[Further Action] Ishan

[Diamat]

Further action was decided here.


Here is the original anonymous charge:

I am referring Ishan for manipulating and invalidating the voting process for the Abolish CdeC amendment. Ishan abused his moderation powers to encourage a select group of citizens to swing the vote in his favor as well as disparage those who voted against the amendment. Ishan's acts are unbecoming of citizens, particularly his disdain for his fellow citizens and lack of respect for the ToS. The following links provide screenshots taken from Shambhala, where Ishan used his influence to garner additional votes.

Curator's Note: Warning, images may contain bad language.
http://postimg.org/image/ezzt2uhib/
http://postimg.org/image/3md9rn6zn/
http://postimg.org/image/gt2pr62oz/

[Aikanár]

I am perfectly sure that I will not vote for removal of rank.

I am sure too, that I will vote for an suspension of rank.

I am not so sure whether it'll be 1 or 2 months of suspension.

One part of me asks me to go with the highest possible admonishment besides removal of rank, because of the severity of what Ishan did. Especially with regards to abusing the position of CA and breaking the trust of a Curator.

Another part of me asks me to go with a high admonishment, but not a too long one, because one month is a long time here on the internet. There is no difference in the message we send to Ishan regardless of one or two months being chosen. A suspension of rank for a considerable amount of time is a severe admonishment, as was his lack of judgement and what he did. I am sure, that less than one month is too little, but I'm not sure what another month on top of one month would achieve.

Ishan knows what he did. He admitted everything. He regrets everything. He even asks for the most severe punishment and wants to start from scratch. That is ample proof for me that Ishan has learned from his terrible lack of judgement and not only displays remorse, but really feels sorry.

Leo, what are your toughts about that?

[Leonidas The Lion]

I have read what Pann wrote and I have read what you guys have read as well. I understand the argument of "Ishan is potentially useful to the Curia don't remove him permanently" however I'm sitting here thinking that a person I trusted a person that I supported to return to staff when I was in moderation has gone and betrayed us all with his actions. I feel betrayed and I think so should the rest of you.

You said that what he had done was not the same as Antwerpen's case however I fail to see a difference beyond the fact that maybe Ishan thought he was acting in the best interests of the site. He still abused a process to get a result he wanted and still abused the respect and faith put into him by the then Curator Genius. What we can take away from this is here is that Ishan doesn't really care about the Curia all that much if he needs to cheat what he gets, that or he doesn't respect it all or its system since he thinks that if something is important to him its ok to just abuse the process as long as in his mind he is doing the right thing.

Is this someone we want to keep around because he may one day do something good again? Pann seems to think so, but then Pann has already passed judgement on his end in staff and I doubt Ishan is going back anytime soon. It then falls to us. Do we want someone who abused the system he was entrusted with to stay here? The magistrate in me says we should vote removal of rank since we cannot keep someone around here that shows no respect for the system and cannot accept the true result of the Curia(that they may vote no on the amendment as that was what may have happened had we let it runs its course). On the other hand I am Ishan friend( or at least I would like to think so) and as such I find this whole process very difficult. I was one the people who supported his return to moderation often citing his unmatched work ethic and stellar manners towards regular members as the reasons why he is a great guy.

Aikanar you ask about what an extra month would achieve and I am leaning to agree with you, 1 or 2 months means nothing for something as big as this. What message are we sending to the Curia if we simply suspend the biggest offence since Antwerpen's? If this wasn't Ishan and a more obscure citizen we would be talking suspension at here, nor would he have had Hex pour into the case. I think its important we try to avoid any signs of favouritism simply because he is a friend to many of us.

[Omnipotent-Q]

I've had too think long and hard before giving my opinion on this one. Everyone knows I'm a big fan of ostrakon when it's a good and logical move. This time however, 2 month suspension should surely win out.

They're a few reasons for this. Pann explained in an excellent fashion why he could still be an asset too the Curia. I'm sure each of you can think of at least one example of Ishan helping you out in some way on the forum. A vast number of people can. He has done well with his efforts and this is a first time he's up for any sort of citizenship discipline. Yes he has lost trust, but if you shut the door completely trust can never be re-earned. It could be seen as arbitrary too permanently remove someone's citizenship when in the context, much of the case is exaggerated for Curial ideological reasons.

