Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

  1. #41
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Shuu View Post
    Nope. In your CP you can choose which permission group to identify as. If Pike chooses peregrinus instead of Artifex his name will become black and his Artifex badge will appear in text form next to his vault staff badge, exactly like Hallie's artifex. You can't hide a badge without leaving the group.
    Just checked, indeed the title is replaced (as you can see, I did not have the moderation group displayed before because I had the badge, swapping the badges swaps the titles as well).

    Is there a peregrinus group? I don't have that one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squid
    This opens the door for citizen A to one day resign his badge (i.e. leave the citizenship group) behave like an arse since A isn't a citizen A doesn't get referred takes the infraction turns around and says I'm a citizen again and voila a citizen can be arse whenever they want and have no consequences.
    If the interpretation that some people here are making is indeed the intended way, that being, that to rejoin citizenship the member has to meet the original requirements to become a citizen, then an member who is penalized by moderation for an infraction after resigning would not be able to rejoin for 6 months.

    In any case, I don't think that's the constitutional way because of this part: "While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia".



    Quote Originally Posted by Ybbon
    Has a citizen who resigned their citizenship ever been referred back to the Curia for a Curial infraction? I would need to check but off-and I don't recall it though there are not many recent examples of citizens resigning anyway to then cross reference against curial referrals.
    Well, if they were meant to be referred (were they?), that could be due to missing the detail. As Iskar pointed out, that would require moderators to check the citizen list every time an infraction is issued (with the added problem of the list not being updated).

    This would kind of be a strong argument against keeping the judicial status of a citizen after resignation, but resurfaces the issue of that it could be exploited to misbehave (which is, in turn, an argument in favour of resignation being made permanent).


    While not ideal, maybe a solution could be to make resignation permanent and adding a simple "re-admission" voting, to avoid having that the member has to go through the whole patronization process again. That way there would be no doubt that the citizen who resigns is not bound to citizenship behaviour standards and procedures, he or she would not be able to rejoin in a long time if a TOS infraction is committed and the Curia would be able to consider any relevant behaviour issues before voting for the member's re-institution, should it be requested.

  2. #42
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,213

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    It's called Full Members.


    If the interpretation that some people here are making is indeed the intended way, that being, that to rejoin citizenship the member has to meet the original requirements to become a citizen, then an member who is penalized by moderation for an infraction after resigning would not be able to rejoin for 6 months.

    In any case, I don't think that's the constitutional way because of this part: "While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia".
    I feel it is because they do have the right to them and they can request it at any time but it is their fault if they are infracted. As veteran members current and former citizens are supposed to at least be aware of the site rules.
    Last edited by Settra; April 13, 2016 at 07:13 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  3. #43
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Shuu View Post
    It's called Full Members.
    I don't have that either. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Are we talking about the user groups page? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/profi...editusergroups


    I feel it is because they do have the right to them and they can request it at any time but it is their fault if they are infracted. As veteran members current and former citizens are supposed to at least be aware of the site rules.
    Yes, but a warned citizen does not automatically lose citizenship for 6 months. They are subject to a referral to decide the consequence of the infraction.

    Note that I'm not against what you say. I'm just trying to stick to what the Constitution says (and make whatever change is needed if we find ambiguous situations). The status of a citizen who resigns citizenship is still not clear (a) we can't just assume that "the right to citizenship" just means "not requiring an application". b) room is left for behavioural exploits, take into account that an infraction alone does not prevent this, since the behaviour standards of a citizen are, in theory, higher than those of a regular member. The user could be behaving like a jerk without breaching the TOS, and therefore could request immediate re-institution in the Curia due to not having received a single moderation warning; c) it's still constitutionally not clear whether the member who resigns is still prone to referrals or not)



    Consider as well this line: As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime.

    What's the point of that sentence if citizens aren't meant to be referred once they resigned? (considering that there is no other way to suspend/revoke citizenship other than through referrals). Don't think that was meant for awards alone (and actually, the fact that this this whole section was written with both awards and citizenship in mind might be the cause of all this confusion in the first place).

  4. #44
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squid View Post
    Absolutely worst idea ever. This opens the door for citizen A to one day resign his badge (i.e. leave the citizenship group) behave like an arse since A isn't a citizen A doesn't get referred takes the infraction turns around and says I'm a citizen again and voila a citizen can be arse whenever they want and have no consequences.

    EDIT: Displaying the small text below the name is still displaying the honours.
    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    If the interpretation that some people here are making is indeed the intended way, that being, that to rejoin citizenship the member has to meet the original requirements to become a citizen, then an member who is penalized by moderation for an infraction after resigning would not be able to rejoin for 6 months.

    In any case, I don't think that's the constitutional way because of this part: "While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia".

    While not ideal, maybe a solution could be to make resignation permanent and adding a simple "re-admission" voting, to avoid having that the member has to go through the whole patronization process again. That way there would be no doubt that the citizen who resigns is not bound to citizenship behaviour standards and procedures, he or she would not be able to rejoin in a long time if a TOS infraction is committed and the Curia would be able to consider any relevant behaviour issues before voting for the member's re-institution, should it be requested.
    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    Note that I'm not against what you say. I'm just trying to stick to what the Constitution says (and make whatever change is needed if we find ambiguous situations). The status of a citizen who resigns citizenship is still not clear (a) we can't just assume that "the right to citizenship" just means "not requiring an application". b) room is left for behavioural exploits, take into account that an infraction alone does not prevent this, since the behaviour standards of a citizen are, in theory, higher than those of a regular member. The user could be behaving like a jerk without breaching the TOS, and therefore could request immediate re-institution in the Curia due to not having received a single moderation warning; c) it's still constitutionally not clear whether the member who resigns is still prone to referrals or not)

    Consider as well this line: As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime.

