[Amendment] CDC Transparency II

[Mímirswell]

Rationale:
Elucidate members on the operations of the CDC, provide accountability for CDC member's productivity and competence, and of equal importance, to reconnect the citizenry as a whole to the patronization and removal process via oversight.

To achieve maximum transparency while protecting individuals from unnecessary humiliation, the following should occur:

• Disciplinary Actions that result in no punishment are not disclosed unless the defendant agrees to the disclosure. As there is a level of implied guilt for merely being accused, this protects innocent members from having their reputation harmed while allowing for them to publicize it if they wish to do so.
• Failed Applications are not disclosed unless the applicant agrees to the disclosure. Failed applicants should not be subjected to unwanted humiliation while allowing them to publicize it if they wish to do so.
• Successful Applications are disclosed automatically to serve as a guideline for future applicants.
• Disciplinary Actions that result in any punishment are disclosed automatically as the Curia has a right to know which members are misbehaving and hopefully serve as a form of societal peer pressure upon citizens to improve their actions.

This amendment is not intended to allow for "real time" proceedings as they might unintentional violate the first two bullet points. Nor does this amendment seek to apply anything retroactively.

Proposer: Mimirswell
Required Support:

Upon successful passage, the below text in [del] tags is removed and the section in [ins] tags is inserted. Any new formatting such as indents or sub-lists are to be adopted.

Section III. Member Ranks and the Curator

Article II. Patronisation

...

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community. The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Patronization forum Pater Familias.
3. A CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum Quaestiones Perpetuae.
4. A CdeC member responds to the corresponding thread in the Patronization forum Pater Familias, denoting that the proposition has been moved to discussion.
5. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes and at least two-thirds of all CdeC members voted, he becomes a Citizen.the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.
7. In exceptional circumstances, the period of discussion can be extended at the behest of Councilors and discretion of the Curator, to comply with the voting requirements or otherwise.
8. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.

1. If the candidate does note pass fails, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply and asks the applicant whether they want to disclose their application. the application to be made public or kept private. Public cases are kept in the Antechamber, viewable to all Citizens; private cases are kept in the Archives, viewable only to the CdeC.
2. If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen. or a failed candidate agrees to disclosure, the Curator moves all information pertaining to the application to the Antechamber.

...

Section IV. The Judiciary

Article I. Citizen's Behavior

...

At the conclusion of the process, the Curator informs the referred member of the result. and asks whether the member wants the case to be made public or kept private. Cases made public are moved to the Antechamber, viewable by all Citizens; private cases are kept in the Politia, viewable only to the CdeC.If the case results in no punishment, the Curator asks if the member wishes to disclose the case. If the member agrees or the case resulted in any punishment, the Curator moves all information pertaining to the case to the Antechamber.

...

This amendment is crafted under the assumption that the Antechamber is currently public. Should it for some reason not already be public, this amendment will also serve as a decision to open applications to all members and disciplinary cases to all citizens and remain that way until indefinitely.

All information means all information that occurs anywhere within the CdeC forums (or any loopholes intended to subvert this like a social group, Mass PMs to CdeC members to discuss a case/applicant, etc.). Anonymity of the referrer for disciplinary matters being the only exclusion to this rule.

[irishron]

Support.

[karamazovmm]

why is there a current rationale that disciplinary cases will lead to the curia downfall?

I can't support this based on that the tribunal, didn't bring the site down, nor they do have created an undiscriminated hostility that can't be measured to any of the applicants.

If the tribunal has at least that semi transparency, WE THAT SHOULD BE ABOVE THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, we shouldn't be any less open then that. Actually we should be more open then what this proposes.

Just because you got a pretty color along your name don't mean that you are so especial, that you are above what we offer to all the members, the difference between we and a regular member is just a color and a voice, nothing more.

I thank that mirmiswell have put this in an effort to make compromises that both sides accept, but we shouldn't even have to make compromises in a case such as this one.