...and here's the thing. A permanent removal of citizenship in the current constitutional setup is a lesser punishment than two months suspension. Why? Because Ishan could re-apply for citizenship again literally the next day and would have a decent chance of getting it back from the entire Curia. It is imperative you prevent that from happening by giving a punishment that's fair, just and will actually stick. At least a 2 month suspension guarantees a decent break from him so he can reflect on his actions, and be given a chance to re-gain some trust when he comes back.

I don't see this as comparable too the Antwerpen case. Antwerpen directly edited poll results - inexcusable everytime and no doubt an ostrakon offence. In reality what Ishan's done is probably no different too what a lot of people did in relation too the poll in question. The only difference is he got caught doing it. I mean this was the biggest citizenship poll in years - do you honestly think there weren't people other than Ishan out there discussing this with other citizens by PM? On Steam? Of course there would have been people doing that on both sides. It goes without saying. If you guys are sitting there saying you didn't discuss this poll at least once by PM or on Steam, or something else, then I'd be shocked.

http://postimg.org/image/ezzt2uhib/
http://postimg.org/image/3md9rn6zn/

^ same screenshots, but what it shows is he was passionate for the changes. When people feel so strongly, sometimes people go too far. But that doesn't mean he didn't have good intentions or was looking to do malicious damage - which is the exact opposite of the Antwerpen case. He's not editing polls directly. Additionally I've looked at the members list for Shamb - even if we assume every user on TWC is the same username on Shamb, there's not more than 5 people he could have got too vote on the poll in question. Doubtless not all of those people would have been active too. The chance that Ishan's actions had any real bearing on the result is extremely unlikely.

http://postimg.org/image/gt2pr62oz/

Most of the people above he has green boxed either stated they were supportive of such changes too the Curia way before scrapping CdeC was proposed, or were vocal in their support of it happening. If he PMed them asking they "vote in whatever manner they preferred" it's not a breach of the constitution. It would be if he told them how too vote, but knowing how someone is likely too vote and them approaching them too consider a bill or remind them isn't a breach of protocol. I've done it myself on numerous occasions because it's not technically lobbying in a constitutional sense. It's a tried and tested method.

I think there needs too be a dose of reality in this case because I think it's all exaggerated if you look at the evidence carefully. Ishan's impact on the vote would have been negligible. A lot of the people green boxed above even I spoke too, and those opposing will have spoken too people off a similar mind too. We all understand that people felt strongly on this bill don't we? Although Ishan was wrong here, he has done vast amounts for the site - as shown by yet another year of him winning numerous categories in the Member Awards. His Novus. Vast amounts of medals. He made a mistake here, but his contributions should warrant giving him one more chance. If you give him a chance and he comes back in a couple of months with something too prove and wants too re-earn some trust, then it would be vastly too the Curia's benefit. You know it, everyone knows it. His efforts warrant mercy. Despite his mistakes here, contributors like Ishan too any site or forum don't grow on trees. They don't show up very often. Considering the amount Ishan has done, I'm surprised he hasn't made mistakes more often. It's a simple odds thing - a guy who does 1000 things for the site is more likely too make a mistake than a guy who does 10 things.

I'm rambling but basically, I'd implore you all too be understanding. Give the guy another chance, and do not seek too reignite the prior divisions caused by scrapping CdeC. Divisions that must be put in the past if we're too avoid the Curia turning into a circus. 2 month suspension provides a just punishment, allows people too calm down from this whole Shamb thing and allows us all too move on with a punishment not one person would argue with. If you Ostrakon him, for sure they'll be an argument it was too strict from some. It easy too see the Curial consensus is going too be a big suspension for this first time for Ishan in a citizenship discipline case.

Pseudo-court, pseudo-punishments - whatever you want too call this citizenship judicial system, it's not in the interests of either the Curia or the site too shut the door on Ishan permanently. You should make it your duty not too let a couple of mistakes here blow away and destroy a staff and Curial career that has provided vastly more than any damage his actions have caused here.

[imb39]

There should always be a balance between punishment and justice. It is worth considering, as part of this process, the fact that Ishan has lost a lot of face over this both from the community at large and from within Staff where there is some resentment from this whole regrettable affair. I have always found him o be highly energetic and full of enthusiasm. I think the latter has ended up being his downfall - he got carried away. Did he break any actual rules with respect to these charges? Well, possibly but those rules are pretty low in the grand scheme of things. If people voted one way because Ishan encouraged them to do so then, in reality, the wrong doers are those that voted that way. If others chose to be sheep then that is their problem - not the shepherd, so to speak.

