Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Iskar]

Nah, I don't think "greater adherence to the ToS" cuts it. Everyone is expected to follow the ToS at all times. That is why you get notes and infractions if you don't, citizen and non-citizen alike. We are all equal before the eyes of the Lord Tango.
Not breaking the ToS is a pretty low bar and despite the narrative you see pandered by some veterans of old (and some new) we don't "all slip at some point". The vast majority of site members never have an interaction with moderation at all.

[Commissar Caligula_]

I couldn't read your post Iskar until I made this post. Anyone else having trouble switching to a new page eg 284 of 283 if there is only 1 post there?

[PikeStance]

Nah, I don't think "greater adherence to the ToS" cuts it. Everyone is expected to follow the ToS at all times. That is why you get notes and infractions if you don't, citizen and non-citizen alike. We are all equal before the eyes of the Lord Tango.
Not breaking the ToS is a pretty low bar and despite the narrative you see pandered by some veterans of old (and some new) we don't "all slip at some point". The vast majority of site members never have an interaction with moderation at all.

There is no assumption that you never break the ToS. If that was the case they would be zero tolerance. Non-citizens can break the ToS with little or no consequences. In fact, they can break the ToS many times without fear of any real action being taken. Citizens, on the hand, are held to a "higher standard" of not breaking the ToS or there will be consequences. There is no way around the notion that the current set up demands a higher standard of conduct above that of a normal member.

This is MY new standard. I will no longer argue for some nebulous concept. The is quantifiable and demanding enough.

[Iskar]

The expectation of the ToS is precisely that you never break it, that is why there are sanctions for doing so. Don't confuse the average with the norm.

[PikeStance]

The expectation of the ToS is precisely that you never break it, that is why there are sanctions for doing so. Don't confuse the average with the norm.

As I said, if you never break it was the expectations, then there would be "zero toleration." Fortunately, it isn't. Though matter how you break it down, non-citizens can break the ToS with little impunity unless they really break it in a short period of time. Citizens do not have that luxury. THus they are held to a higher standard.

Iskar, do you really want to hold to an ill define nebulous ideal that can never be objectified? Why do we believe that there is a "Higher standard" above the ToS? Does anyone have a clue what that would be? I don't. I sat down many times trying to write something down and end up quitting each time. We have a higher standard, something that is right in front of us. No more searching. There is no refutable argument against it. Non-citizens just have the luxury of misbehaving.

[Iskar]

I haven't said we should keep a nebulous higher standard. What I am opposing is the suggestion to downtier the norm (don't break the ToS) to the average (People sometimes break the ToS) for noncitizens and declaring the previously universal norm the new higher standard. That would just be cheap relabelling to make the notions (we have higher standards) artificially fit reality (we're crap at upholding anything beyond the ToS) - instead of either trying to change reality (actually foster better behaviour - unlikely) or abandoning the silly notions (drop the higher standards thing and just hold everyone to the ToS).

I am aware a proper distinction between norms and facts does not come easy in the pragmatist Anglo-American sphere of discourse, but surely the distinction between what people should do (norm, not break the ToS here) and what people can do (practice, sometimes break the ToS) is fathomable to everyone.

[PikeStance]

I haven't said we should keep a nebulous higher standard. What I am opposing is the suggestion to downtier the norm (don't break the ToS) to the average (People sometimes break the ToS) for noncitizens and declaring the previously universal norm the new higher standard. That would just be cheap relabelling to make the notions (we have higher standards) artificially fit reality (we're crap at upholding anything beyond the ToS) - instead of either trying to change reality (actually foster better behaviour - unlikely) or abandoning the silly notions (drop the higher standards thing and just hold everyone to the ToS).

I am aware a proper distinction between norms and facts does not come easy in the pragmatist Anglo-American sphere of discourse, but surely the distinction between what people should do (norm, not break the ToS here) and what people can do (practice, sometimes break the ToS) is fathomable to everyone.

You still avoiding the fact that non-citizens are held to a lower standard than citizens by virtual of the referral system. That is irrefutable fact. If we want higher standards, we need only be more severe in our punishment when the ToS is violated.
Better behavior starts with each member engaging in honest discussion. Moderation is done by the consent of the citizenry within the Curia. Higher standards are not just avoidance, but self- policing. How many times have someone made an off-topic remark about a member here (outside of the citizenship application) and nothing is said? In the past, we used the notion that the rules are different here to act differently. If we define it as I do, then self- policing isn't trying to make sense of something undefinable, but something we are all familiar with. It is easier to act in accordance with if we can define it clearly.

[Lifthrasir]

Before to throw that kind of "concept" about moderation, I'd suggest to read the following:

(...)
What is with this moderator discretion? Why can't you have clear rules?
We are not in the business of being a police state, hence we do not create rules for every individual situation. That would be impossible to implement, and would also lead to an unpleasant environment with a lot of infractions. Individual moderators may differ in how they apply the same general rule on a given situation, but those are well within the possible courses of action moderation may take after receiving a report. Also, every moderator action is visible to mentors and overseers, hence there are layers of supervision and correction if needed (...)

[Aikanár]

As for procedure: I think Hitai and atthias acted exactly how the Constitution says. Also, since this is simply an imergency solution, which only lasts as long as the appeal and/or a new election might take to be completed, there is no possibility this being some sort of power grabbing, as some implied.

[Halie Satanus]

I recently received a message from the trium regarding someone finding my behavior 'unbecoming.' I have no problem should the trium find against me, my comment could be construed as 'unbecoming.'