[Mímirswell]

The Tribunal is an voluntary process (with a private alternative) whereas CDC disciplinary action is a non-voluntary process (with no private alternative). CDC disciplinary cases are more analogous to infractions (non-voluntary and private) than the tribunal. I do not think that having innocent disciplinary cases being public would lead to the downfall of the Curia or any similar non-sense but it might harm the reputation of someone who deserved no such harm. For that reason, I did not wish to include it in my current proposal.

[Garbarsardar]

I agree with the rationale. It opens successful applications and successful prosecutions to the public and that serves the purpose of education and retains a measure of privacy in cases (of failed applications and failed prosecutions) that would serve this purposes less. If a case of the latter is indeed controversial then there is no doubt that the applicant/prosecuted will bring it in public, and that right is given.

Support.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support.

[karamazovmm]

if it is harm that we are concerned, then we should charge hex to this task, since that they are supposed to be the best of the staff that we can offer.

And as I said, I'm glad that someone would come up with a middle term proposition, but I'm unable to understand that if you are the red people you should be held in higher standards, you're position should be crystal clear, and if you did harm or not, it doesn't matter. We don't condemn Heinz for anything, nor lysi.



but ahhh... suppport

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

And as I said, I'm glad that someone would come up with a middle term proposition,

Compromise needs to start somewhere ....no..?

[karamazovmm]

that's why the support, see the line in the end of the post, kisses

[Viking Prince]

Support.


This seems to be a good next step after the opt-in that has already been put into effect a bit ago.

[Lysimachus]

Support.

[Augustus Lucifer]

I support the general goals of the proposal. While we're at it though we may as well fix up a couple other things:

2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community. The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Patronization forum Pater Familias.
3. A CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum Quaestiones Perpetuae.
4. A CdeC member responds to the corresponding thread in the Patronization forum Pater Familias, denoting that the proposition has been moved to discussion.

Just makes it clear where threads are posted and discussed. The Pater Familias change is formative since at the time the Patronization area was created it was unnamed, which explains it being imprecise. The change to #3 is substantive though because it clarifies which forum we're talking about. Also under #8...

1. If the candidate does not pass fails, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply and asks the applicant whether they want to disclose their application. the application to be made public or kept private. Public cases are kept in the Antechamber, viewable to all Citizens; private cases are kept in the Archives, viewable only to the CdeC.

would be my suggested minor change. Given the hullabaloo with word semantics, using 'disclose' everywhere as the partner of 'disclosure' seems better than 'made public'.

---

Those are all just changes in wording though. There's a couple other things I think that need to be addressed.

What do we do about confidential information?

At times, mostly where modders are concerned, we've allowed them to provide confidential material from their dev forum to the CdeC in order to help get an idea of their contributions to the team. This can be especially useful for mod historians, the bulk of whose work will be demonstrated by research threads rather than the in-game information. They disclose this information to a select few users but generally aren't inclined to make it available to all Citizens or moreover everyone on the site, otherwise it'd just be public initially. The current wording says all information, so the question is what do we do about this special case? My personal opinion is a user should be able to divulge information only to the CdeC in very specific circumstances, since it doesn't harm transparency for the material to not be directly accessible, just as onlookers won't know exactly what posts I've viewed to base my decision on. The CdeC assessments of the confidential material would still be there. If we allow for this it needs to have a narrow scope.

What qualifies as information pertaining to the case?

In some disciplinary actions we've had to make edits to the material because users were involved that were neither the CdeC or the referred. Whether it's the referred user who brings them into it or a Councilor who brings it up, implicating a member who is not the referred is not information which pertains to the case at hand much of the time(the exceptions being passing reference to an OP or post being responded to in an objectionable post). Should such information be removed accordingly? If not then how should it be handled? When a recent incident about a moderator's posts from the Den being published occurred, all reference to that moderator's identity was properly removed. Such a mention of uninvolved members in a disciplinary proceeding should be treated the same way I'd think.

Where do Divus confirmation votes fall?

