Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Iskar]

It pains me greatly, but in light of the Curia's apparent inability to maintain even the lowest of standards citizenship has become meaningless. As such I am laying down my citizenship.

I'm not leaving because of Ponti. I'm leaving because more than a third of us find behaviour like his acceptable.

[Sir Adrian]

Sad to see you go. On my part I don't find his behavior acceptable I find the motive and manner in which this was launched unacceptable

[Cope]

It pains me greatly, but in light of the Curia's apparent inability to maintain even the lowest of standards citizenship has become meaningless. As such I am laying down my citizenship.

I'm not leaving because of Ponti. I'm leaving because more than a third of us find behaviour like his acceptable.

God bless, brother.

[Kilo11]

It pains me greatly, but in light of the Curia's apparent inability to maintain even the lowest of standards citizenship has become meaningless. As such I am laying down my citizenship.

I'm not leaving because of Ponti. I'm leaving because more than a third of us find behaviour like his acceptable.

Iskar, I think that is a poor attitude to have. If you think the behavior was unacceptable, then maybe out of solidarity with the almost 2/3rds who agree with you, you should stay to help sustain better standards. I mean, it is by no means the case that there is a general sense that people can say whatever they want, so long as they stay within the bounds of the ToS. Even if one looks at the recent proceedings in the most negative light, you can still see that there is a sense of civility and camaraderie here which is not present on many forums like this one. And that is only the case because we all stick it out, and work to make things better. If you leave, you might think that your hands will look a tad cleaner come tomorrow, but really you'll only have lowered the bar one notch more by taking away your power to hold it higher.

All in all, the choice is of course yours, but I would ask you to reconsider and think about the wider implications of your actions before doing something just to make a point.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Kilo presents the voice of innocence and meaningful change. I'm afraid any of its benefits are far too late to ths party.

[Sir Adrian]

Let's not act like the Taliban just took over the forum because a malicious ostrakon failed.

[PikeStance]

Do we really want "higher standards" this time?
Or
Are we going to talk about them and apply them inconsistently?
I am not just talking about how you perceive other citizen's behavior, but how you perceive your own and use that has a lens to when you observe other citizens.

[TheDarkKnight]

Iskar beat me to it, honestly. I logged off last night thinking that I might need to resign my citizenship in protest. However in light of him leaving behind his citizenship I will retain mine so that we don't lose two such votes in the future for holding citizens to standard.

So either Ponti gets off on a technicality or because people didn't read. What a fantastic pair of excuses. I genuinely don't care of the reasons why ten people sided with Ponti. I see nothing but lame reasons about why they voted against removal. Ignorance of what happened because the posts were justifiably deleted/handled by Tribunes and Moderation because they had to be is not a good reason to say "well we didn't know how bad he was!" when I and others said they were deleted and said as much as we could as to what the posts contained. I said as much as possible here.

Not reading the whole thread before voting is also pretty shameful when it was less than 80 posts as well.

Not to worry though, I'm sure he's learned his lesson this time.

The similarities continue...

[Gigantus]

Let's not act like the Taliban just took over the forum because a malicious ostrakon failed.

Labeling it malicious because the two parties had less then amiable encounters is a ridiculous attempt to exonerate your stance that the actual motion was of no apparent concern to you and possibly the majority of the other no voters.

Let me run with the Taliban takeover comparison: TWC's takeover took far less then 20 years and it's success wasn't based on a sudden collapse of the defense: I am suspecting it has it's roots in real life when POTUS45 could hardly open his mouth without abusing a person that didn't share his view. Getting cheered on by the crowd (potentially half the country) for it over time has enabled and normalized that approach.
Enabling the same behavior of the defendant in the same manner is simply a continuation of that takeover here on TWC - of civil discourse by unbridled abuse.

[Sir Adrian]

We've been down this road before Gig. I know more than you do in this instance.

Who do you expect will lodge a complaint, someone not connected to the defendant?

Yes. I don't know for sure but given the post-factum reaction the previous ostra was probably made by Sukiyama, somebody who has no connection to Pontifex whatsoever. If you are so appalled by Pontifex behavior that you are willing to demonize the people who voted no, then you can ostra him yourself. If not, then all these walls of text are nothing but hypocrisy.

[PikeStance]

Iskar beat me to it, honestly. I logged off last night thinking that I might need to resign my citizenship in protest. However in light of him leaving behind his citizenship I will retain mine so that we don't lose two such votes in the future for holding citizens to standard.

So either Ponti gets off on a technicality or because people didn't read. What a fantastic pair of excuses. I genuinely don't care of the reasons why ten people sided with Ponti. I see nothing but lame reasons about why they voted against removal. Ignorance of what happened because the posts were justifiably deleted/handled by Tribunes and Moderation because they had to be is not a good reason to say "well we didn't know how bad he was!" when I and others said they were deleted and said as much as we could as to what the posts contained. I said as much as possible here.

