Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Justinian]

I think you misread my post. It should be clearly stated somewhere that in order for the hack which displays vote results to work, the three options need to be exactly (Yes No Abstain). I haven't modified anything concerning the hack, the reason they aren't showing is because the poll options have "." on the end of them, which was a choice made by the Curator and is within her remit to make given the current wording.

My amendment would put it in the constitution that the poll options must exactly be Yes, No and Abstain.

Ok, yes. I would still object to the idea that " was a choice made by the Curator and is within her remit to make given the current wording". An overstep here as I don't see any wording that would allow her to unilaterally change the poll procedures.

I agree with you, which is why the amendment I've proposed lets the Curia decide.

[Empress Meg]

Gents,

An overstep here as I don't see any wording that would allow her to unilaterally change the poll procedures.

Please show me exactly where it says that I must use this hack for Curia polls and I shall. Until then, please use this thread for the intended purpose rather than complaining. If you have any other issues feel free to PM me, or post a new thread, or VonC me if you loath a wee bit of punctuation.

Devoirs The Empress

[Squid]

Ok, yes. I would still object to the idea that " was a choice made by the Curator and is within her remit to make given the current wording". An overstep here as I don't see any wording that would allow her to unilaterally change the poll procedures.

She hasn't changed the poll procedures. The current constitution specifically states citizens cannot view the results until after they've voted. Since the results will be viewable when the poll closes and this is most definitely after you vote in the poll, or have chosen not to vote, there is no violation of the constitution.

[Gaius Baltar]

She hasn't changed the poll procedures.

Well, yes she has. We wouldn't be discussing this if proper procedure had been followed.


This has been debated before, the point being, is that the curator cannot change constitutional procedure unilaterally.

Moreover, Ive thrown my support behind Justinians amendment that will clarify this procedure.

please use this thread for the intended purpose rather than complaining

Please read the OP first

This stickied thread has been created to allow a place for citizens to openly and freely scrutinies the Curator of the day's performance, and hold him (or her) to account on any issue. It'll be good for openness, accountability, and for the quality of the running of the Curia.

[Empress Meg]

Please read the OP first

I have. Please actually talk to me about it instead of making snide interjections. I spoke to Justinian about this and we managed to have a fine conversation without making me appear (and feel) like a coward. I don't like being talked about as though I am not present.

I have not touched the TWC Constitution outside of the edits required by the Curia. I have changed nothing save for a tradition, not a written law. I understand that this is the way it has been done for many, many polls but I prefer this way. If Justy's proposal passes than I will adapt that method.

Devoirs The Empress

[Gaius Baltar]

I have. Please actually talk to me about it instead of making snide interjections. I spoke to Justinian about this and we managed to have a fine conversation without making me appear (and feel) like a coward. I don't like being talked about as though I am not present.

I have not touched the TWC Constitution outside of the edits required by the Curia. I have changed nothing save for a tradition, not a written law. I understand that this is the way it has been done for many, many polls but I prefer this way. If Justy's proposal passes than I will adapt that method.

Devours The Empress

Just some observations. I have simply commented on matters that have been a point of contention before. So its worth bringing up.

I have observed voting irregularities before, done both by multiple account activity and by using inactive accounts. My brief period at the AdminCP gave me insight into the behavior of several highly active members here at TWC. Using multiple accounts to disrupt board activity or influence board decisions is part of their "modus operandi" .

I proposed and had passed Amendment X that prohibits multiple citizen accounts.

I have always been a proponent of a more open voting system, based on the model of the US Congress where a members vote is publicly recorded, and he usually makes some type of organized comment on his behavior.

I posted links to the previous discussions in the Prothalamus proposal thread by Justinian. Basically, the current system was arrived at after a similar discussion back in 2008. Everytime someone moved the vote closer to a closed system I object.

I attempted to clarify the procedure with a previous amendment, but it failed. Perhaps this time this will get cleared up and the Curator's duties more well defined.

[Squid]

Well, yes she has. We wouldn't be discussing this if proper procedure had been followed.

She hasn't. You haven't yet mentioned which part of the constitution is being broken and how, while I have clearly demonstrated, both here and in the amendment thread that the particular part you seem to be referring to is in fact quite clearly being followed, and you have yet to refute this fact and have in fact now blatantly ignored it.

[Nole4694]

I have to agree with squid and meg here. Meg isn't changing procedure as defined by the constitution. The use of the hack has merely survived through the grace of the Curator, it has never been supported by the constitution, nor defended by it. So if Meg, for whatever reason, doesn't want to use the hack then she has every right not to. You can still view the results of the vote after it's conclusion, I personally would like to see it before then (which is why I support the ammendment) but the curator has done nothing wrong by making us wait.

