[Further Action] Ishan

[Aikanár]

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

Have you? I doubt that, seriously!

Let's have a look at his offenses one by one:
-The first offense was to break the trust of a curator and abuse the local moderation rights of a position of trust.
-The second offense was to make other citizens see the results of an ongoing vote, even if done on another website.
-The third offense was to ask citizens off of twc to vote in favour of a bill.
-The fourth offense was , that he insulted other members off of TWC.

The first three offenses surely are not how a citizen should behave like; the fourth is irrelevant because that had no effect on TWC.

Therefore, he surely deserves an admonishment for the first.
He also deserves an admonishment for the second, because that may have had an effect on TWC.
And he even deserves an admonishment for the third, because that may have had an effect on TWC as well.

That was what we had to judge in this case. Beyond that there was nothing to judge with regards to citizen behaviour. Not his SND, not what vote it was, nothing else.

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.

This is complete and utter crap! And you should know that! But you're talking as if this case would have any relevance to other cases or as if how you or me or Leo decided would have to have an influence on future judges.

This is not the case!

There is no such thing as a binding precedent. Every case is a case of its own.

Of course one can look at other cases and take into consideration what was deliberated and decided in them, but that's not binding.

However, it's worth the hassle to look into the archives and at past cases to see how others have dealt and argued about citizen behaviour, one can learn from that even though it is not binding.

That being said, all what future judges can learn from this case is, that in this case a redicilous decision was taken with regards to the offenses.

Principle of proportionality where art thou?

[Diamat]

I can't believe we are even having this conversation. Had this been some less popular citizen, indeed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's about as clear-cut as it gets. Ishan deliberately dragged the Constitution through the mud, not to mention the morality of the action, and all you want to do is give him a slap on the wrist, by giving him a two month suspension? That's crazy! I therefore fully support Leo's position, and I'm not going to give preferential treatment to someone just because he is well liked by people.

And please don't mention such irrelevant things as Ishan's SND violations or his insulting of other citizens off-site. That did not factor into my decision and was never even mentioned by me. My decision was solely based on the constitutional violations, which I repeated over and over again in my decision.

[Squid]

I can't believe we are even having this conversation.

I agree its a shame this has turned into such a farce that we have to have this discussion again and again.

Had this been some less popular citizen, indeed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Of course we would, especially if you know me at all, you'll know I speak up when a situation stinks, and this stinks worse than the garbage dump.

It's about as clear-cut as it gets. Ishan deliberately dragged the Constitution through the mud, not to mention the morality of the action

I agree. Which is why he should be punished.

and all you want to do is give him a slap on the wrist, by giving him a two month suspension? That's crazy! I therefore fully support Leo's position, and I'm not going to give preferential treatment to someone just because he is well liked by people.

Really, slap on the wrist, its the second highest penalty this body can give, its more than most members who've repeatedly dragged the good name of citizens everywhere through the mud have received and yet here you are calling it a slap on the wrist. By giving this punishment for a first offence you are saying that his offence was as bad as the case where election results were directly altered by a citizen in order to win a curial election, that is a stupid and preposterous claim to make.

And please don't mention such irrelevant things as Ishan's SND violations or his insulting of other citizens off-site. That did not factor into my decision and was never even mentioned by me. My decision was solely based on the constitutional violations, which I repeated over and over again in my decision.

It was Leo that brought it up by mentioning Ishan's no longer being a part of staff. And yes it is entirely irrelevant, as Red, Aikanar and I have pointed out.

[Squid]

This whole case stinks in how it was handled, another example of which is that another case at the same time, also for off-site improprieties, was thrown out for and I quote:

4. We have no proof that this X is actually that X (which actually overrides 1, 2, and 3)

This despite the fact that the defence clearly indicates that they are one and the same. Based on that this case should have been thrown out for the exact same reason, yet here we are.

[Leonidas The Lion]

I just find it strange how the people that have already punished Ishan are now bending over backwards to try and stop us, even after we have reached a decision.

[Squid]

I just find it strange how the people that have already punished Ishan are now bending over backwards to try and stop us, even after we have reached a decision.

I find it strange that you keep referring to a situation that is beyond the realm of concern to this case in an attempt to justify your choice of punishment. I'd also like for you to quote any member of hex who's said that Ishan should not be punished, and further we've been saying removal of rank is too harsh since before you made your decision.

[Aikanár]

First things first, the SND was only mentioned by me, because it appeared to me, as if Leo would have factored that into his decision. If I was wrong with that assumption, I do apologise to Leo for bringing the SND up. That was it.

Diamat,

I can't believe we are even having this conversation. Had this been some less popular citizen, indeed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, we would have the exact same conversation because of three reasons.

One, because I believe that it is my duty to preserve the citizenship of referred citizen until a citizen has done such a massive offense, that it is not longer possible to preserve his citizenship. I'm not here to punish as heavily as possible, I'm here to ensure a fair treatment to citizens and to ensure a proportional punishment, not something over the top or the other way round.

Two, because of the reasoning you have provided in the post you've broke the tie with before the "My decision" paragraph. According to my opinion your reasoning is biased. I will show where and why later in this post.

Three, because of your reasoning in your "My decision" paragraph. Do not get me wrong here. I do not attempt to change your decision. It is totally up to you how you decide. I do respect you as a person. I do respect you in your role as curator. But I do think it was a piss poor decision and I call that out when I think that. I expect you to do the same with my decisions.