Always the odd man out, Divus confirmation votes are the forgotten arm of the CdeC. Should it be as with applications where a passed confirmation is published and a failed one is up to the user being put up for the award? Should it just remain within the CdeC? Should we remove this step entirely? Whatever the choice this outlier needs to be addressed as well.

Who should be able to view which forums?

One thing not addressed by this is permissions in the various forums. Obviously it suggests that Citizens can see the Antechamber which includes all passed votes and anything else disclosed. But what of non-Citizens? Currently, and to my knowledge not in accordance with the wording of the Constitution, non-Citizens can see the Antechamber.

What I would suggest happen is that we separate passed applications from things needing to be disclosed or any disciplinary actions. Passed applications should be viewable to all because they can serve as a rubric for non-Citizens to base their application on or aspire towards. On the other hand the only people who have business knowing about failed applications or disciplinary actions are Citizens, as elected official accountability doesn't apply to non-voters. Failed applications are difficult though, since the user who failed will want to see it as well, so maybe just a separation of applications and disciplinary votes if there's no better solution.

[Mímirswell]

Minor changes

I'll update the original bill for those.

What do we do about confidential information?

If it's not (or cannot be) public knowledge then why are we making them a citizen? Their contribution isn't really aiding the site.

What qualifies as information pertaining to the case?

Everything. If another member is accused by the CdeC, then that Councilor should have a very good reason for doing so other than just speculation. If the referred member accuses them, then it's no different than being accused of something on any thread on the site.

Where do Divus confirmation votes fall?

It's an award, I'm not too concerned about it.

Who should be able to view which forums?

I'm fine with everyone seeing it. At the minimum, I do agree that successful applications do need to be seen by everyone. Everything else I'm ambivalent about.

However I am getting a little confused by the amount of bills flying around at the moment on the transparency issue.
We have the Empress with her bill awaiting a CdeC approval vote.

Empress Meg indicated she did not get CDC support and then stated she was dropping it because it wasn't worth hers or the Curia's time. Given the state of her bill, I took the time to make this bill so that some changes could be addressed. She has now inexplicably moved her bill to a vote without an explanation of why she has reversed her previous statements. I, too, am confused.

Regardless, the bills are substantively different so the Curia can decide which avenue they would like to take.

[magpie]

I like your proposal Mimirswell.
However I am getting a little confused by the amount of bills flying around at the moment on the transparency issue.
We have the Empress with her bill awaiting a CdeC approval vote.
Sims Bill ?
ect.
Will these bills clash and get bogged down. or do some have to be dropped?
I would not like a good bill and idea stalled because of some procedure issues.

[Augustus Lucifer]

I don't think Sim's bill deals with transparency, there's just the two. The CdeC support vote of the other bill seems poised to be lacking, so it will probably end up waiting. I think Meg's changes were also fuller than these(ie. real-time discussions), so this proposal can just as well be a stepping stone to that if we wish to continue further.

[magpie]

Thank you for your reply AL. I think I will see what the fate of the Empress bill is. Will she forge ahead or drop it?

[Belisarius]

Old Guard Support.

[Jom]

I've made my views very clear in the other thread regarding this matter so you have my support in this endeavour.

[Squid]

Support.

[Augustus Lucifer]

If it's not (or cannot be) public knowledge then why are we making them a citizen? Their contribution isn't really aiding the site.

It's indirect. When you look at a unit in Europa Barbarorum, what do you see? You see the art, maybe some code, and the descriptions. What you don't see is the painstaking work behind the scenes that went into researching that unit from primary sources, providing pictures, discussing it for as many as a few hundred posts in some cases(for one unit!), etc. There's no need for this to be made public, indeed it is incorporated in the final product. But the only way we as Councilors can ascertain the extent of this type of involvement is to see the private discussions which produced the end product. The end product is the contribution, but if we don't see the workings then we're taking people at their word that a historian was heavily involved, which is a disservice to the Curia since we're using testimony instead of visible evidence.

