Amending the Ostrakon powers

[Ardeur]

I'm aware that there is already a draft of changes to the Civitates' Behavior Act being discussed. If the changes I'm about to discuss should be incorporated into that bill, I respectfully ask that this thread be merged. I've created a separate thread because the changes I'm looking at focus on a different area of the Act, and I didn't want to confuse discussion of my changes with those of Tactical and Garb. Besides, it appears that, time limits aside, their draft is almost ready to go to vote, and I don't want to suddenly throw my changes into their mix, or to have their changes defeated because fo the inclusion of mine, or vice versa.

Now then, I think we'll all agree that the Ostrakon power has become quite messy. Like tBP has stated, some things are missing from the Syntagma that were there in the old one. Some of these things were so ingrained in the functions of the Curia that members still cite them, even though they aren't there.

Here is the Civitates Behavior Act as it stands today:

Civitates Behavior Act

Actions listed below are seperate from Moderator actions and one can be subjected to both simultaneously. Frivalous use of either of the below is grounds for Ostrakon.

Censure

If a Civitates behaves in a manner that, while unbecoming of Civitates, does not warrant an Ostrakon, he may instead be reprimanded via Censure. A Censure is private message sent by the Syntagma Curator consisting of the following:

1. It will inform the offender that he has lost his rights to patronize or become a Patrician for two months.
2. It will detail the specific actions that lead to the Censure.
3. It will offer advice on how to improve his demeanor.


Ostrakon

If a Civitates is found to be acting in opposition to the rules of the forum and Curia, or is otherwise neglecting his duties or carrying about in disorderly and immature manner unbefitting his position, he may be relieved of his position. No Civitates may be stripped of his rank except by means of the procedure defined below. If a Civitate holds three unexpired warnings he is immediately subject to Ostrakon proceedings, which will be started by the Syntagma Curator.

Procedure for issuing Censure or Ostrakon

1. A thread in the Prothalamos is opened specifying the reason for the Censure or Ostrakon.
1. In the case of Censure, this process lasts for three days.
2. In the case of Ostrakon, this process lasts for a full week and lists the rank in which the Civitate will be reduced to.
2. After this period, a vote shall be opened for one week and will be decided by a majority of non-abstaining voters.
3. Veto may be used in accordance with the Staff Veto Act.

Here is my proposal:

Civitates Behavior Act

Actions listed below are seperate from Moderator actions and one can be subjected to both simultaneously.

Censure

If a Civitates behaves in a manner that, while unbecoming of Civitates, does not warrant an Ostrakon, he may instead be reprimanded via Censure. A Censure is private message sent by the Syntagma Curator consisting of the following:

1. It will inform the offender that he has lost his rights to patronize or become a Patrician for two months.
2. It will detail the specific actions that lead to the Censure.
3. It will offer advice on how to improve his demeanor.


Ostrakon

If a Civitates is found to be acting in opposition to the rules of the forum and Curia, or is otherwise neglecting his duties or carrying about in disorderly and immature manner unbefitting his position, he may be relieved of his position. No Civitates may be stripped of his rank except by means of the procedure defined below. If a Civitate holds three unexpired warnings he is immediately subject to Ostrakon proceedings, which will be started by the Syntagma Curator. If the Syntagma Curator is in a position where he might become biased, the Curator's duties and responsibilities will pass to a non-involved Consul.

Procedure for issuing Censure or Ostrakon

1. A thread in the Prothalamos is opened specifying the reason for the Censure or Ostrakon.
1. In the case of Censure, this process lasts for three days.
2. In the case of Ostrakon, this process lasts for a full week and lists the rank in which the Civitate will be reduced to. If in this time the accused Civitate does not present a case for his defense, the Syntagma Curator has the option of extending the discussion period for up to 3 additional days before the Ostrakon goes to vote. During this extended period, if the accused Civitate presents his defence, the Syntagma Curator can either end the extension and move the Ostrakon to vote, or he can allow discussion to continue for the rest of the extension.
2. After this period, a vote shall be opened for one week and will be decided by a 60% majority of non-abstaining voters.
3. Veto may be used in accordance with the Staff Veto Act.

