Curial Election Commentary Thread

[Aikanár]

Yeah but this is not about running for Censor, this is about running for Curator. He can only vote in case of a tie and only for what the censors have already voted so context is absolutely moot since he can't influence the voting process - he can't even vote for the worst punishment since there is a gentleman's understanding that the curator votes for the easiest sentence unless blatantly obvious that it's ineffectual - and the extra info he has serves him nothing because he can't share it either.

He cannot? I know nothing about this gentlemen agreement and I wouldn't feel bound by any agreement a former Curator might or might not have made with whomever. Interesting agreement btw. makes for a splendid discussion. Instead of taking the appropriate decision, the Curator goes with the softest decision. Who came up with that crap if I might ask?

1 year ago Diamat was heavily criticized by everyone for giving his opinion before the censors voted. Since when does precedent apply selectively?

That is simply not true. I was there, in the inside and I have very vivid memory of what Diamat did in that referral and how he conducted himself both in the inside and outside in public. Diamat was not criticized for giving his opinion, but for demonstrating that his opinion has been compromised and that he should have recused himself from the case because he was compromised and he was criticized for how he reacted when he was made aware about this. That became ever more obvious during the case and culminated when he broke the tie. Then it was the opinion itself, that was criticized and not fact that he gave it. And I assure you, if he would have not given his opinion, but would have only broken the tie without doing so, he would've been criticized for that even more so.

The fact that the Curator is perfectly able and allowed to give his opinion does not in any way, shape or form exempt his opinion from being scrutinized, criticized and if he cocks up, ripped apart - that's part of the position, if you cannot take the consequences your own opinion has and your decisions cause, then you are simply not up for the job - and that is what Diamat failed to realize. I suggest to be careful before building myths based on obscured facts and factually falls premises.

Just for reference the relevant referral threads, #1 & #2. You can look up the townhall discussion in this very thread here.

And with regards to precedent, we're not bound by precedent. Show me the relevant part of the constitution that limits any decision taken by any curial official by precedent. Precedent and established tradition only work as argument if they are agreed upon by the partaking citizens. If they don't agree you can argue with precedent all day long, to no avail.

[PikeStance]

He cannot? I know nothing about this gentlemen agreement and I wouldn't feel bound by any agreement a former Curator might or might not have made with whomever. Interesting agreement btw. makes for a splendid discussion. Instead of taking the appropriate decision, the Curator goes with the softest decision. Who came up with that crap if I might ask?.../ ...And with regards to precedent, we're not bound by precedent. Show me the relevant part of the constitution that limits any decision taken by any curial official by precedent. Precedent and established tradition only work as argument if they are agreed upon by the partaking citizens. If they don't agree you can argue with precedent all day long, to no avail.

I do not think this is necessarily "crap" approach. There is logic and yielding to the opinion of those elected to make the determination. Taking the "safe road" may not not be a bad philosophical approach. I remember when this first were stated and it was definitely not intended to be a precedent and nor should it be.

That is simply not true. I was there, in the inside and I have very vivid memory of what Diamat did in that referral and how he conducted himself both in the inside and outside in public. Diamat was not criticized for giving his opinion, but for demonstrating that his opinion has been compromised and that he should have recused himself from the case because he was compromised and he was criticized for how he reacted when he was made aware about this. That became ever more obvious during the case and culminated when he broke the tie. Then it was the opinion itself, that was criticized and not fact that he gave it. And I assure you, if he would have not given his opinion, but would have only broken the tie without doing so, he would've been criticized for that even more so.

The fact that the Curator is perfectly able and allowed to give his opinion does not in any way, shape or form exempt his opinion from being scrutinized, criticized and if he cocks up, ripped apart - that's part of the position, if you cannot take the consequences your own opinion has and your decisions cause, then you are simply not up for the job - and that is what Diamat failed to realize. I suggest to be careful before building myths based on obscured facts and factually falls premises.

Just for reference the relevant referral threads, #1 & #2. You can look up the townhall discussion in this very thread here.

I remember this case. I argued back then that he should recuse himself because of the potential appearance of biased disposition. While I didn't agree with his position, his position if stated independent of other facts would not have been as "controversial." A good case study on why you shouldn't take stuff on here too serious.

[Sir Adrian]

Aik, don't make me go fishing for hex's and other citizens posts where he was criticized and almost told to resign by certain citizens because he posted his opinion 2 hours before Leonidas voted
Also that understanding isn't something that one curator came up with, but a general consensus between everyone who was and is a part of the triumvirate in order to avoid exactly that kind of debacle or any potential abuses. It's also either in the constitution or in one of the guides in the Politia, citing from memory "the Curator is free to vote for one of two option, either for the least punishment or for the highest if the least is ineffectual"

Remember the role of the triumvirate is not to punish or enforce any rules but to remind.