[Gaius Baltar]

[QUOTE=Sqυιd;7280603]

Well, yes she has. We wouldn't be discussing this if proper procedure had been followed./QUOTE]

She hasn't. You haven't yet mentioned which part of the constitution is being broken and how, while I have clearly demonstrated, both here and in the amendment thread that the particular part you seem to be referring to is in fact quite clearly being followed, and you have yet to refute this fact and have in fact now blatantly ignored it.

All citizens are honour bound to not view the results of Curia Votes until they have themselves voted, unless necessary for the execution of any other duty to the site.

The vote is to made visible after the member has voted, as clearly indicated in this passage. This is the procedure that has been followed, and there doesn't seem any real good reason for this to be reinterpreted, particularly without explanation. Of course you can split hairs over a literary ambiguity, but this doesn't explain changing constitutional procedure unilaterally with consulting the CVRIA.

In addition you have established no facts, the passage in the constitution is quite clear. In addition, there is no material indicating that the poll results are to be withheld until after the poll is closed.

until they have themselves voted- means precisely that, when the member has voted then they can view the poll results. No future tense is indicated here.

[Nole4694]

If you wish to be completly specific to the constitution then you could say that the hack is against it. As the constitution states nothing about the hack, but instead the citizens are merely honor bound to not look. The constitution also doesn't say that citizens can look right after their vote, merely some point after, whether it be as soon as they vote or at the close of the poll, it doesn't matter.

As of now, the constitution is open to interpretation on this matter. You believe that it means that we should use the hack in the curia votes, meg does not. And both are equally supported ideas in the constitution's current state.

[Senno]

As I recall the language until they have themselves voted is a relic of when the vote tally was visible before voting and there was no hack in existence.

This comes down to preference.

[Squid]

If you wish to be completly specific to the constitution then you could say that the hack is against it. As the constitution states nothing about the hack, but instead the citizens are merely honor bound to not look. The constitution also doesn't say that citizens can look right after their vote, merely some point after, whether it be as soon as they vote or at the close of the poll, it doesn't matter.

As of now, the constitution is open to interpretation on this matter. You believe that it means that we should use the hack in the curia votes, meg does not. And both are equally supported ideas in the constitution's current state.

Thank you Nole, and Gaius currently it is Meg's interpretation that matters as its is her job as curator to interpret the constitution and apply that interpretation. If you disagree with her interpretation VonC her. Until you do either propose an amendment that makes the constitution conform to your interpretation or live with Meg's.

[Junius]

It is an interpretation of that piece of the Constitution, and I believe that her interpretation is equally in line with the Constitution as your one Nicholas. There is no time specification, so after the vote can mean any time after the vote. If you feel suitably aggrieved then there are suitable channels through which you can get the Curator removed for breaking the Constitution, though I believe she hasn't done that.

[Gaius Baltar]

Thank you Nole, and Gaius currently it is Meg's interpretation that matters as its is her job as curator to interpret the constitution and apply that interpretation. If you disagree with her interpretation VonC her. Until you do either propose an amendment that makes the constitution conform to your interpretation or live with Meg's.

Fair enough, Ill move any more comments I make over to the Prothalamus thread. I'm not prepared to VonC anyone, but it seems that when confronted with an argument, admins/officers could be more prepared and less defensive.

[Empress Meg]

Just some observations. I have simply commented on matters that have been a point of contention before. So its worth bringing up.

I have observed voting irregularities before, done both by multiple account activity and by using inactive accounts. My brief period at the AdminCP gave me insight into the behavior of several highly active members here at TWC. Using multiple accounts to disrupt board activity or influence board decisions is part of their "modus operandi" .

I proposed and had passed Amendment X that prohibits multiple citizen accounts.

I have always been a proponent of a more open voting system, based on the model of the US Congress where a members vote is publicly recorded, and he usually makes some type of organized comment on his behavior.

I posted links to the previous discussions in the Prothalamus proposal thread by Justinian. Basically, the current system was arrived at after a similar discussion back in 2008. Everytime someone moved the vote closer to a closed system I object.

I attempted to clarify the procedure with a previous amendment, but it failed. Perhaps this time this will get cleared up and the Curator's duties more well defined.

Thank you kindly for replying in this way. I find it much easier to talk like this rather than in the third person. Any matter in the Curia is worth bringing up, yes. And this thread is that vehicle or so I interpret it that way.