What I've tried to do is re-codify the issue of a Civitate's defense, making it an option, and giving power to the overseeing Curator or Consul to decide whether the Civitate should be given additional time to mount a defense. I have chose to go with 3 days, as I feel the initial 1 week is really long enough to mount a defense, but as some have pointed out that many school holidays last a full week, giving an additional 3 days is ample time.

I've also included a statement with the aim to prevent the Curator from abusing his position if he happens to get involved to a point that he cannot be impartial.

I've also made 2 other minor changes. I've removed the frivolous abuse statement. I authored this statement, and at the time, Simetrical raised some concerns about it, I now see the reason of those concerns. I had pure motives, I wanted to try to protect Civitates from someone abusing their power. But honestly, abuse of power is unbefitting the position of Civitate, and so someone bringing about unfounded or "frivolous" Ostrakons would already find themselves subject to Ostrakon. Including a clause about frivolous abuse does indeed introduce an area for interpretation, which is not something we need. With this amendment, I not only withdraw this statement, but also humbly accept that Simetrical was right in his concerns. (Rarely do I eat crow, so enjoy this instance, Sim.)

Secondly I propose moving from a simple 51% majority to a 60% majority. The main reason for this is that I feel that if the sides of an issue aren't strong enough to swing at least a 60% majority in either direction, then both sides have failed.

I kind of toyed with the idea of making it so that if an ostrakon receives between 51 and 59% support, that some action should be taken, be it automatic Censure or just a note that could be used as evidence in the event of a future Ostrakon. But I'd rather see what you all feel about the implementation of a 60% majority for starters.

Please take a look at these changes, consider them, and bring forth any comments, suggestions, etc. I'll be away for a couple hours, possibly a day, but look forward to discussing this with you, the Curia.

[imb39]

I like these changes but I'd prefer a 2/3 majority (if only because it's a traditional figure...).

I can see what you say about the term 'frivalous' but it does make people think twice about such acts. For this reason, I'm inclined to keep it, though I accept your rationale for eliminating this phrase.

[RZZZA]

mehhh...extending the ostrakon discussion just because the accused chooses not to speak for himself? I cant support that, I would be for shortening the amount of time before ostrakon discussion and vote, not lengthening it. I cant support.

[Spiff]

If the Syntagma Curator is in a position where he might become biased, the Curator's duties and responsibilities will pass to a non-involved Consul.

Why does it matter if he is biased? I mean, everyones a little bit biased, but it shouldnt be much of an issue if its simply his duty to begin the process and cite the warnings which made ostrakon a necesary step, if he cant do that then whoever it is at the time probably shouldnt be Curator. He doesnt have to agree with the process, simply state the facts. i Dont think this needs to be legislated on, common sense should take precedence.

Pro-Curator seems like the most likely person to do it if not the actual Curator anyway - or failing him, one of the other Triumvirs.

If in this time the accused Civitate does not present a case for his defense, the Syntagma Curator has the option of extending the discussion period for up to 3 additional days before the Ostrakon goes to vote. During this extended period, if the accused Civitate presents his defence, the Syntagma Curator can either end the extension and move the Ostrakon to vote, or he can allow discussion to continue for the rest of the extension.

A week really is a large amount of time on a forum, im not sure what else to say other than that i disagree - just because i think a week is long enough.

Secondly I propose moving from a simple 51% majority to a 60% majority. The main reason for this is that I feel that if the sides of an issue aren't strong enough to swing at least a 60% majority in either direction, then both sides have failed.

I kind of toyed with the idea of making it so that if an ostrakon receives between 51 and 59% support, that some action should be taken, be it automatic Censure or just a note that could be used as evidence in the event of a future Ostrakon. But I'd rather see what you all feel about the implementation of a 60% majority for starters.

Again, i feel 51% is fine as is, if the majority of Civitates are in favour then that should be enough, though i can see where youre coming from since Ostrakon is a big decision, and we have things like 3/4 majority for other big decisions such as Divus votes. I dont really know, ill wait for other comments first.