He is a talented, if somewhat misguided individual. It seems to me that we'd be moving to the point of cutting the nose to spite our face by removing his rank. Suspension seems to fit this particular crime.

I know justice is blind but remember he has lost a lot already. Kicking him whilst he is down won't do anyone any favours. The Curia won't gain anything from it. Try to look at the bigger picture, is my advice.

[Darth Red]

I think it's also worth noting he was already punished for his SND transgressions, so the only thing here that's left to be judged is the revealing of the curial poll.

[Aikanár]

I am absolutely not concerned with who might have voted how in said bill because of Ishan's action. That's of no concern of mine with regards to this case. I'm concerned with Ishan's citizen behaviour and with regards to that I'm first and foremost concerned about him breaking the trust of his Curator and his abuse of the position of CA and him breaking the Constitution.

Whatever may happen to the bill is of no particular concern to this case. That's a matter for the Curia to decide, not for the Triumvirate and, if I may so bold, I do suggest to neglect the possible influence, take note of what happened, and move on. I don't think that it's worth to spoil the benefits of said bill for the pleasure of a pseudo-anal correct vote, which, in truth, we can never be sure of to begin with.

Leo, I agree with most of what you wrote! I really just don't like to shut somebody out who is regretting and is really showing remorse. I believe in second chances and this his first second chance when it comes to citizen behaviour. But, Leo, you've convinced me to vote for 2 months, because you're right, he is my friend and thus 1 month would be a wrong deed of friendship. Thank-you for making me recognising this!

I've said that more than one time in both threads, if Ishan would not honestly feel sorry for what he did, I would vote for removal of rank! But since he does regret it, I think I'll be voting for 2 months.

[Leonidas The Lion]

With regards to the argument of shutting him put permanently, if he is determined to help he doesn't need citizenship. Furthermore, if he stays committed and contributes then I have no doubt he will be granted citizenship once again. I mean hell we gave Ferrets citizenship like three times.

[Aikanár]

And that won't be the end of the line, but that's another matter.

Yes, I do understand your point Leo. Call me biased if you like (I know that's not your attitude), but I cannot make me shut him out since he's regretting. If I wasn't convinced of him being honestly regretting, I'd scratch his name into a shard, but he is regretting and I believe him.

[Aikanár]

Ishan broke the constitution. He abused a position of trust: Curator's Assistant. He acted contrary to that what I believe citizen's should behave like.

However, he did not act out of malicious intent, he did not act for his personal benefit; instead he acted with the best of intentions with regards to the Curia and indeed TWC. Does that make the deed itself better? No, but I count that as mitigating circumstances in my book.

Also, he obviously honestly regrets what he did. He overcame his first reservation to send us a defense and provided the Triumvirate with an indepth defense explaining what he did and that he feels sorry.

He also apologised to fellow citizens he insulted off of TWC.

To me, that shows true remorse.

I cannot discount these facts.And therefore I cannot shut him out of the Curia.

I have voted for a 2 months suspension of rank.

5.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Voted for removal, with a very heavy heart.

[Diamat]

In all the referrals I have ever participated in, whether on CdeC or in the Triumvirate, I have always treated each case as a matter of principles. I have never before considered such factors as 'how useful is a member,' 'how much of a friend is a member,' or 'how much will this member contribute in the future.' It is irrelevant to the case at hand. All that should matter in a referral is the conduct of the citizen in regard to the accusation and the defense of the accused (which includes evidence presented by the defendant), nothing more and nothing less. So let us look at the case as neutrally as possible, factoring in only the offense and the defense.

First the offense. As admitted by the accused, he broke the Constitution by revealing the voting results while the poll was still going on. He broke it again by lobbying for votes off-site, concurrently abusing his powers as a Curator Assistant. The bill in question was the 'Abolish CdeC Bill,' which is the most major Curial overhaul we have had in a long time. And as said by the defendant, "it wouldn't have been passed had i not done the things i did here." Furthermore, he admits the following: "seeing the emotional atmosphere where on one occasion i think it was mentioned that this might fail as how the poll was going, i then voulenteered to do the things i did, in order to make sure this proposal passed." This then constitutes a deliberate act of violating the Constitution. Although the defendant thought his actions were for the good of TWC, they nevertheless tarnished the very institution they were supposed to improve, the Curia.

