[Amendment] Cdec issued Notes and Warnings

[Viking Prince]

Proponant: Viking Prince

Support: y2day , Nazgûl Killer , l33tl4m3r , Hesus de bodemloze


Article I. Citizen's Behavior

The suspension and removal of a Rank is handled by the Consilium de Civitates via the following disciplinary process. No Citizen may be subject to more than one process for a single post.

Procedure












If any Citizen receives a staff warning from a moderator they will be referred to the Consilium de Civitates for potential action. The senior moderators will appoint one of themselves to keep track of Citizen's infractions and promptly forward any new ones to the Curator for posting. The accused will then be asked by the Curator to produce a defence within forty eight hours. At the conclusion of this period, regardless of whether a defence has been received, a vote shall be opened by the Curator to conclude after four days. The options are

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

If the CdeC vote to take further action, The Curator shall open a second poll for four days. The options are:













CdeC Note:

• Censure

CdeC Warning:

• Suspension of rank for 1 week
• Suspension of rank for 2 weeks
• Suspension of rank for 1 month
• Suspension of rank for 2 months
• Permanent Removal Indefinite suspension of Rank

No CdeC Penalty:

• Abstain

...

A Rank may not be removed by the CdeC, only suspension is allowed and only except by the procedure outlined in this Article. Divus, Opifex and Phalera awards may only be removed by a Decision of the Curia or by the request of the rank holder.

Citizens may petition a review of their case when involving CdeC warnings and notes. Such petitions may be submitted no sooner than one month after the disciplinary process is finalized. There is no time limitation for such a petition. A denied petition may not be resubmitted again within two months of petition denial. This process is needed for any indefinite suspension to end.

___________________

For purposes of implementing this amendment, all prior Citizens with loss of rank are to be considered to be reclassed to indefinite suspension.

____________________

Reassoning: This addition is similar to a failed proposal: (26-23-5) Poll: [FAILED] [Amendment] Petitioning CdeC for citizenship restoration but is not an identical proposal.

The reasoning on this change is to introduce an appeals process for situations such as the very recent issue that initiated the Halie Satanus resignation as well as to recognize that permanant removal is an unnecessary complication to the citizen application process. In the end, CdeC will still vote on the members in any case.

[y2day]

support

[Squid]

Oppose for a couple of reasons. First only an indefinite suspension should be appealable, having any of the others appealable makes no sense as there won't be enough change in CdeC for a vote to have a different outcome and it effectively makes all suspensions of rank longer than 1 month all the same. Second, an indefinite suspension should not be appealable for three months from the verdict being rendered, it should also not be appealable if a citizen has not gone three months without having an active warning (the first bit makes it more like probation, which generally wont be reviewed more than once every three month, the second bit of this is to align the wait time here with that of becoming a citizen). The "This process is needed . . . " bit is redundant I think.

[Viking Prince]

...only an indefinite suspension should be appealable, having any of the others appealable makes no sense as there won't be enough change in CdeC for a vote to have a different outcome and it effectively makes all suspensions of rank longer than 1 month all the same.

I framed this to be somewhat consistent with the ideas regarding the Tribunal. All notes and warnings are a form of punishment. If the member affected feels the need to appeal, then I think a fair course of action would be for CdeC to politely listen and decide the matter. The current method has very limited exchange between the citizen and the councilors -- much more limited that a Tribunal Appeal or a pm exchange with moderation regarding a note or warning. If as you stated, nothing has changed -- then I wold think the appeal would be denied. At least the citizen had an additional chance to make his/her case after see the concensus opinion of the Councilors.

Second, an indefinite suspension should not be appealable for three months from the verdict being rendered, it should also not be appealable if a citizen has not gone three months without having an active warning (the first bit makes it more like probation, which generally wont be reviewed more than once every three month, the second bit of this is to align the wait time here with that of becoming a citizen).

An appeal is just that -- an appeal. You do not need to wait for the sentence to be substantially completed to make an appeal. In the odd chance that the indefinite suspension were to be completely reversed -- it would seem to be just for the appeal to take place after one month rather than two or three. The reason why I included the one month interim delay is to allow for at least an election cycle to take place. It would not significantly affect the Council make up -- but in the case of a very divided vote that perhaps was decided by a Curator tie break -- it might be enough to change the outcome. Any sooner makes no sense -- any later might be justice delayed.

The "This process is needed . . . " bit is redundant I think.

Perhaps, but it seemed less awkward to me.

I hope this at least helps explain my thinking on this even if it does not sway you (over to the dark side).

[Garnier]

Oppose. I think if the CdeC removes citizenship, the no-longer-citizen should become a citizen again through the normal CdeC vote, rather than allowing future CdeCs to rule that a previous CdeC's decision was wrong.

It is effectively the same, only the spirit of the action is different.

