Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[PikeStance]

You raised the point of Curator workload yourself; here's the post Brewster responded to that was conveniently left out of the above:

I don't see any assumptions in Brewster's response to this.
You raised two points there, Curator workload and Censor popularity. Not responding to the latter does not invalidate a response to the former, and frankly you did talk about changing the remit of the Curator position (see quote above).

I didn't omit it, I went back to the point when he made it about him.

In relations to workload, the proposal removes the need for the CAs. This is the increase in workload. There are things not done, but as I said, it goes back years. (e.g. the Monthy reports were already quarterly when I was a Curator). Again, the points being made was not at all a reflection on him at all. It never was.

[Jadli]

A new citzienship application is up!

[General Brewster]

A new citzienship application is up!

@Everyone

The constitution is rather clear that the procedure is first to contact the curator to get any possible issues regarding moderation records out of the way. Recently people have been forgetting about this. In the future please send a pm to whoever the curator may be at that time so the correct procedure is followed.

[Jadli]

@Everyone

The constitution is rather clear that the procedure is first to contact the curator to get any possible issues regarding moderation records out of the way. Recently people have been forgetting about this. In the future please send a pm to whoever the curator may be at that time so the correct procedure is followed.

Uhm, I did PM you and you approved, two weeks ago old bean

[General Brewster]

Uhm, I did PM you and you approved, two weeks ago old bean

I know That's why it isn't directed at you

[PikeStance]

Technically,

per Constitution

The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements and, with the candidate's consent, Moderation is requested to inform the patron and the Curator whether the moderation requirement is met.

The Patron does not contact the Curator. The Patron is required to confirm that the candidate meets all requirements. The patron contacts moderation who are then requested to confirm with both the Patron and Curator. This is only with the applicant consent.
It isn't clear if you MUST contact moderation only that you confirm that the requirements are met. If I recall, the second part was added to ensure that Moderation does not break non-disclosure. The idea behind this line in the constitution is to prevent prsenting a candidate that has a moderation warning within the 6 month period. In the past, I have never ask for consent for a PM to be sent to the Curator.

[Iskar]

Moderation must be contacted to ensure the six months requirement is met. The addition "with the candidate's consent" is necessary for moderation being allowed to inform patron and curator at all. Where a candidate objects, the application can simply not go forward to being posted.

Not asking the candidate for their express consent before requesting moderation to give any information on the record would violate their privacy.

[Lifthrasir]

Just by respect to the Curator, he should be informed even by an informal manner. It costs nothing to the patron and it prevents the application from any "issue".

From my understanding, GB refers to the fact that no moderation record seems to have been requested, from a patron for his applicant, to moderation, in one or several cases.

[PikeStance]

Moderation must be contacted to ensure the six months requirement is met. The addition "with the candidate's consent" is necessary for moderation being allowed to inform patron and curator at all. Where a candidate objects, the application can simply not go forward to being posted.

Not asking the candidate for their express consent before requesting moderation to give any information on the record would violate their privacy.

I think the breakdown in communication is with Moderation Hex. I do not think they bother to send a PM to the Curator. I supposed this should be explicitly clear in the request PM.

Just by respect to the Curator, he should be informed even by an informal manner. It costs nothing to the patron and it prevents the application from any "issue".

Not PMing Moderation is a good way to get "egg on your face." Best to do it.

[Lifthrasir]

Not my point here. Even if it is the moderation duty to tell officially the Curator that the requierement is met, the patron should also inform the Curator about member A application, not necessary by an official manner but just by respect.

[StealthFox]

It's not a requirement to contact the curator or moderation, I never did it and I'm sure others in the past didn't do it. You should know the person you're patronizing and this is one of the things you talk to him/her about. If it comes out the candidate isn't eligible after the application has been posted, either you haven't done your duty as a patron, or your candidate hasn't been honest with you and doesn't deserve citizenship.

[General Brewster]

The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements and, with the candidate's consent, Moderation is requested to inform the patron and the Curator whether the moderation requirement is met.

The way I see it that a patron checks with moderation, no matter they know the applicant and take their word for it. When moderation gets back to the patron I see it as the responsibility of the patron to inform the curator and not necessarily that of moderation, this is my interpretation however.

[Iskar]

My reading of it is that it is mandatory to check the moderation record beforehand, in private. The application can only proceed once moderation has informed patron and Curator that everything's fine. That was the express purpose of the amendment that added the line we're discussing here, but maybe we should make it a bit clearer still?