Now the defense. Disregarding his initial contempt, the PM sent to Aikanar is quite revealing. The defendant truly appears to have been emotionally invested in this bill, doing what he did for the greater good of TWC. While admitting his wrongdoings he also argues that he did not coerce anyone and that every citizen he went to genuinely believed in abolishing CdeC. Although this is hard to verify, we have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, since we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. In general, the defendant seems sorry for what he did.

My Decision:
How much does an apology and admission of guilt mitigate the punishment in a case as severe as this? This question has given me much to think about. It's much easier to reduce punishment in cases that are less severe and do not involve such blatant violations of the Constitution. In this case the offense outweighs these mitigating factors. Our Curia cannot be violated in such a brazen manner, regardless of the cause. All citizens should know that if they are to commit such an offense, an offense undermining the very principles of this institution, it will result in the highest possible punishment. This must never happen again. I therefore vote for removal of rank.

[Squid]

I first have to say I'm quite disappointed in this decision.

The bill in question was the 'Abolish CdeC Bill,' which is the most major Curial overhaul we have had in a long time. And as said by the defendant, "it wouldn't have been passed had i not done the things i did here."

As opposed to member of hex who outlined that his actions in this bill had to little to no bearing on the bill, regardless of Ishan's opinions on the matter. Why I wonder does one take the word of the defendant in the case over a unbiased opinion of a member of hex, especially when the member of hex provided facts to back up their claim. As I said in the other thread the fact that the specific bill keeps getting mentioned is irrelevant bordering on making this case political as Red mentions above, because which bill the action was taken against are irrelevant to the crime. The crime is voter fraud and the punishment is the same regardless of whether you do it on a municipal, state or federal election, yet here we are with people stating that because it was an "important" bill that makes the crime worse.

My Decision:
How much does an apology and admission of guilt mitigate the punishment in a case as severe as this? This question has given me much to think about. It's much easier to reduce punishment in cases that are less severe and do not involve such blatant violations of the Constitution. In this case the offense outweighs these mitigating factors. Our Curia cannot be violated in such a brazen manner, regardless of the cause. All citizens should know that if they are to commit such an offense, an offense undermining the very principles of this institution, it will result in the highest possible punishment. This must never happen again. I therefore vote for removal of rank.

Both you and Leo are going to have justify how revealing poll results for no personal gain, and there clearly wasn't any, somehow has the same punishment as directly manipulating poll results (i.e. ballot box stuffing) in order to secure an elected position which clearly was entirely for personal gain.

[Darth Red]

It does not feel that a removal of rank fits the crime, it looks more like we're making an example of Ishan which I feel would be the wrong way to go. He's charged with showing an ongoing curial poll, he didn't doctor or change votes in the tables --as another had done which was previously referenced here whom did have his rank removed. He's also a first timer here, never been into trouble and has done more for TWC over the years than most. Stripping him of his rank would be entirely too harsh a punishment for this.

[Leonidas The Lion]

It does not feel that a removal of rank fits the crime, it looks more like we're making an example of Ishan which I feel would be the wrong way to go. He's charged with showing an ongoing curial poll, he didn't doctor or change votes in the tables --as another had done which was previously referenced here whom did have his rank removed. He's also a first timer here, never been into trouble and has done more for TWC over the years than most. Stripping him of his rank would be entirely too harsh a punishment for this.

Yet you saw fit to strip him of his moderator rank(unless i'm wrong) and content saw fit to strip him as well. Not to mention he is now on staff 'no' list.

[Squid]

Yet you saw fit to strip him of his moderator rank(unless i'm wrong) and content saw fit to strip him as well. Not to mention he is now on staff 'no' list.

Not for this incident.

[Darth Red]

Yet you saw fit to strip him of his moderator rank(unless i'm wrong) and content saw fit to strip him as well. Not to mention he is now on staff 'no' list.

A staff position isn't a reward for contributions and I don't need to trust in a citizen for them to continue being a citizen.

But you're right, if you were judging him on all that staff took into consideration then I could understand a removal of rank. But that isn't the case here, all of that has been handled and Ishan was already punished for that. The only thing that was left unpunished was the curial issue of him showing poll results before a poll closed, which is what he's being referred for here.

[Aikanár]

I've learned one thing from this case, I will not run for Magistrate as long as citizen behaviour is tied to it. I'm tired of this.

I suggest to Ishan to make his case public and appeal it.

[Diamat]

I will give it another 24 hours for everyone to make final comments before I officially PM Ishan with the results and ask him whether or not he wants the case to be made public and whether or not he wishes to appeal.

[Aikanár]

His SND and how Staff dealt with it was not subject to this case.