[Raglan]

support in principle, but what squid says makes sense.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Same as Raglan. Support in principle.

[Viking Prince]

At the moment, we have one clear support and two that may or may not count as support to bring this to a vote.

Nazgûl Killer and Raglan von Döbeln -- if you wish to support for the purposes of bringing this to a vote, you need a clearer statement.

[Nazgûl Killer]

In that case, I support. Simply support.

[Viking Prince]

A successful appeal need not mean that there was an error by a prior CdeC ruling. It can be new information to be weighed or perhaps a better defense posted by the citizen. If the CdeC is divided, the issue is never as clear cut. Appeals can allow such divisions to be sorted out over time.

[Raglan]

well okay then, i don't support at the moment, but if the ammendments that squid suggests gets included then i will support it

[Viking Prince]

well okay then, i don't support at the moment, but if the ammendments that squid suggests gets included then i will support it

So I am guessing that post 8 did not help persuade you?

[Raglan]

hmm, rereading it i'm not 100% happy with either, i prefer the logic behind squids, but find the three month wait before being allowed to apeal a bit long.

[Viking Prince]

So what do you suggest?

[Gaius Baltar]

I do not think that a member should petition the CdeC to appeal a CDeC decision. I think the next step should be perhaps the Tribunal.

[Viking Prince]

I do not think that a member should petition the CdeC to appeal a CDeC decision. I think the next step should be perhaps the Tribunal.

I will repost a comment on this that I made within the private portions of CdeC:

The Tribunal is an extension of Administration and is well versed on the posting rules of the site. It's primary purpose is to keep the Moderation Staff honest. I would not wish to dilute their authority with issues of citizenship. I also do not think is necessarily a problem that you are requesting a review from the same panel that issued the punishment. This is done all the time in the corporate world and with private clubs. This is a club setting and not judicial.

[Søren]

I do not think that a member should petition the CdeC to appeal a CDeC decision. I think the next step should be perhaps the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is for appealing moderation actions, not Curial ones. I don't think the Tribunes would like to get involved in citizenry disputes, and my guess would be that the rest of Hex would rather they didn't, too.

EDIT: Yeah, as VP said.

[Augustus Lucifer]

There's a fundamental difference between what the Tribunal does and what a review body on a CdeC decision would be doing. It might be tailored to be akin, but it can't be exact. The Tribunal determines if the ToS was applied correctly. In doing so they have the completely authoritative ToS document as a reference, and an administrative body who can check them by not implementing the suggested action if it is truly an outlandish interpretation. With CdeC actions there is no codified document they make determinations in respect to.

So what would the review body be determining was done correctly? The action itself or perhaps the reasoning? If the action itself, then why bother having the CdeC rule on it first, because all that will matter is what this other body has to say based on their own undefined barometers, as I doubt many a case would end without appeal. If the reasoning, then it could be more useful but successful appeals would be few. Determining someone's reasoning as incorrect when we're talking of an undefined 'citizen code of conduct' or whatever you want to call it that disciplinary actions are gauged against is difficult. There would have to be an extremely strong case of disillusionment for a Councilor to not simply differ and in fact be categorically wrong in their perception of it.

One of the biggest points of contention I find in disciplinary actions is how much civility matters in terms of this code of conduct. The interpretations offered differ as widely as a Citizen needing to be a model gentleman at all times to a Citizen being fine in skirting the ToS at all times so long as they have some purpose(ie. drubbing stupidity upside the head). Those two interpretations are usually offered and everything in between. None of that is wrong, just a different idea of things. I tend to opt for the more old-fashioned approach and lean more towards the latter than the former, whereas the former seems to be more of a 'new age' introduction in keeping with the concept that Citizens should always be positive role models.

[Viking Prince]

The review is a bit of a few things.

First there is the obvious additional chance for a citizen to make a pitch to request a note or warning to be reconsidered (whatever that would mean for the citizen and members of CdeC -- I have kept that a bit vague and open intentionally).

Then there is the possability that there was an error or an exception in process to be considered. Maybe the citizen did not respond with a defense in a timely manner because the citizen was involved with real world issues and only returned to log in and discover suspension of citizenship or a censure. The citizen would like to request a review and offer a defense. This would not be an unreasonable request. It could perhaps be accomodated today as well, but this amendment would make it a formal process.

Then there are the indefinite suspensions that remain suspended until the member requests the suspension to end.

I am certain that there are other potential examples of a good use for the review process that I have not thought of, but this is sufficient to get the value that such a process holds. Remember, this is a club membership committee and not a judicial body. At least that is how I view CdeC.

[magpie]

I am not sure, Could someone clarify the present voting procedure! My own feeling on the subject of voting on an issue like this. A 2/3 majority should be used in the case, with a minimum number of the council, decided on! present to vote! otherwise the decision is invalid.