Magistrates are also bound by the NDA, just like you and I, and you know what happens when an admin sees you break it.

Instead of taking the appropriate decision, the Curator goes with the softest decision. Who came up with that crap if I might ask?

That's not what I said.

he can't even vote for the worst punishment since there is a gentleman's understanding that the curator votes for the easiest sentence unless blatantly obvious that it's ineffectual

You still haven't pointed out the conflict of interest in being a Curator and Magistrate at the same time.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

This is the direct quote that was in the standing notices thread:

The Curator should seek to retain the status quo in the event of a tiebreak. In the case of referrals this means dismissing the case, and in further actions the least punishment possible to resolve the tie. In exceptional circumstances, however, the Curator may follow their own opinion.

However that was edited out months ago and I haven't really tried to make it the case a.) because I rarely have to break-ties, the Censors are good at coming to a consensus and b.) when breaking the tie I wanted the freedom of choice by a case-by-case basis.

It is a policy that hasn't been in effect so there doesn't seem much point in discussing it.

[Makrell]

Indeed, i think it was like that before, but debates were had and it has changed.

[M D]

I created the standing notices not as rules but as a guide for future curators who may appreciate the advice, it also helps with protocols. Every Curator has the total freedom to alter it or add to it, and should.

Instead of taking the appropriate decision, the Curator goes with the softest decision. Who came up with that crap if I might ask?

That would be me. Based on the British system of a deciding vote.

[Ybbon]

....
The potential conflict of interest is context. Magistrates may have access to way more context and information than Censores which they cannot share with other members of the Triumvirate. While we had that situation with the CdeC too, it wasn't all that relevant because of the number of councilors. Now that we only have two and if one of them has access to more info which he cannot share, as you said, but may base his judgment on, problems are far more likely to emerge, not that they must, but more likely. Same reason why no Moderator runs for Censor, not that it's constitutional prohibited, but Ybbon was the last from us to act as Censor.

.....

Exactly right and that's why I never stood again. I did have access to the full moderator den for the few we considered and although I would hope I stayed objective, they were relatively straightforward cases, in more complex ones it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to reach a conclusion that differs from your fellow censors and not be able to explain why you reached that conclusion.

[Sir Adrian]

Yeah but you were Censor, not a Curator and everything Aik sayd applies to Censors. It's not the same thing, evne within the triumvirate

This is the direct quote that was in the standing notices thread:

However that was edited out months ago and I haven't really tried to make it the case a.) because I rarely have to break-ties, the Censors are good at coming to a consensus and b.) when breaking the tie I wanted the freedom of choice by a case-by-case basis.

It is a policy that hasn't been in effect so there doesn't seem much point in discussing it.

You sneaky turtle

It was there last time I was in office.

[Aikanár]

I do not think this is necessarily "crap" approach. There is logic and yielding to the opinion of those elected to make the determination. Taking the "safe road" may not not be a bad philosophical approach. I remember when this first were stated and it was definitely not intended to be a precedent and nor should it be.

Crap may have been a strong word to use, but does reflect pretty good what I think about an approach stated as such it was. Now, since Shank and Humpy have cleared it up, I've no issue with it. But when something is stated as a gentlemen agreement and that the action to take would be the softer one, then that sounds pretty much like an accepted and practiced policy and if such a policy would have existed, sorry, that would be a bs policy regarded from my point of view: applying a general policy on a completely case to case basis procedure in which context matters more than anything else. That sounds incredibly inappropriate to me - and incredibly indecisive too.

I remember this case. I argued back then that he should recuse himself because of the potential appearance of biased disposition. While I didn't agree with his position, his position if stated independent of other facts would not have been as "controversial." A good case study on why you shouldn't take stuff on here too serious.

I agree.

Aik, don't make me go fishing for hex's and other citizens posts where he was criticized and almost told to resign by certain citizens because he posted his opinion 2 hours before Leonidas voted

Then you remember that particular critique more in detail than me and then people who criticized that particular detail in procedure where wrong in their opinion. Edit: I just reread the CurCom and the Townhall and there's only one such post. The main criticism was, as I've said, not that Diamat expressed his opinion, but the way he did it and that his opinion made it clear that he should have recused himself from the procedure./Edit

Diamat expressed his opinion all over the place in both referral threads and in the Trivumvirate chat thread and so forth, like everybody did and like everybody was allowed too, like him. Still my point stands, the chief criticism was not that he expressed his opinion, not form HEX and not me. And another however, my other point still stands too, if you cannot take it that your actions and decisions are subject to critique then you're not up for the job.

Also that understanding isn't something that one curator came up with, but a general consensus between everyone who was and is a part of the triumvirate in order to avoid exactly that kind of debacle or any potential abuses.