What I do have an issue with is the false statements made in the referral. The comment I made in Pike proposal to monetize TWC. Something I find abhorrent in every way, so I said so in terms which I hope Pike can understand, since he often claims ignorance, I failed, view the thread you'll see what I mean.

My comment.

This is disturbing/sickening...

Please drop this now and implore the curator to dump it.

To save time and expose the crap I can no longer stand I'm going to post the referral, leaving out the bit that the trium might actually want to discuss. I see nothing in the constitution stating I can't, so....

Furthermore, when this issue was raised by Commissar Caligula_, and feedback was asked for, Halie Satanus refused to be productive in their discussion and doubled down on the insult. Furthermore, although merely failing to refute something is not a good grounds for referral, it should be noted that he did not refute the claim that he was "insinuating Pike [was] attempting to subvert TWC".


To sum up my arguments, the entire purpose of the Curia is to award site members for exemplary contributions by providing them a forum to discuss contributions to the site.
By actively attempting to sabotage such a discussion, and abusing a fellow member for merely making a suggestion is completely unacceptable, and no matter what you may think of a suggestion you should either keep quiet or discuss it in a reasonable manner.


P.S. The mere fact that the discussion thread was created in the Curia main forum, and was not a specific official proposal created in the Prothalamos should not affect your decisions.
The thread was created where it was to allow brainstorming and to ask for feedback. You could even go so far as to argue that it requires constructive feedback to a greater extent than an official proposal in the Prothalamos, as its sole purpose is to expand upon the idea rather than to simply let it go to the vote and see whether the Fors or Againsts will carry the issue.

I never referred to Pike in my comment. So all the accusation of 'insult' are bull crap..
I was not 'asked for feedback' after my comment. - That's a lie.
I did not insinuate Pike was trying to subvert TWC. I actually state 'I did not insinuate, I said exactly what I meant. '
I did not insinuate anything.
I did not 'refuse' to be productive. - Another lie.
I did, not not, refute Pike was trying to subvert TWC. - I know, wtf!
The last section 'only give positive feedback or don't say anything' is simply utter nonsense.

So why do this. I ask the curia should a referral clearly packed with lies and dramatizations be allowed. Is it an honest referral or an attempt to subvert the trium?.

I have advised the trium to find against me and give me whatever punishment they see fit.

[Aikanár]

Oh nice. Next time I happen to not like a post of a fellow citizen, I go and refer him too. /sarcasm.

Sadly there is no such thing as a frivolous referral. However, if we had a Curator, I would expect him to deal with something like that....
One can only trust in the elected officials and their common sense.

[Veteraan]

This anonymous referral stuff is proving quite the tool to poison the atmosphere in the Curia even further than we manage to do with our regular posts.

I'm not against citizen referrals as long as we insist on maintaining we have to adhere to a higher standard (compared to a non citizen), but anything that can be done anonymously just begs to be exploited.

[Lifthrasir]

This is becoming ridiculous.

[z3n]

This is becoming ridiculous.

Entertainment value my friend.

[Axalon]

This is becoming ridiculous.

Fully agreed...

- A

[Aikanár]

This anonymous referral stuff is is proving quite the tool to poison the atmosphere in the Curia even further than we manage to do with our regular posts.

I'm not against citizen referrals as long as we insist on maintaining we have to adhere to a higher standard (compared to a non citizen), but anything that can be done anonymously just begs to be exploited.

We should make citizen referrals transparent and get rid of the anonymity once and for all. If you ain't got the cochones to stand up for your opinions with your name, you should not have been made a citizen in the first place.

[z3n]

We should make citizen referrals transparent and get rid of the anonymity once and for all. If you ain't got the cochones to stand up for your opinions with your name, you should not have been made a citizen in the first place.

Those are some high standards. I thought we weren't into that?

[Jadli]

What a mess...

We should make citizen referrals transparent and get rid of the anonymity once and for all. If you ain't got the cochones to stand up for your opinions with your name, you should not have been made a citizen in the first place.

There is a lot to be improved about referrals for sure, the user who is referring shouldnt be anonymous. Pretty sure there would be less referrals. And if the way of making all of it public cant work, then the referrals should at least be made two sided = the referrer should also be in danger of being "infracted" based on the referral he submitted, if for example he is likely acting based on vendetta, breaking ToS himself, etc.

[General Brewster]

We should make citizen referrals transparent and get rid of the anonymity once and for all. If you ain't got the cochones to stand up for your opinions with your name, you should not have been made a citizen in the first place.

No need to make them more transparent imo. The Curator should always judge the merit of a referral and see through petty vendetta's. He can inform the censors on that view and they can make the decision. Personally I always though the anonymity of referrals were a good thing provided you have a Curator who facilitates in it's flaws.

With the situation right now I believe it's best to simply dissolve the Triumvirate. We elect people to do these cases for us and recently it has brought nothing but discussion and debate where people seem to lose the essence of the question. I do not understand why we have a representational democracy(we vote for people to represent us in these cases) and then burn down those very decisions every opportunity. If everyone is so hellbent on knowing it better it's best to open the process and just watch it all tear itself apart.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

This anonymous referral stuff is is proving quite the tool to poison the atmosphere in the Curia even further than we manage to do with our regular posts.

I'm not against citizen referrals as long as we insist on maintaining we have to adhere to a higher standard (compared to a non citizen), but anything that can be done anonymously just begs to be exploited.

This is becoming ridiculous.

Strongly agree with both of you.