Prior Notice Before Discipline Act

[Oldgamer]

I propose the following, as a quite simple addition to the Syntagma:

Citizens' Behavior
The proceedings listed below can be initiated in one of two ways:

* Any member may report a Citizen or Patrician to the CdeC
o The accuser must present a detailed charge
o The accused is then asked to produce a written defence (they are shown the charge but the name of the accuser is withheld) and has 72 hours to produce a rebuttal. The CdeC has a further 72 hours to investigate the charges upon which:
+ A vote is held by the CdeC voting members (yes/no, no discussion, 75% in favour required to pass) as to whether the defendant loses one level of rank. This vote must be closed within 72 hours.
+ If the vote clears the accused, a second vote is automatically held as to whether the accuser should have their rank suspended 2 months for reckless use of the disciplinary process (yes/no, no discussion, 75% in favour required to pass). This must be concluded within 24 hours.
* If a Patrician or Citizen receives a warning that is upheld by the Tribunal, they are automatically put before the CdeC where a vote is held (yes/no, no discussion) as to whether they lose their rank. 1 warning = suspension of rank for 2 months, 2nd or more concurrent warning = loss of rank to peregrinus. Simple majority vote passes. This vote lasts for 72 hours.
* Any member of the Total War Center, who has never been disciplined before, shall be contacted via PM concerning their behavior, and given the opportunity to correct same, prior to the issuance of any warning or suspension. If a member has been disciplined previously, warnings or suspensions may be issued without previous notice that such action is contemplated.

I have found our moderating staff to be professional and fair. However, new members and old alike can go ballistic, especially in places like the Mudpit. This would put everyone on notice that they basically have one constitutionally-mandated chance to correct improper behavior, before action can be taken. Those who have been previously disciplined should know better, and such members need to know that action can be swift and severe, and without previous notice (even though I know that most of our mods will make the attempt, anyway).

Discuss ...

[Spiff]

That isnt really workable. The Curia cant have a say in how the site moderators organise and run the forum, the addition you suggest goes beyond the syntagma into the punishing of regular members for breaking the ToS - and thats just beyond the power of the curia to change or modify.

[imb39]

Spiff is correct. You can apply the principle to the CdeC in terms of deciding whether a member should be suspended.

[Garbarsardar]

I agree with the previous posters; and in any case a poster that gets repeated warnings for trolling and flaming should be aware that in such a close knit community this will not go unnoticed. So the warning, albeit informal is there anyway. Including such process in the constituition on the other hand is bound to damage the "separation of powers" we so often labour for...

[Oldgamer]

I agree with the previous posters; and in any case a poster that gets repeated warnings for trolling and flaming should be aware that in such a close knit community this will not go unnoticed. So the warning, albeit informal is there anyway. Including such process in the constituition on the other hand is bound to damage the "separation of powers" we so often labour for...

Separation of powers is useless unless check and balances exist, Garb.

Simply as an exercise ...

Is TWC a democracy, with different branches of government, separation of powers between them, and appropriate checks and balances? Or is the government of the TWC simply an illusion, created by the real power at the site which is, of course, those persons who own the site? Does the truth lie somewhere in between?

My point in the original proposal is that every member of this community can take comfort in the fact that an arbitrary action will not take place against them, without informing them of the problem, and giving them a chance to correct their behavior. As I said, serial troublemakers would know what would happen to them.

Just this morning, I responded to a post in which the poster implied rather forcefully that I am a liar. My first reaction to this was to flame him. I did not, because I didn't wish to be warned or suspended the day after I was elected as a Patrician to the CdeC. But when it comes to new members, how many of them really sit down to read the ToS or the forum rules, before they jump into posting?

[Garbarsardar]

As to your first question Oldgamer, it is no more smoke and mirrors from any other form of governance. (except probably some Temporary Autonomous Zones as the first Christian communities or the experimentations in Catalunia during the Spanish Civil war).