I was part of the Triumvirate when it was created. I helped creating it. I remember no such thing. So there you have at least one exception to "everybody". I also served as Curator in times of the CdeC and the right's of the Curator have not been changed with that regard: the Curator may discuss, but can only vote to break a tie.

The emphasis is on "may" he is perfectly allowed to post in whatever discussion whenever he likes to. That does not mean that he has to. Like HEX can do what they want, but that does not mean that they do it. When I was Curator I withhold my subjective opinion as much as possible and tried to let only elected councilors find the decision by coming to a conclusion and expressing their opinion and only strayed away from my personal policy (which nobody forced on me, but I myself), when I saw the need to do so or was asked for my opinion or was constitutionally bound to present it (breaking a tie).

A Curator is technically allowed to enact whatever policy he desires with regards to when and where to post his opinion because he is a full member of the Triumvirate and may discuss everything. When or where he chooses to do so is completely up to him.

It was only your assertion that the Curator would not be a full member and could not post his opinion that made me post in the first place, because this simply is not properly reflecting what rights the Curator has as provided by the Constitution.

It's also either in the constitution

No it's not.

or in one of the guides in the Politia, citing from memory "the Curator is free to vote for one of two option, either for the least punishment or for the highest if the least is ineffectual"

Guides are just that, guides, they are not binding, no obligation to even read them through. They can be useful for people doing the job for the first time or for whatever other reason, but they can be bloody harmful too if not scrutinized.

Remember the role of the triumvirate is not to punish or enforce any rules but to remind.

The role of the Triumvirate is to see through a disciplinary procedure. Neither of the roles you ascribe to it is defined by the constitution. It is the people who form the Triumvirate at any given point in time who define to what purpose they think the disciplinary procedure is seen through.

Magistrates are also bound by the NDA, just like you and I, and you know what happens when an admin sees you break it.

Have you read my post? I have agreed with you that they cannot post in the Triumvirate what they may or may not know from the Tribunal, but that their opinion could be influenced by that information. That is the conflict of interest: they have access to information which might influence their opinion but they cannot post about that information influencing their opinion and how they arrived at their opinion <- something that is good form to do when issuing a verdict, which they then cannot do. That is precisely that sort of conflict of interest that Moderators have too or Tribunes or anybody who has access to a certain restricted kind of information that may influence his decision making but due to the nature of the origin of the information cannot be told, not even admitted that it was used. So?

That's not what I said.

Indeed it is not. And I never said that it would be.
That is what I think that gentlemen agreement that you postulated would exist and would be applied in a general manner would come down to. Or to use own words, this is what you said:

he can't even vote for the worst punishment since there is a gentleman's understanding that the curator votes for the easiest sentence unless blatantly obvious that it's ineffectual

and if that would be applied, then indeed to Curator would not take the appropriate decision but the softest one. Or can you guarantee that the most lenient decision would always be the most appropriate considering context? And context is all that matters in a referral and every decision should be based on it.

You still haven't pointed out the conflict of interest in being a Curator and Magistrate at the same time.

Please see three paragraphs above.

However, I honestly thank you for bringing that up to the table, because I actually would have applied for Curatorship with Shank and Iskar as my CA's in case nobody would have applied in order to prevent it from being vacant. But I see now that I would have to abstain from every staff referral discussion both with regards to giving my opinion or advise or breaking a tie, so thank-you for that.

[M D]

Well done to Leo, as I said I ran to give him an opponent so that job is done.

I would run for Curator but I think it's best we leave that to those who aren't familiar with the job.

[Aikanár]

PikeStance elected.

I'll stay until the 14th when my term expires, and then ask Hex to get you added to the usergroup.

Shank.

[Veteraan]

Pikestance elected for Curator. Was that elected by default?

I clicked the link for the the debate thread in the Curator application thread but ended up in a Censor debate.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Yeah it was, and whoops my bad... will get that fixed.

[PikeStance]

It is a Mardi Gras tradition to host King Cake Party. In the King Cake there is a baby placed inside. One "lucky" person will get the piece with baby and will "win" the honor of hosting and buying the next King Cake.
This feels eerily familiar.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Makrell]

The election was fixed, abstain never got a fair chance!

[Lord William]

It is a Mardi Gras tradition to host King Cake Party. In the King Cake there is a baby placed inside. One "lucky" person will get the piece with baby and will "win" the honor of hosting and buying the next King Cake.
This feels eerily familiar.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

heathen, burn him!!! He has ruined the sanctity of cake

[M D]

When was the last time a Curator was elected unopposed?

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

The election when I stood for my first term... so two Curator elections ago.

[Makrell]

The election when I stood for my first term... so two Curator elections ago.

Must be because of our lack of head historian Also, seeing as Pontifex has resigned, and the office is still in the constituion we should really organize it

[Aikanár]

^choose somebody who wants to drive this and see it through.