But as for the using Ostrakon votes as evidence for a Censure, im not sure if that would be appropriate since currently it is trying to be written that you cannot be tried for the same offence with both Ostrakon and Censure, which implies that grounds for one cannot be transfered to grounds for starting the other. Also it goes against the idea that anyone who has failed the be Ostrakoned is thereby clear of that particular instance of the procedure if it can be dragged up later on as evidence against them

[imb39]

Ostrakons should be difficult. One main aspect of having a minimum of 1 week's discussion discussion is that tempers whither and calm heads rule. Ardeur has also pointed out a valid example of why an OPTION can be made available for extending a debate by three days. Surely, in the interests of getting as fair a result as possible this clause should be included.

[Spiff]

Ostrakons should be difficult. One main aspect of having a minimum of 1 week's discussion discussion is that tempers whither and calm heads rule. Ardeur has also pointed out a valid example of why an OPTION can be made available for extending a debate by three days. Surely, in the interests of getting as fair a result as possible this clause should be included.

It can be abused though. Someone may deliberetly not defend themself, which gains the discussion a further three days, in which they can gather a group of friends even more time to defend them and sway opinion as much as possible. A lot could happen in three days which is denied to someone who did actualy choose to defend themself.

Also what if the civitate gives his defence through someone else representing them, does that count as their own defence?

[imb39]

It can be abused though. Someone may deliberetly not defend themself, which gains the discussion a further three days, in which they can gather a group of friends even more time to defend them and sway opinion as much as possible. A lot could happen in three days which is denied to someone who did actualy choose to defend themself.

Yes it can, but I'd rather this option was made available than not for the reasons I have already outlined. Again, Ardeur's example still remains.

Also what if the civitate gives his defence through someone else representing them, does that count as their own defence?

Well, how do you prove this contention. Also, remember, this is an option - it is not mandatory. Though I do concede that is would be very easy just to adopt the option whenever the opportunity presents. We have had three ostrakon processes, in the first two the defence was clearly made by the Civ in question. In the third... well we don't know really, do we...?

[Spiff]

yeah i suppose youre right, so long as each decision is based on each unique situation i suppose it shouldnt be a problem, we'll just have to hope the Curator is on the ball at the time!

[imb39]

Well, that will have to be assumed as given.

[RZZZA]

Is this "extension of ostrakon vote" thing a direct result of the recent ostrakon proceedings? Because I tell you, I have a hard time coming up with a plausible reason to extend ostrakon votes beyond a week, especially if the accused hasnt even spoken for themselves all week, why would you want to drag it out for 3 more days? I dont see the need really, a week is plenty enough time for the accused to speak for themselves, if they choose not to then tough nipples, would a california court hold up the entire judicial process because Michael Jackson doesn't want to get out of bed and his comfortable footy jammies? Ok...a california court would, bad example...but you get my point.

[Spiff]

Thats why it depends on the situation.

eg

If the civitate hasnt been online in the past two weeks - extend by three days just to give them a chance, in the name of fairness i suppose - whats the rush afterall, its a big decision

if the civitate has been online plenty of times or immedietly after Ostrakon starting, but not bothered to post a defence - no extension, they had ample opportunity and refused it.

the reasons posted were:

the issue of a Civitate's defense, making it an option, and giving power to the overseeing Curator or Consul to decide whether the Civitate should be given additional time to mount a defense. I have chose to go with 3 days, as I feel the initial 1 week is really long enough to mount a defense, but as some have pointed out that many school holidays last a full week, giving an additional 3 days is ample time.

Hmm maybe im onto something with the "if theyve been online more than once since the procedure began, this counts as refusing a defence"

[imb39]

Hmm maybe im onto something with the "if theyve been online more than once since the procedure began, this counts as refusing a defence"

In principle I like this. But it is entirely possible that RL has got in the way (many members are minors, remember). It's a hard call, but I like it.

[RZZZA]

I'm still not convinced, sorry. If talk of your ostrakon reached the point of an official proposal, you'll notice it. And if you say not a peep the whole time the discussion and vote are under way, then youre just faking like you dont see it. I'm not so sure a civ speaking for himself is even that important, I mean, theres other ways of deciding wether or not you want to vote yes or no for the ostrakon. In every Ostrakon discussion I've ever seen, the people form into camps, the people who are for will argue and try to convince the people who are against, and vice versa. Often thats enough to get any impartial observers a good peek into the character, history and specific ostrakon worthy acts of the accused in question to feel comfortable about leaning one way or the other on the vote.

