[Amendment] Petitioning CdeC for citizenship restoration

[Viking Prince]

Proposed by: Viking Prince
Supported by: Celsius, Яome kb8, Legio, Tzar, Belisarius
Nikos (probably not eligible to support this now though)
Halie Satanus (with reservations)

to be added to:
Section IV - The Judiciary
Article I. Citizen's Behavior

Amendment text

Any member may petition CdeC to review a prior CdeC decision regarding citizenship removal three months after the removal. The only limitation is that there can be no active warning points at the time petition is filed. This is an exception to the six month rule for applicants that have not previously held the rank of citizen.

[Belisarius]

I like it, support more work for us.

[Tzar]

support

[Garnier]

I think the six month rule should still apply.

[Hotspur]

What is the necessity for this rule change?

[Justinian]

I like having the option, but I think it needs some refining.

Any one who wants to petition to be a restored to Citizenship should have someone who vouches for them and is willing to serve as their patron (it could be their original patron or someone else). Why should you get it back without a patron if you needed one in the first place?

[Viking Prince]

@Hotspur -- no driving reason.

I just have observed that warnings do not necessarily (actually seldom) mean removal or even suspension. Six months is a long time and there is not guarantee that such a petition will be successful. If a member wants to improve his chances -- outstanding warnings are not a good approach, but that may not be for all circumstances. I believe a member has a better incentive to reform and not remain a 'bad boy' if the path to redemption has a road map to it. As a matter of fact, it could be rather difficult. There is no formal appeal process for CdeC warnings that I know of. Three months is the length of time for warnings to expire so why not allow a petition for restoration as well after three months?

@Justinian -- that is possible, but I cannot think of a good reason for the patron. Then, I cannot think of a good reason other than tradition for the patron system in the first place. Depending on the comments in this thread, I may include your patron vouch idea though.

[Hotspur]

@Hotspur -- no driving reason.

I just have observed that warnings do not necessarily (actually seldom) mean removal or even suspension. Six months is a long time and there is not guarantee that such a petition will be successful. If a member wants to improve his chances -- outstanding warnings are not a good approach, but that may not be for all circumstances. I believe a member has a better incentive to reform and not remain a 'bad boy' if the path to redemption has a road map to it. As a matter of fact, it could be rather difficult. There is no formal appeal process for CdeC warnings that I know of. Three months is the length of time for warnings to expire so why not allow a petition for restoration as well after three months?

There is nothing to prevent a former citizen from being re-patronized now.

[Каие]

I'll just leave it open here, like a lot of the other proposals on hold. Better than having to dig it out of the archives later. Unless you really, really want it out.

PS. I support.

There is nothing to prevent a former citizen from being re-patronized now.

It could be a way for them to clear their name. I've been on the CdeC both as a councillor and Curator for a while now, and some people totally deserved to have their citizenship removed without question, but got away with blue murder, and others were OTT punished a bit arbitrarily.

[Hotspur]

I'll just leave it open here, like a lot of the other proposals on hold. Better than having to dig it out of the archives later. Unless you really, really want it out.

PS. I support.



It could be a way for them to clear their name. I've been on the CdeC both as a councillor and Curator for a while now, and some people totally deserved to have their citizenship removed without question, but got away with blue murder, and others were OTT punished a bit arbitrarily.

Nothing prevents them from doing that now. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Nikos]

Hmm, seems reasonable enough to me, support.

[Heinz Guderian]

In practice, does this mean the ex-citizen would be able to put himself forward for "patronisation" i.e. writing his own paragraph(s) saying why the CdeC should make him a citizen again? What i mean to say is, is this like the current patronisation system just without the patron and only open to ex-citizens?

[Legio]

bra with SUPPORTing cups


lolol

[Halie Satanus]

Support, but only as long as Ferrets is excluded.

[Heinz Guderian]

Support, but only as long as Ferrets is excluded.

The Putin clause. I like it.

[Halie Satanus]

In the past the patron was, to some degree, responsible for the behavior of their clients. At least in the sense that if one went awry the patron was expected to be the first to intervene. Though that culture is less prevalent these days it makes sense that a returnee should have a patron.

The Putin clause. I like it.

Good idea!, a clause should be added that Ferrets can only apply if he swims a river topless and rides bareback from now on. Should be easy compared to his previous requirements.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Like Hotspur, I'm not sure the necessity of such a change. 'Permanent' removal is in reference to the current Citizenship, not a permanent barring from attaining Citizenship. Any permanently removed Citizen can re-apply just like anyone else. Petitioning the CdeC to review a removal makes it sound like the CdeC errored, when more often than not the disciplinary action taken was appropriate at the time, even if it later gets outweighed by contribution. So I guess I'm missing the crux of the matter here. Is it that former Citizens should have a shorter time period after warnings? Or that they should be able to pseudo-apply without a patron? Those seem to be the only disparities between the current wording of this proposal and the current actuality.

The former I would disagree with. I do strongly feel that 3 months is long enough to let anyone apply, but I want that for everyone, not just former Citizens. Why someone who breached the rules enough to merit removal should get preferential treatment strikes me as odd, when we bar Joe Schmoe who got a 1 pt. Off-Topic infraction for 6 months. More than odd it may be considered downright ridiculous how irreverent such statutes would be of individual situations in favor of global application. If anyone proposes the period for everyone be reduced to 3 months after last infraction, I will irrevocably support that motion. The notion that my job as a Councilor is made easier because the riffraff are kept out for an extra three months is poppycock. Let them stand on their merits and be seen with their demerits at the same interval a warning expires.

As to the second, I think that if a formerly removed Citizen can't find a patron it may just serve as a testament to their lack of reform. In any case I imagine the former patron will either have disowned them or be eager to have their trust vindicated by a reinstatement. If it's the first, then the situation seems to merit the same rigors(ie. not many rigors) everyone else goes through in getting noticed for patronization. Hell, I'll propose someone if they approach me and I concur that they merit the badge again. AM I NOT MERCIFUL?

[Viking Prince]

Mr Curator!!!

If you would like to let this reside quietly while another proposal is brought forward to include all members with a moderation warning history, I would be most grateful. Close this for now, but I may wish to reopen this later.

[Каие]

Their attempt at re-entry would definitely be marred by the black mark on their record, unless they got it reviewed and reversed. like you say though, there's nothing stopping them doing it in a thread here in the Curia... but maybe there is a case for either an appeals process in the case of CdeC disciplinary rulings, or some way to have a case looked at again in private.

[Hotspur]

Their attempt at re-entry would definitely be marred by the black mark on their record, unless they got it reviewed and reversed. like you say though, there's nothing stopping them doing it in a thread here in the Curia... but maybe there is a case for either an appeals process in the case of CdeC disciplinary rulings, or some way to have a case looked at again in private.

Neither Shyam nor RZZZA had any trouble passing a second time.