application should be only related to this site as well, unless the candidate did something detrimental to this site somewhere else.

[PikeStance]

I suggest that you read again that patronization. I brought evidence. That's not something I'm proud of, probably not my best or smartest move on TWC but I take the responsibility. If you need, I can send you the link to the relevant post

As I said, with each "evidence" submitted, i did not see what they were referring to. It always came down to his point of view and not his attitude towards the member he was directly or indirectly responding to.

I'm not pointing the fact that you stood against all odds for the members you patronized (successfully or not). This is not something discutable and does you credit. I was pointing the fact that you opposed to an application for the exact same reason that didn't prevent you to submit 2 applications to which a majority of citizens opposed. So to summarize, it looks that the applicant's behaviour isn't an issue for you when he's one of yours but become an issue when he's not. Don't get me wrong: That's your own right but I find that illogical somehow.

He was guilty of having an opinion contrary to those assessing him. I didn't see a single post that came close to the language and attitude expressed by the most recent applicant. If I did, I would not have patronized him. Specifically to the recent application, if I had approached him and discovered what he had written, then I would have decided not to patronize him until he demonstrated a better attitude. This is exactly the same thing I said in the thread as well. Moreover, I even gave my failed clients advice on how best to conduct themselves to better their chances the next time.


Political views of members is a slippery slope. The community is every member who participates and enjoys the Total War series. Citizenship is reserved for those that contributed to the community, so a good attitude towards fellow members and exemplary behavior. We should force people to conform to our beliefs. If that was the case, then I should vote to "n" for any non-anarchist and religious believers. After all, why would I want to include a nationalist (anyone who believes in statehood) into the community who wished to oppress the poor; that is immoral. Plus, why would I support a religious believer; they cause war and promote violence to those that do not believe in the "truth."

[Lifthrasir]

As I said, with each "evidence" submitted, i did not see what they were referring to. It always came down to his point of view and not his attitude towards the member he was directly or indirectly responding to.

That's your interpretation, obviously not shared by most of us.

He was guilty of having an opinion contrary to those assessing him. I didn't see a single post that came close to the language and attitude expressed by the most recent applicant. If I did, I would not have patronized him. Specifically to the recent application, if I had approached him and discovered what he had written, then I would have decided not to patronize him until he demonstrated a better attitude. This is exactly the same thing I said in the thread as well. Moreover, I even gave my failed clients advice on how best to conduct themselves to better their chances the next time.

Obviously, he didn't listen to you but that's irrelevant here.

Political views of members is a slippery slope. The community is every member who participates and enjoys the Total War series. Citizenship is reserved for those that contributed to the community, so a good attitude towards fellow members and exemplary behavior. We should force people to conform to our beliefs. If that was the case, then I should vote to "n" for any non-anarchist and religious believers. After all, why would I want to include a nationalist (anyone who believes in statehood) into the community who wished to oppress the poor; that is immoral. Plus, why would I support a religious believer; they cause war and promote violence to those that do not believe in the "truth."

You missed the point. This is not about the member's political/religious views but rather about how he expresses them and how he treats those who don't share his own views. No matter these views, there's a civil and respectful way (in most cases) to express them. Basically it works in the same way as you pointed it for the recent application about modders and players.

[Flinn]

about non disclosure; it's not just moderation policy, there's also the Staff Non Disclosure, with which the Curia has nothing to do, actually

[izzi]

Hello people, i made a proposition for a new member. You can find the application here.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I miss the CdeC.