[Fabolous]

Here is a problem. What if the civitate is suspended for the entire week? He can't possibly defend himself.

[imb39]

Ardeur, the Legislation Act provides for delegating power as you have indicated. It provides for more flexibilty too. I have highlighted the key sentence.

Legislation Act

Any Civitate is able to post a Bill in the Prothalamos for discussion, which does not require named support. If a version of the bill becomes supported by a minimum of three other Civitates, including at least one Patrician, the proposer can request that the Syntagma Curator move the supported version of a bill to a vote three days after it was first posted.

Should it be judged that after the minimum of three days more time is needed for debate on the subject, or that the debate is active, and moving the Bill would be premature, the progression to voting of the Bill may be delayed at the discretion of the Syntagma Curator. If the Syntagma Curator decides to delay the vote on a Bill beyond one month, then this decision is subject to staff ratification in the same way as a staff veto.

If the Syntagma Curator wishes to sponsor or support a Bill, the duties will be delegated to a staff member of the Syntagma Curator's choosing.

I think the current legislation covers this aspect very well and I wouldn't want that changed. Can you explain what you had in mind that is different form the Legislation Act?

Fab,

Spiff's suggestion deals with that, basically.

[Denny Crane!]

I'm still not convinced, sorry. If talk of your ostrakon reached the point of an official proposal, you'll notice it. And if you say not a peep the whole time the discussion and vote are under way, then youre just faking like you dont see it. I'm not so sure a civ speaking for himself is even that important, I mean, theres other ways of deciding wether or not you want to vote yes or no for the ostrakon. In every Ostrakon discussion I've ever seen, the people form into camps, the people who are for will argue and try to convince the people who are against, and vice versa. Often thats enough to get any impartial observers a good peek into the character, history and specific ostrakon worthy acts of the accused in question to feel comfortable about leaning one way or the other on the vote.

I think I disagree here. I was not happy about not hearing Draks side of the story before voting regardless of wether it would have changed my opinion of the subject I still would have liked to hear it.

As far as I am aware he has not logged on since it was proposed? Surely that is a significant point, I mean its not like there is really any rush to do these things is there?

EDIT: Rome ac I agree with you, I am starting to lean more and more in favour of these things being longer. It will make them more serious, and allow for discussion from everyone even if they don't log on every day. Plus remove the idea tha

Peter

[Obi Wan Asterix]

If the Syntagma Curator is in a position where he might become biased, the Curator's duties and responsibilities will pass to a non-involved Consul.

This is impossible to determine, especially given that most Pro-curator will have some form of bias. Sorry I cannot support any of this.

[Ardeur]

Why does it matter if he is biased? I mean, everyones a little bit biased, but it shouldnt be much of an issue if its simply his duty to begin the process and cite the warnings which made ostrakon a necesary step, if he cant do that then whoever it is at the time probably shouldnt be Curator. He doesnt have to agree with the process, simply state the facts. i Dont think this needs to be legislated on, common sense should take precedence.

As Justinian proved in Drak's Ostrakon discussion, it is very easy to see the possibility of the Curator allowing his personal feelings to cause him to want to abuse his authority and not do his duty. While I wholeheartedly agree that common sense should take precedence, I think history here at TWC shows that more often than not, it doesn't.

As for the extension to allow the accused a defense, my goal here is simply to protect the accused in case they are on a week's vacation in real life. As someone pointed out in Drak's Ostrakon discussion, most schools will break in the spring for a week, it is highly possible that during such a period, the accused may deem real life more important than defending themselves in an online Ostrakon.

However, I see the open door for abuse, and think perhaps the option should only be available if the accused has been inactive during the first week of discussion.

As to whether the accused is suspended for the length of the Ostrakon, this presents other issues. For instance, if I recall, in order to earn a 1-week suspension, a user must have either 3 or 4 active warnings. If that's the case, they are already put to Ostrakon vote in accordance with the 3 active warnings clause already existing in the Behavior Act. If I'm wrong in that, granting the Curator the OPTION of extending the discussion beyond that 1-week allows the suspended user time to post a defense after their suspension is lifted. If they are suspended longer than that, they would most definitely be subject to the Automatic Ostrakon mentioned above. I would be open to looking into the possibility of staff allowing the accused access to only the Prothalamos where they can mount their defense, but not have access to resume whatever activity got them suspended in the first place.