I think the breakdown in communication is with Moderation Hex. I do not think they bother to send a PM to the Curator. I supposed this should be explicitly clear in the request PM.

I don't think making assumptions about what Moderation Hex does or does not do in private PMs is of any help here. It isn't even Moderation Hex' exclusive task to check the record and inform patron and Curator, any Moderator contacted by the patron can do that.

[General Brewster]

My reading of it is that it is mandatory to check the moderation record beforehand, in private. The application can only proceed once moderation has informed patron and Curator that everything's fine. That was the express purpose of the amendment that added the line we're discussing here, but maybe we should make it a bit clearer still?

And the highlighted part is what hasn't been happening recently and thus made me to mention it. I'll see if I can get it into a proposal to make it clearer.

[Tango12345]

Moderation Hex respond to whoever is making the request, and only to them. No breakdown of communication there. If the patron is doing the asking (I would prefer the curator to do so, but am not overly bothered), then they can pass the relevant communication to the Curator themselves. Since we'll notice anyway if someone does have an unsuitable record, then the Patron is hardly going to lie (let's face it, if someone unsuitable did get as far as the actual application then they'd get noticed very quickly).

Requests for Moderation History should only go to a Mod Hex (ie. LolIsuck or myself), not a normal Moderator. Of course, if a Hex or Moderator themselves is doing the patronising, no pms are required since they can see for themselves.

[General Brewster]

As I said, that's why I think it's under the responsibility of the one asking for the check to inform the curator. Not moderation's

[PikeStance]

I don't think making assumptions about what Moderation Hex does or does not do in private PMs is of any help here. It isn't even Moderation Hex' exclusive task to check the record and inform patron and Curator, any Moderator contacted by the patron can do that.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was pointing out the way that it is written, it sounds as though the response to the inquiry goes to both the Patron and the Curator. It does not read, IMO, that the patron contacts the Curator at any time. I have never done so because I do not recall that ever being discussed as a requirement. You only needed to verify or confirmed if there is any doubt. In only about 50% of my patronizations have I ever contacted an Admin about the history. It is not a sconcious act though. If we get into writing our paragraphs and everything is read and I am sure he (or she) has no record, then I proceed rather than wait. I agree with Stealth on this one.

Moderation Hex respond to whoever is making the request, and only to them. No breakdown of communication there. If the patron is doing the asking (I would prefer the curator to do so, but am not overly bothered), then they can pass the relevant communication to the Curator themselves. Since we'll notice anyway if someone does have an unsuitable record, then the Patron is hardly going to lie (let's face it, if someone unsuitable did get as far as the actual application then they'd get noticed very quickly).

Requests for Moderation History should only go to a Mod Hex (ie. LolIsuck or myself), not a normal Moderator. Of course, if a Hex or Moderator themselves is doing the patronising, no pms are required since they can see for themselves.

I actually agree 100%. The Curator is not on a need to know basis. I have never informed the Curator in the past and the statement does not demand that you do. It asked for the "Moderator" to do so. It should say an Administration or Moderator Administrator in the first place. I saw no reason to do so. I do not recall that ever being discussed when this was being discussed. The statement should be changed. I do not believe the SND would allow Admin to tell the Curator anything.

All this being said, the Curator has a message in his PM box

[Tango12345]

The Curator can be informed that everything is ok. Lets face it, they could justifiably ask anyway , and would get the relevant answer from Hex to exactly the same level as the Patron.

In this context, for those who are not aware, actual details of any infractions are not shared by Moderation, only if there is an issue or not, and if need be the time of 'release'. Of course, this is information that any patron should ask for and receive from their prospective client in the first instance-the client can share any gory details they so wish.

[PikeStance]

The Curator can be informed that everything is ok. Lets face it, they could justifiably ask anyway .

I agree Lift's point about respect is valid, though I wouldn't say if you didn't it is a sign of disrespect.

[Pontifex Maximus]

In the interest of reducing mountains to mole hills, I failed to ask moderation as to the status of my client's moderation history. I took my client's word at face value that he had no outstanding infractions. Correct me if I'm wrong and I will happily withdraw not only the application but my offer for patronization (as I cannot stand liars).

I apologize for my breach of protocol under the Constitution and as such I have submitted a PM to the proper authorities in order to inquire, officially, about my client's moderation history.