1. You do care otherwise why bother with posting anything.
2. No one "sided" with Ponti. I think he is a terrible "debater," but I think most are, especially in the mudpit. it is like reading Fox and MSNBC debate an issue.
3. The evidence given was nothing more than overinflated egotistic drivel. His behavior in the Tribunal was not evidence in the deliberation. If it so appalling, then by all means make a proposal to remove his citizenship.
4. If you cannot provide evidence of his poor posting, then there is something inherently wrong with the system. It may be the case that these embarrassing public trials are not the best solution for ensuring higher standards. I have made proposals in the past where a vote to remove citizenship is based on the number of infraction one receives. In that case, it isn't what was said that is a breech of standards, but rather the fact a recurring breech has been made.
5. The current process and the one previous to it has been froth with hypocrisy and political intrigue, it is really hard to take any of this seriously. Talk talk talk. talk talk.

[Akar]

How do you show you didn't read the ostrakon at all without saying you didn't read the ostrakon at all? Hmmm....

I guess you could post something like this...

His behavior in the Tribunal was not evidence in the deliberation

[Narf]

TDK, Iskar, I'm sorry the recent events have lead you to feel like setting aside your citizenship.

The behaviour that makes you feel like leaving is left a larger percentage of the collective image/standard by your absence.

That kind of behaviour is not accepted, thus the two ostrakons. Best way to keep the standard is to live it, if you leave, that's one less example for people to look to.
Sad to see this turn of events. Hope you feel better about it soon.

I see you braving much harsher storms than this. If a shadow falls on us, dimming or puffing out en't the answer. Shining all the brighter in it is how it's abated.

[Gigantus]

We've been down this road before Gig. I know more than you do in this instance.

Who do you expect will lodge a complaint, someone not connected to the defendant?

Yes. I don't know for sure but given the post-factum reaction the previous ostra was probably made by Sukiyama, somebody who has no connection to Pontifex whatsoever. If you are so appalled by Pontifex behavior that you are willing to demonize the people who voted no, then you can ostra him yourself. If not, then all these walls of text are nothing but hypocrisy.

Discrediting my argument instead of responding to the premise of it (the very same 'motive instead of merit' approach) is both entertaining and amusing. As good efforts go it deserves an evaluation:

As you omitted which road you are referring to I am left to speculate: ostrakoning Ponti? Dismissing an ostrakon on motive instead merit? Following it up with 'I can pee further down that road then you' isn't helping one bit here.
Appreciate that you agree that there is no way to ascertain whether the accuser has any connection to the defendant, not that it stopped you to focus on it in the last ostrakon right from the start, see further down for more on that.
You set a pretty low bar on 'demonizing people', I take you haven't had an opportunity to come across a actual case of it? As the last two dismissed appeals of Ponti showed even the attempt at it is actually against the ToS. Lucky me then that my highly vocal objection is against a single action that apparently (not everyone confirmed it like yourself) was common to a number of participants in the latest ostrakon, wouldn't you say?
And why on earth would I need to lodge yet another ostrakon to verify my objections that I have with this one? You totally lost me there. I mean you do a fine job of verifying it yourself: even in the previous ostrakon you were the first out of the box to focus on the motive. To your credit you actually commented first on the merit - normalizing the behavior by way of character reference.

This is thin as hell. Temperament and niceness was never a criteria, we have plenty of crabby sea captains in the Curia. Notes don't matter, and infractions are generally punished with suspension of citizenship, and I have no memory of Pontifex being suspended. In fact quite the opposite he's held variuous curial offices over the last couple of years, and having active infractions prevents you from holding any.

Honestly to me this reads as sombody who is butthurt over politics trying to snipe at him. This is frivolous use of Ostrakon at best and, if the proposer is a citizen, completely unbecoming of a citizen.

It's vommit inducing stuff like this that makes people steer clear of the Curia.

Opposed.

Quick comments on that post: Guess I would have been virtually immune to any ostrakon in my heydays if offices held is the yardstick to judge them by - really missed an opportunity here when arguing in the trib commentary all those years it seems.
Listing his failed appeals (eg the penalties that are public knowledge) over the last few years alongside the various offices he has held would have been an interesting read, like: did he hold any office of consequence after he started his collection?

[PikeStance]

If people actually want to make a difference and create a standard of behavior (higher or otherwise) it is prudent to focus less on what has transpire and instead work towards a collective agreed standard.
This is my problem when people talk of higher standards. People are more interested in "winning" an argument which ultimately means they lose. What I mean? If the motive is about winning an argument, then the goal is never to have a set agreed standard.