As for moving to a 2/3 majority rather than 60%, I'm not married to 60%, and considering the gravity of the result of the Ostrakon, I think raising the bar higher would make the Ostrakon power much more serious, and less likely to be abused because it won't pass so easily.

Using an Ostrakon that exceeded simple majority, but didn't reach the 2/3 or 60% or whatever to pass as evidence in future Ostrakons would not be trying a user twice for the same offense, but rather showing that the user has a pattern of behavior. However, like I said, I was just toying with that idea and am not even sure of the praticality of such a clause. For now I'll leave it out.

imb, I appreciate you pointing out that little clause in the Legislation Act. During Drak's Ostrakon discussion, when Justinian was threatening to illegally block the Ostrakon because of his moral objections, I cited this clause hoping others would agree that it could be translated over to the Ostrakon powers and responsibilities of the Curator. I included this version of the clause in my proposal because the Legislation Act's clause cites the responsibilities concerning Bills and Acts. I don't think Ostrakon or Censure equates to a Bill or Act, and so some might see that as a loophole.

If you feel that my inclusion of this clause in the Behavior Act is redundant, and that the Legislation Act does in deed apply to the responsibilities of the Curator in matters of Ostrakon, then I will happily remove it from my proposal.

I think I hit most of your concerns, I appreciate the comments so far.

[imb39]

As Justinian proved in Drak's Ostrakon discussion, it is very easy to see the possibility of the Curator allowing his personal feelings to cause him to want to abuse his authority and not do his duty. While I wholeheartedly agree that common sense should take precedence, I think history here at TWC shows that more often than not, it doesn't.

Well, the Pro Curator has been scrupilous in his approach. Whilst Justinian has exercised his right to make his voice known he has not been acting as Curator over this.

However, I see the open door for abuse, and think perhaps the option should only be available if the accused has been inactive during the first week of discussion.

This is a sensible provision. Spiff's was similar, iirc.

As to whether the accused is suspended for the length of the Ostrakon, this presents other issues. For instance, if I recall, in order to earn a 1-week suspension, a user must have either 3 or 4 active warnings. If that's the case, they are already put to Ostrakon vote in accordance with the 3 active warnings clause already existing in the Behavior Act. If I'm wrong in that, granting the Curator the OPTION of extending the discussion beyond that 1-week allows the suspended user time to post a defense after their suspension is lifted. If they are suspended longer than that, they would most definitely be subject to the Automatic Ostrakon mentioned above. I would be open to looking into the possibility of staff allowing the accused access to only the Prothalamos where they can mount their defense, but not have access to resume whatever activity got them suspended in the first place.

Well Drak was not under that many warnings. Discretion was used in Drak's instance.

As for moving to a 2/3 majority rather than 60%, I'm not married to 60%, and considering the gravity of the result of the Ostrakon, I think raising the bar higher would make the Ostrakon power much more serious, and less likely to be abused because it won't pass so easily.

Exactly. I just think the consequences of such actions need overwhleming support.

imb, I appreciate you pointing out that little clause in the Legislation Act. During Drak's Ostrakon discussion, when Justinian was threatening to illegally block the Ostrakon because of his moral objections, I cited this clause hoping others would agree that it could be translated over to the Ostrakon powers and responsibilities of the Curator. I included this version of the clause in my proposal because the Legislation Act's clause cites the responsibilities concerning Bills and Acts. I don't think Ostrakon or Censure equates to a Bill or Act, and so some might see that as a loophole.

I believe I have answered that point and there is already provision for this.

If you feel that my inclusion of this clause in the Behavior Act is redundant, and that the Legislation Act does in deed apply to the responsibilities of the Curator in matters of Ostrakon, then I will happily remove it from my proposal.

That would, indeed, be my preferred path.

I think I hit most of your concerns, I appreciate the comments so far.

Thank you for dealing with the responses!

[David Deas]

Was Drak really and truly unaware of any of this? Does anyone honestly believe that?