That being said, let's have a look at your reasoning before the "My decision paragraph":

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.

That's alright. But you've forgotten a very crucial thing. Coincidentally that is the same little thing a lot of CdeC councillors had forgotten over time. We are not here to be as objective as possible. We are not here to make an as abstract judgement about any given case.

We are here to make a very subjective judgement in any given case, because of three reasons.

One, because every case is a case of its own and must be treated as such, it has its own context and its own evidence.

Two, because of the sentiments and ideas of the referred citizen. There is a reason why a referred citizen has the right to produce a defense and there is a reason for why he is been given so much time to do so, the same reason applies to why all material supporting the referred citizen has to be accepted for an additional 96 hours. The reason for that are, that the referred should have time to reflect on his post(s) and rethink what he did and come to a conclusion and then present his feelings to us.

Three, every councillor has a subjective opinion about what citizen behaviour might be. But just because we all have an opinion about that, does not mean that a councillor should just take a decision and be fine with it, but that he should consider the evidence, the context and first and foremost the defense of the referred and then discuss that with his peers in order to arrive at a decision. It is his very own decision and nobody can force him to change his decision - like I'm not changing yours.

So, to paraphrase what Halie Satanus once said in the commentary thread: you're not here to make an as objective decision as possible, because that's besides the point. You're here to make an as subjective decision as possible.

That being said every councillor has to take full responsibility for his subjective decision and each and every decision can be criticised. And that is what I'm doing here.

Now for your reasoning and the bias in it, I will use [del][/del] tags in order to mark the bias:

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.

The marked parts are totally irrelevant to the offense because what he did was:
- abuse a position of trust
- reveal voting results
- ask others to vote in a certain way
The nature of the bill is of no relevancy to those offenses.

Concerning your reasoning in your "My Decision" paragraph, I've already addressed that in my last post, but like with the bias in your other paragraph, I'll mark the irrelevant parts:

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.

That are the issues I have with your reasoning and your decision. I have a huge issue with the chosen option, too. But that was your decision and I have to accept that. But I've all right to express that I find it way out of proportion and because of my respect of you, I don't leave it with that, but provide you my reasoning.

It's about as clear-cut as it gets. Ishan deliberately dragged the Constitution through the mud, not to mention the morality of the action, and all you want to do is give him a slap on the wrist, by giving him a two month suspension? That's crazy! I therefore fully support Leo's position, and I'm not going to give preferential treatment to someone just because he is well liked by people.

Squid already addressed the part with the slap on the wrist in a way that I'm still searching for the dotted line to put my signature there.

With regards to the preferential treatment. I just like to remind you, once, that it's alright to discredit my points, like I discredit yours, but to try to discredit me is a bit out of character for you and makes me contemplate Ishan's initial request.

And please don't mention such irrelevant things as Ishan's SND violations or his insulting of other citizens off-site. That did not factor into my decision and was never even mentioned by me. My decision was solely based on the constitutional violations, which I repeated over and over again in my decision.

With regards to your mentioning of the bill throughout the complete trial of the case, in both threads and even in your pre-"My decision" paragraph, you clearly showed that you took more into consideration than his constitutional violations.

That all being said, it was your duty to break the tie. You had two options. You went with the more severe one. That's all good and proper and your right. But that's about it, the rest of it, I've addressed above.

[Diamat]

I won't pick your arguments apart, Aik. Rather, I will respond in whole:

When I mentioned the bill in question, I only did so to provide the background (I was reviewing the case, providing Ishan's motive). Over and over again, I stated that the reason why I chose Leo's option was because of the constitutional violations. Nothing else. I never said that anything else factored in. You know me, and you know how I think. As a Curator, I always think in constitutional terms and try to stick to the Constitution as closely as possible. That's my basic standard.

As for the objectivity part, well, I have my standards, and I don't claim perfect objectivity, since such a thing is impossible. However, I claim neutrality, and the Constitution is my neutrality, the only basis for judging this case. And I deem Ishan's violations of the Constitution sufficient reason to remove his rank. But this argument of yours, "You're here to make an as subjective decision as possible"; I cannot agree with. That should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, if I would use such a subjective approach, then I also would have factored in Ishan's insulting of other members, my personal opinion of him, etc.; but I didn't. These things are irrelevant to the case at hand.

[Aikanár]

I apparently failed to explain the term "subjectivity" with regards to referrals in a way that could reach you. That is my fault.

[Diamat]

PM sent.

[Diamat]

Ishan has asked to have it made public. Is there anything you guys want censored from the three images in the OP?

[Aikanár]

I think the first and second are fine for public as they are, I suggest to have the third edited like this example: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/file...iby-1-c4ca.jpg the insult in the original wouldn't serve any purpose but to create more negative atmo.

[Diamat]

Agreed. In case anyone else has any other concerns, I will wait a little longer before I move this to the Antechamber.

[Diamat]

Oh, oh. Ishan has just expressed his wish to me that nothing be censored.

Will do. Just be a little patient, since I have to discuss with Hex and the Triumvirate which parts of the three images need to be censored.

No i don't want anything censored. Any censor bypass can just be linked as URLs with warnings. Hex or Tirum has no right to censor anything here.

[Aikanár]

His choice. Go for it then.