What do we have;
Tired redundant and monotonous debate in which no one wins
Resignation of citizenship because you do not like what others have done.

It is no wonder citizenship carries so little regard. Those that possess it do not value it. It's just a thing.

In the past whenever standards are discussed the conversation died whenever anyone mentioned that it is too hard to define. And, whenever anyone tried to improve the level of debate in the mudpit or the site in general, it is supported by only an extreme small fraction of members.

[Sir Adrian]

Pike is the only one that actually gets it.

[Cookiegod]

I think we should figure out how to move forward (and hopefully get Iskar back once necessary changes have been implemented). The flaw I currently see is not in Akar admitting to having submitted it. I still find it necessary information and transparency should be in the system overall. It is easy to make a person look bad by presenting isolated quotes. Thus, for any serious evaluation, one would have to jump into the link and read preceding pages to form a better picture. Which most people don't have the time for. So we rely on the OP to present information accurately and not unfairly. Having the ostrakon curated by the consul does not remove the necessity for trust. Not having the transparency undermines the trust and makes people more likely to vote no, and I personally would have abstained if I hadn't been presented with the information which I didn't see when it happened life, but only after it was shown to me. Which is where we get to the actual issue:

The way the system currently works is that if stuff is bad enough, it's essentially excluded from evidence. And yeah, sure, many might have voted no because of partisanship or bias, but I very much doubt everyone was aware of the really hardcore stuff. We failed by one vote.

The part we can't change is how people act based on interpersonal bias. I very much like the way my relationship with akar works (very good, but neither of us feel the need to choose partisanship over our convictions, and the knowledge of each other instead enables us to criticise each other openly knowing that the other will likely take it in the right way even if he won't agree - and in this case I'll admit that he was fully right and I was wrong), but most people succumb to tribalism since that is our evolutionary response.

But I think the system we could actually change. I understand the reason why we're not allowed to repost the haram stuff (if it's put off site that means it cannot stay on site), but there should be a workaround to this. Especially since any ostrakon is expected to be well argued and documented. Which in this case led to comparably mild stuff being presented as the cause, when the real reason Ponti had to go was the deleted stuff (and anyone halfarsing the OP could have gotten the meh impression I initially had). There should be a proper procedure allowing for that when really hardcore stuff was done, that this could be referenced properly.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't see how knowing the accuser would make you trust the accusation more. I don't see any logic in that. We are not to judge someone purely based on an accusers post. Ostrakon is not a court preceding between two people where the accusation and the defense relies on either party. It's basically a civil law suit where everyone has to act as the prosecution first. Knowing who the accuser is merely pollutes the well and gives excuses to people to dismiss the charges even when those people admit that the charges hold. We have just witnessed that with the latest Ostrakon.

If the latest Ostrakon was a case on the fence with no real infraction history the fuss against it would be understandable. Yet, we didn't even need to look at the accuseds posting style to see if it was Citizen-worthy. We had extensive Tribunal history in the last 3 years. 16 of them have been linked to in the accused's accusation post. 9 denied (2 Non-case, 1 Resolved due to withdrawal, and 4 Granted). 12 infraction points in total. His defense of that was calling the accusers "a bunch of whiny Citizens." All of that was clearly linked to in the very first post of the Ostrakon.

What more clarity did people needed?

[Cookiegod]

I did not know about the Holocaust stuff until Gigantus mentioned it and until I then doublechecked by asking on discord. The really egregious stuff is already deleted and no longer on the site. The issue is that akar was not allowed to represent this directly in the OP, or I would have said right away. We also have to keep in mind how much time is reasonable to be demanded from people, and then, with that in mind, then go away from what people ought to do to how people actually function. -> Information needs to be presented in a direct way. Akar wasn't allowed to do this, had to instead refer to stuff that is mild in comparison, and since - again - we only failed by one vote, this absolutely did decide the outcome.

It is easy for people (as was the case for me) to mistakenly assume that the worst stuff is in the OP. This by the way is where I disagree with Iskar. I don't think the naysayers/abstainers necessarily deemed Ponti's behaviour unacceptable.

Anyway. Iskar, unlike Ponti, still cares about the site and the institution and is a high quality poster with many great qualities and renounced his citizenship based on legitimate grievances. I think we should at least try to do some reform that gets us back on track and hopefully can convince Iskar to return.

[PikeStance]

If citizenship was based on my standards, Ponti and others posting/ debate style would be unacceptable.
The Mudpit and the Curia have be rife with antagonistic posts towards other members it is hard to see any standard of conduct that we adhere to at all.

It reminds me of United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when remarking about pornography; "I cannot define it, though I know it when I see it."*
At the very least, the same could be true of our "higher standards."


* the full quote: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."