Citizens' Behavior Section Amendment

[Spiff]

Citizens' Behavior Section Amendment

Proposer: Spiff

Supporting Patricians: Fabolous, gigagaia, Kagemusha

Drafted by: Fabolous, Kagemusha, Spiff, and Tacticalwithdrawal

This Bill will replace the current Citizens Behaviour section of the Syntagma with the revised version below:

Key Changes:

• Discussion is allowed in all cases, currently it is not.
• All of the accused members relevant user notes will be made available in the discussion.
• Reformated for easier reading.

Citizens' Behavior

The Consilium de Civitate (CdeC) handles all disciplinary proceedings against Citizens of TWC regarding the removal or temporary suspension of Curial ranks. No Citizen may be subject to more than one of the following procedures for a single offence. There are two kinds of disciplinary proceedings:

1. Referral from any member of the forum:

Any member of TWC may report a Citizen to a member of the CdeC for behaviour unbecoming of a Citizen. The specific procedure is as follows:

• The accuser must present a detailed charge.
• The accused is then asked to produce a written defence within 72 hours - they are shown the written charge but the name of the accuser is withheld.
• The CdeC has a further 72 hours to investigate the charges.

After this investigation, a public vote is held by the CdeC as to whether the accused loses one level of rank. A 75% majority of non abstaining voters is required in order pass. The vote must be closed within 72 hours.

If this first vote fails to pass, 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. This second vote operates the same as the first but must be concluded within 24 hours.

2. Referral for recieving a Staff Warning:

If any Citizen receives an official warning from a member of Staff, they will be automatically referred to the CdeC. A public vote will be held after two days discussion of the case. All relevant user notes of the accused member will be viewable in this discussion, and the accused may return no defence. The voting options in this vote depend upon the referred member's current Staff warning level.

• A warning level of one will result in a poll where the CdeC can vote for a suspension of rank of up to two months.
• A warning level of two will result in a poll with where the CdeC can vote for a suspension of rank for up to two months, or for a maximum penalty of permanent loss of rank.

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for votes to pass, otherwise the case is dismissed.

Latest version incorporates Tacs rewording, let me know what you think

[Fabolous]

Ahh, the bill drafted by fab, kage, spiff, and tac. It better be alright by now.

I support... obviously, alot of it are my ideas.

[Spiff]

Someone will always want to change something, hopefully this one will be fine for a while.

Also.. added drafters, knew i forgot something

[gigagaia]

Add my name down for a Supporter Spiff, I think it's good and clarifies things well.

[Aristocrat]

I support. It makes things clear enough.

[Garbarsardar]

Ja, oui, yes, ne, hao.

[MoROmeTe]

I see the suspension period of 2 months for the accuser if his accusation is proven false to much. Maybe around 1 month?

[Kagemusha]

Moromete,How about if we change the wording to "up to two months?" But anyway i support this fine bill.

[rez]

fully supported gentlemen

[Muizer]

Two questions about this section:

If any Citizen receives an official warning from a member of Staff, they will be automatically referred to the CdeC. A public vote will be held after two days discussion of the case. All relevant user notes of the accused member will be viewable in this discussion, and the accused may return no defence.

1) how do the tribunal and the CdeC investigation interact? If this only applies to warnings upheld in the tribunal it should be stated explicitly.

2) why is the accused not allowed to defend himself?

[Garbarsardar]

Two questions about this section:



1) how do the tribunal and the CdeC investigation interact? If this only applies to warnings upheld in the tribunal it should be stated explicitly.

2) why is the accused not allowed to defend himself?

2) The accused is then asked to produce a written defence within 72 hours - they are shown the written charge but the name of the accuser is withheld.

1) I should guess because senior staff has presence and posting right in the CdeC, therefore it is assumed that no cases of warnings can reach the CdeC if not upheld by the tribunal.

[Muizer]

2) The accused is then asked to produce a written defence within 72 hours - they are shown the written charge but the name of the accuser is withheld..

That's not in the second section Garb.

1) I should guess because senior staff has presence and posting right in the CdeC, therefore it is assumed that no cases of warnings can reach the CdeC if not upheld by the tribunal.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, unless it would be for senior staff only to bring those charges into the CdeC after the case had been heard in the tribunal.

[Garbarsardar]

That's not in the second section Garb.

You're right, now I got it. I assume it is because a warning is in essence indefensible beyond the tribunal. Still the CdeC can decide that the warning does not warrant punishment.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, unless it would be for senior staff only to bring those charges into the CdeC after the case had been heard in the tribunal.

Since only the staff has knowledge of warnings, and full knowledge of the outcome (through the user notes) it is not possible a quashed warning to be used in a process.

[Muizer]

Ah, I see that make sense then. I have to say I don't really like the implicit nature of the wording. I much prefer a more explicit wording. In this case:

- that the charges will brought before the CdeC by a member of the Tribunal
- that the CdeC in cases brought by members establishes guilt as well as punishment, but that in cases brought on by warnings the moderator "verdict" is automatically adopted and the discussion confined to the severity of the punishment.

Mzr

[imb39]

Garb has it correct. The CdeC is not to overturn a punishment but rather to decide whether it is sufficient with regards to keeping the rank in question. If the CdeC feels that the suspension handed out is sufficient it will simply not vote on any further punitive action.

The basic premise behind this is that Citizens should be held to a higher standard. As moderators, we merely enforce the ToS, or rather our interpretation of it. The CdeC has to decide whether, as a Citizen, the member should be subject to further sanctions. The proposal outlined is somewhat more generous than previously outlined.

[Kagemusha]

So if there are no more opinions to change the proposal.Can it be moved to vote?

[imb39]

When the required 3 days is up, yes.

[Spiff]

I think we can vote on this now, and the sooner the better really

[Tom Paine]

Legally it can be voted on, aye.

[imb39]

The vote is up and can be found here.