I too have observed cheating before in many a poll here at the TWC and been involved in disciplinary actions to prevent, and unfortunately, treat such nonsense.

Part of my reasoning behind including punctuation is to minimize the chance of a person telling a group of folks which way to vote in order to sway the end result. Having an "open vote" in this case does nothing to prevent any such situation from occurring because the vote isn't truly an open one. At the end of the week there's no way of knowing who voted for what because no-one may see the names of each particular person and how they voted. There's no accountability in the traditional system. It is far from open and honest. "My way" as it seems now I have fostered onto myself, isn't any less open then the traditional method. At the end of the day the vote is display, the Curator must still say if it passed or failed, and all may scrutinize the results after the one week has expired.

Now, as to the other questions/comments I missed over the past two days:

Major Darling: Curators can vote on Curia Vote threads right?

Yes, the Curator is allowed to vote in polls created by the Curia. They may not vote in CdeC polls: citizenship applications and disciplinary cases.

Nole4694: I have to agree with squid and meg here. Meg isn't changing procedure as defined by the constitution. The use of the hack has merely survived through the grace of the Curator, it has never been supported by the constitution, nor defended by it. So if Meg, for whatever reason, doesn't want to use the hack then she has every right not to. You can still view the results of the vote after it's conclusion, I personally would like to see it before then (which is why I support the ammendment) but the curator has done nothing wrong by making us wait.

Wisdom.

Senno: As I recall the language until they have themselves voted is a relic of when the vote tally was visible before voting and there was no hack in existence.

This comes down to preference.

So everyone knew who voted for what?! My goodness that's awesome. I couldn't even imagine the flame wars that might have spawned.

Nicholas Rush: Fair enough, Ill move any more comments I make over to the Prothalamus thread. I'm not prepared to VonC anyone, but it seems that when confronted with an argument, admins/officers could be more prepared and less defensive.

I have never met an admin or officer who didn't explain themselves, merely that the person didn't want to accept their answer. I may not talk a great deal but I hope that I do explain myself.

As for Curatorial housekeeping funtimes! :0 I am desperately trying to get all of the pending amendments tended but forgive me if they stew a few more days. (I like to get outside in my garden when I have days away from work.) These are in the works:

*The Historian Board is now open for applications.

*I have just now sent a quick PM to hex asking their current position on the Name Changes and Active Warnings decision.

*Please take note that there's this final outstanding decision to get moving, if it is legit!
Decision – Initiative to give the Curia direction and aid in the betterment of TWC

I believe it to be invalid as it gives the Pro-Curator(s) the same power as that of the Curator while that office is filled. So unless the Pro-Curator's duties have been expanded by amendment, this is a clear-cut breach of the TWC Constitution. I'd like to hear yall's take on it please.

*The CdeC report for April is in the works thanks to Pontifex and his taking pity on me.

* If you have sent me a PM or wall message and I've not replied, please send me another PM to move me along.

Devoirs The Empress

[Augustus Lucifer]

*Please take note that there's this final outstanding decision to get moving, if it is legit!
Decision – Initiative to give the Curia direction and aid in the betterment of TWC

I believe it to be invalid as it gives the Pro-Curator(s) the same power as that of the Curator while that office is filled. So unless the Pro-Curator's duties have been expanded by amendment, this is a clear-cut breach of the TWC Constitution. I'd like to hear yall's take on it please.

Hex Official Response

The decision was treated as valid but is not regarded as high priority or mandatory. I wrote one report for Tech Staff a couple months ago and may write one in the future, but it didn't garner much interest or result in Curial involvement, as was the intent, and I do have better things to do.

[Empress Meg]

^^ Yes. I read this as I looked through the pages. I must say I laughed hardily!

Still, my question stands, is this invalid because it gives more powers and duties to the pro-curator(s)?

[l33tl4m3r]

Just to add to AL's rainy-day post a few days ago; I am not in the Citizen group because I wanted "Artifex" and not "Citizen" to display with my moderator badge.

[Empress Meg]

Just to add to AL's rainy-day post a few days ago; I am not in the Citizen group because I wanted "Artifex" and not "Citizen" to display with my moderator badge.

An artifex is a citizen. You should be allowed to display any of the three citizen ranks Citizen, Artifex, or Civitate.

Devoirs The Empress

[Junius]

An artifex is a citizen. You should be allowed to display any of the three citizen ranks Citizen, Artifex, or Civitate.

Devoirs The Empress

Really, so even if I was patronised as only a 'Citizen', which I was, can I still display Artifex, if I was so inclined? Not that I would do, but I might consider it for Civitate.