On the prior warning now-although I'm not exactly a supporter of the "if it works don't fix it" mentality"- I would like to see some examples where a problem was created by the lack of warning...

Let us not forget that the CdeC is not an awe inspiring Holy Inquisitions, and it is cabable of offering warning and guidance.

As exactly we can all do privately and by PM when a fellow member crosses the line.

Regards
Garb.

[Ardeur]

Just this morning, I responded to a post in which the poster implied rather forcefully that I am a liar. My first reaction to this was to flame him. I did not, because I didn't wish to be warned or suspended the day after I was elected as a Patrician to the CdeC. But when it comes to new members, how many of them really sit down to read the ToS or the forum rules, before they jump into posting?

So we should molly-coddle those who choose to ignore the prompt when they sign up for membership on the site? It's been sometime since I signed up, but I'm sure the process included the standard "By checking this box, I agree that I have read and accept the Terms of Service."

Check the box without reading the Terms of Service, and you blindly subject yourself to rules. As such, you can expect to blindly be punished when you break them, because our Mods should be functioning under the assumption that all general members have at least read the TOS once in their membership.

I think the only real direction this should go is in doing a better job of informing rule violators of what IS happening to them. Too often, a user gets themselves suspended, but is only sent a PM notification about their suspension, something they can't read until after their suspension. Perhaps we should look in to giving suspended users read-only rights on their PMs so they can see that they've been suspended and why. And perhaps this is something that's been cleared up already, I don't know.

[Oldgamer]

As to your first question Oldgamer, it is no more smoke and mirrors from any other form of governance. (except probably some Temporary Autonomous Zones as the first Christian communities or the experimentations in Catalunia during the Spanish Civil war).

On the prior warning now-although I'm not exactly a supporter of the "if it works don't fix it" mentality"- I would like to see some examples where a problem was created by the lack of warning...

Let us not forget that the CdeC is not an awe inspiring Holy Inquisitions, and it is cabable of offering warning and guidance.

As exactly we can all do privately and by PM when a fellow member crosses the line.

Regards
Garb.

I'll go along with what you're saying, Garb, because I respect you and trust what you have to say. The only time I've ever been contacted by PM was in regards to the size of my signature. That, I corrected promptly. By the way, I've never believed that there was an Inquisition going on at TWC. If there was, I would have been long gone, by now (as I was when I made one post at the Paradox Forums complaining about the lack of the swastika flag in Hearts of Iron ... I was permanently banned without so much as a word). If you say, "We will do all we can to address this issue by PM, without the need of legislation or amendment," that will satisfy me.

@Ardeur

I think the only real direction this should go is in doing a better job of informing rule violators of what IS happening to them.

I'm feeling more kindly towards you all the time! I appreciate this response, and it goes a long way towards settling me in to the governmental and moderation system of the site.

By the way, I am certain that I've never read ToS at any website where I've registered, simply because I'm way too anxious to get down to posting. If that's so for someone my age, consider the average 16-year old. How many of them read the ToS?

Anyway, thanks for your response, and those of Spiff and everyone else.

I expressly and categorically withdraw my proposal, and ask that this thread be closed.

[Lusted]

I think the only real direction this should go is in doing a better job of informing rule violators of what IS happening to them. Too often, a user gets themselves suspended, but is only sent a PM notification about their suspension, something they can't read until after their suspension. Perhaps we should look in to giving suspended users read-only rights on their PMs so they can see that they've been suspended and why. And perhaps this is something that's been cleared up already, I don't know.

If people are suspended we email them the reason why, we dont pm.

[Tom Paine]

I can't say that this is a good idea, I'm afraid. Suspensions are not only punishments but also cool-down periods; posters return far cooler after a suspension, usually. It also falls down wherein the only way to record such a PM would be a usernote anyway, and as such we'd be recording the infraction in a usernote, acting as a caution anyway; it would all end up irrelevant.