[Amendment] Petitioning CdeC for citizenship restoration

[Viking Prince]

Proposed by: Viking Prince
Supported by: new support is required due to the change

to be added to:
Section IV - The Judiciary
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 of Rank Indefinite Suspension of Rank

No CdeC Penalty:

• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for the vote to pass. In the case of a disciplinary action vote, the option with the highest number of votes is the action taken. Where two options have the same number of votes, the action taken is determined by multiple transferable vote.


If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

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.

A Rank may not be removed 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.

A member who previously held the rank of citizen but had it removed due to a CdeC disciplinary measure may apply to have their rank reinstated provided they meet the requirements to become a citizen.

Previous glorious attempt to convince the TWC version of the bourgeoisie that peasants and the Royals are not their enemies.

[VOTE FINISHED: FAILED] [Amendment] Petitioning CdeC for citizenship restoration

Reasoning:

I observe 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 bassed upon recent experience. 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 determinations regarding citizen behavior 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?

I have recently been informed that a member that I patronized was passed for citizenship by CdeC after waiting the required 6 months. The patient wait was not rewarded by a rise in rank however. Despite a favorable vote in CdeC, the citizen application was then vetoed by the Curator. This is well within her rights and responsibilities as a Curator to use her judgement on the matter. However, this does show that the requirement to wait 6 months is without meaning when there is no reward in the end for the good behavior.

CdeC together with the Curator ought to be able to handle these issues on a case by case basis. The member has established the contibution criteria. There is no need to review the contributions again (though nothing in this would prevent CdeC from conducting such a review). This is purely a question of current behavior that either does or does not meet the standards for citizenship. If a member under the current system were to be an applicant again versus under this proposal petition for reinstatement -- what is the difference? Only the patron.

[Nole4694]

I'll support this.

Everyone deserves the chance to be re-admitted to citizenship. Forgive and forget I say, well as long as the person has behaved since the removal, if not then I say off with their head(s)!

[M D]

You missed out my reworded one too.. At least I think I proposed one..

Either way, reaffirmed support

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support.

[the Black Prince]

Oppose, this is is utterly redundant, as has been said before. Any member can re-apply for citizenship, so long as they continue to meet the requirements of citizen. There is no need to petition to get your citizenship back, just re-apply in the same way as before.

[John Wayne]

Oppose, this is is utterly redundant, as has been said before. Any member can re-apply for citizenship, so long as they continue to meet the requirements of citizen. There is no need to petition to get your citizenship back, just re-apply in the same way as before.

This. Redundancy may has its place, but not here.

[irishron]

Redundancy does have its advantages. Support.

[Legio]

CdeC Support.

[Empress Meg]

You want to give someone who had their citizenship rights removed a lesser waiting period than those who have never held citizenship? That's rather cheeky and backwards. There should be a longer waiting period for someone removed of their rank, not a shorter one. Oppose.

Devoirs The Empress

[Simetrical]

Oppose. They should just reapply, no special procedure is needed.

[Harry Lime]

@VP

The bourgeoisie say you spelt peasants wrong.

Opposed for the aforementioned reasons.

[Squid]

VP, you'd probably get more traction if you made this a behaviour review rather than a move to overturn CdeC disciplinary actions. The point, if I recall from previous discussions on this is that someone who has once been a citizen but has had the rank removed should not need to have their contributions looked at, since they were acceptable the first time. The only problem with that is that CdeC membership changes so what is and is not acceptable contribution also changes, but that aside maybe do something like the following (and this rough):

A member who previously held the rank of citizen but had it removed due to a CdeC disciplinary measure may apply to have their rank reinstated provided they meet the requirements to become a citizen.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

My guess is that you have to mess up pretty badly around here to have your citizenship revoked. I'm kindof new here, but if I messed up like that, I would kindof expect to be at the back of the line, and at least have no more preferential treatment than anyone else.

But if your other proposal is passed, then this amendment should be in line with that I would think, and therefore Squid's proposed statement should fix that inconsistency.

This is a bit rhetorical, but how many citizens in the last year have had their citizenship revoked? Given how serious it would have to be, I'd be kindof worried about CdeC judgment if they passed a citizenship application for a revokee the day after they were eligible. While I agree with Meg's sentiment, in principle the revokees rights to apply should be no different than any other Joe. And then, in principle, we ought to have faith that CdeC takes that person's record into very serious consideration. If we don't have faith in that, then we have bigger problems.

But since I feel opposed to the other amendment, I therefore must oppose this one as they are logically tied together.

Or I may just be new.

Oppose.

[karamazovmm]

I still don't care, the often problem here is another

[Viking Prince]

This is not meant to be overturning a prior CdeC decision on a behavioral action. A review need not imply a reversal no more than a personnel annual review implies anything more than a look at prior performance and then taking assessment based upon current performance. Restoration can be based upon whatever criteria that CdeC wishes to use. If the CdeC wishes to dismiss all petitions induividually, so be it.

If this was meant to be a reversal of a decision, then I would include all suspensions and censures in an appeal process. This is not an appeal in the sense that the Tribunal or Praetorium would make a decision.

The practical effect that I am attempting to achieve here is to look upon the citizen removal as an indefinite suspension subject to CdeC choosing to restore the citizen at a later time based upon circumstances and a formal request for a review by the member.

I am certainly open to any improvements to the wording, though I am not certain that Squid's is an improvement:

A member who previously held the rank of citizen but had it removed due to a CdeC disciplinary measure may apply to have their rank reinstated provided they meet the requirements to become a citizen.

However, in the interests of moving this forward, I have amended the first post. The usual support will be required for the change.
btw -- just for Harry, I corrected the peasant spelling. Perhaps too sensitive having risen from the mob to the quiet life of a gentleman?

[Empress Meg]

Then it is not a Permanent Removal of Rank, it is a suspension of rank for an indefinite period and should be inserted as such.

Devoirs The Empress

[Viking Prince]

Then it is not a Permanent Removal of Rank, it is a suspension of rank for an indefinite period and should be inserted as such.

Devoirs The Empress

I hope this makes it clearer with the change to post one including the complete section.

[Empress Meg]

I hope this makes it clearer with the change to post one including the complete section.

Yes it does make your proposal clearer.

But I still don't agree with removing "permanent removal of rank" or of having a unstated time period in which a ex-citizen must wait in limbo. Either tell that person they have lost it for good or have been given a stern warning (via suspension) to hopefully change their tune for the better. Keeping someone on the line is just plain cruel.

Still opposed.

Devoirs The Empress

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support. re-affirmed.

[Viking Prince]

Opposition is a matter of opinion. If this is now clear in intent, I now hope for the required support to be able to move this to a vote after appropriate time for duscussion.

I am curious though why you oppose this idea though. CdeC together with the Curator ought to be able to handle these issues on a case by case basis. The member has established the contibution criteria. There is no need to review the contributions again (though nothing in this would prevent CdeC from conducting such a review). This is purely a question of current behavior that either does or does not meet the standards for citizenship. If a member under the current system were to be an applicant again versus under this proposal petition for reinstatement -- what is the difference? Only the patron.