There may be other similar examples, such as a Content Director on the CdeC characterizing the work of a candidate in the Staff areas. In all such cases it should be enough that a Councilor sums up what it was they were provided and its substance, since that's the same as I do when referencing posts(no one goes through and lists every post they looked at in making their assessment, it'd be a colossal timesuck).

Everything. If another member is accused by the CdeC, then that Councilor should have a very good reason for doing so other than just speculation. If the referred member accuses them, then it's no different than being accused of something on any thread on the site.

Except if in a normal thread I said "So-and-so is a tosser" the post would be deleted or that part edited out. Obviously this is a case of insult, but most non-benign references to uninvolved users aren't pertinent/related to the case. There's also the ad hoc 'threads about other members' rule which could similarly be considered. Basically if the point is "societal peer pressure", users who were not referred should not be thrown under the bus by being subject to the same scrutiny without the same opportunity to defend themselves and be found innocent.

I'm fine with everyone seeing it. At the minimum, I do agree that successful applications do need to be seen by everyone. Everything else I'm ambivalent about.

Okay, but your proposal and the previous Constitution text says open to all Citizens, not to others. We're currently not in accordance with that, assuming we don't use a silly interpretation(a lack of explicit barring meaning allowance). It should be made explicit who can see what so permissions can be set accordingly.

There is nothing currently implemented where an accused Citizen can appeal the decision or anything, how is that a fair, due process I ask myself? Whatever happened to due process?

Who would you suggest act as an appeals body? Hex can look at a case and insure that no malpractice occurred, and if a vote was not processed correctly they can institute a re-vote. They'd be unlikely to do so unless such a case was handled in a fundamentally wrong way though. Difference of opinion is not a reason to reassess something.

In the case of disciplinary action, the CdeC is the sole source of what constitutes 'Citizen Conduct Standards', and it changes with who's on the CdeC at any given time and what the exact specifics of a case are. There is no objective reality when it comes to Citizen Conduct like there is with the ToS, so an appeals body has nothing to reference for correctness since every well reasoned opinion in this case is a valid piece of the collective decision. Therefore an appeals body would not aid correctness, they'd simply issue another opinion under the same terms, no more or less correct than the initial decision since it's still not based on something definitive.

Another concern I have(hypothetical) is that CdeC members who may have a vested interest in a certain case and might be affiliated with certain groups that the accused is... is well, accusing, well then in a disciplinary vote they should abstain from the vote,instead of playing an active part to sway the jury. my analogy is this, the CdeC, when they don the robes of... Judge, jury, and executioner, they emulate a court, even though it is an internet forum...bare with me please.....

They use virtually the same words Accused, guilty, punishment, evidence, etc etc, therefore these are my thoughts.....
(Hypothetical of course.)
In a court case, say for instance a "mafia case', do you think it is perfectly alright for members of the Jury to to belong to or have affiliations with the mafia?

At least if cases were made public from the start then surely the the public would be able to decide who was forthright and who wasn't.that isn't the case at the moment the accused is punished, and doubly so when all the evidence isn't brought forward.
And I think it is because it is all conducted behind closed doors?

I have no issue at all with a case being real time, as I've stated plenty before, but having it in real time wouldn't impact your hypothetical. Abstention is a decision made by a Councilor when they feel they're unable to develop a reasonably backed up opinion, be it due to a worry about bias or because maybe they didn't have the time necessary to research. When they do have the time to develop a reasoned viewpoint they shouldn't abstain. There's no black and white in this, it's entirely up to the discretion of the Councilor, since no one but that person knows whether they've done the research or whether they can process a case impartially.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "groups that the accused is... is well, accusing". The accused as in the user who was referred? The referred user shouldn't be accusing anyone, they are the accused and the case is about them and their conduct, not someone else. Just as a Tribunal case doesn't treat "well he did it too" as a valid defense, neither does a Disciplinary Action consider the conduct of other members. Of course, assuming a referred user is not stripped of rank, they can process separate Citizen Referrals against those they wish to accuse for whatever reasons they wish to accuse them.