    What's the point of that sentence if citizens aren't meant to be referred once they resigned? (considering that there is no other way to suspend/revoke citizenship other than through referrals). Don't think that was meant for awards alone (and actually, the fact that this this whole section was written with both awards and citizenship in mind might be the cause of all this confusion in the first place).
    I think the line emboldened above was an attempt to close a loop hole that Squid is referring to. However, this is ambiguous in practice.
    I started off asking if it is policy of Moderation to make a referral for resigned citizens. The short answer is no. The long answer is it is too complicated and impractical to do so. We are then left with a statement that is essence, unenforceable. In my research I have come across citizens who have been indefinitely banned from the site. These are not even "resigned" citizens. They are still listed in the user groups; therefore, are still citizens of the site.

    But anyway.... It may be unreasonable to expect a "higher standard" by someone who has resigned. They are in effect rejecting their recognition of their contribution and the privileges of therein. They also stating that they do not wish to be considered as a model member of the site. It seems odd to ask moderation to issue an referral for a member who is not distinguished and chose not to be distinguished in any way.

    This being said, I do not think it is unreasonable, if they were to choose to re- associate themselves with citizenship that they still meet the requirements expected of all citizens. There is actually two ways to go about this; [1] the simple thing is if they have received an infraction in the last 6 months, there readmission is suspended until they have met that requirement. [2] The moderation warnings they have received in the last 6 months is referred to the Triumvirate. There admission would be dependent on the decision of the Triumvirate.

    As for the original intent of this thread- resignation is a de facto permanent* revocation of citizenship since, in practice, no referrals would be made by moderation.

    * As long as resigned citizen never request to rejoin, it has permanent as you can get.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  5. #45
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    That all makes sense (and your story about how that came to be kind of clears things up a bit for me), but I insist, this time trying to avoid a wall of text in order to get somewhere: is all of that clearly reflected in the constitution with no room for ambiguity? If not, what changes should be made to clearly print the intent?

    And in any case, I still believe that having being required to meet citizenship prerequisites again for re-institution renders would render this part of the constitution pointless: "While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia." (and I think it's too much to assume that "right to citizenship" only means "not requiring an application"). I'll clarify again, just in case, that I have nothing against what you suggest, my intent is merely to stick to what the Constitution says and make whatever changes are required in search of clarity).


    Maybe just adding a simple line to the Resignation of Awards section could fix all this. Something like: "Members who resign their citizen status won't be bound by the obligations of citizenship and will be required to meet the initial qualifying pre-requisites in case they request a reinstatement".


    As for the original intent of this thread- resignation is a de facto permanent* revocation of citizenship since, in practice, no referrals would be made by moderation.
    Well, the problem was not so much resignation being permanent or not but the member being bound to curial standards and procedures after resignation. So if there is a way to clarify that without requiring a permanent resignation, that should do it (since, as you say, the member would permanently be considered a regular user as far as no request to rejoin is made). Kind of the best of both worlds.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; April 14, 2016 at 12:46 AM.

  6. #46
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    Maybe just adding a simple line to the Resignation of Awards section could fix all this. Something like: "Members who resign their citizen status won't be bound by the obligations of citizenship and will be required to meet the initial qualifying pre-requisites in case they request a reinstatement".
    If I may,...
    "Members who resign their citizen status won't be bound by the obligations of citizenship. Citizens may request reinstatement of citizenship provided they meet the requirements in Article 1."


    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  7. #47
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,213

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    I don't have that either. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Are we talking about the user groups page? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/profi...editusergroups
    Scroll all the way down to the bottom.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  8. #48
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    If I may,...
    "Members who resign their citizen status won't be bound by the obligations of citizenship. Citizens may request reinstatement of citizenship provided they meet the requirements in Article 1."


    No problem at all, I actually appreciate that you guys come up with a better wording, since I just write mine on the go to sketch the idea.

    I intentionally wrote "qualifying requirements" instead of referencing Article 1 to avoid confusion with other requirements (like contributions, etc), but re-reading article 1 I see no conflict whatsoever (contributions are not listed as a requirement). I'd rather leave all as part of the same sentence though. It ties reinstatement to resignation and avoids this "sort of" redundancy: "As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime." "Citizens may request reinstatement of citizenship provided they meet the requirements in Article 1". Or maybe move your second sentence and put it behind that -> "they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime and provided that they meet the original requirements" or something similar.


    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Shuu View Post
    Scroll all the way down to the bottom.
    Click to view content: 
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; April 14, 2016 at 03:09 AM.

  9. #49
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,213

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Maybe moderator overwrites the full member group.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  10. #50
    Squid's Avatar Opifex
    Patrician Artifex Technical Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Frozen waste lands of the north
    Posts
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    If the interpretation that some people here are making is indeed the intended way, that being, that to rejoin citizenship the member has to meet the original requirements to become a citizen, then an member who is penalized by moderation for an infraction after resigning would not be able to rejoin for 6 months.

    In any case, I don't think that's the constitutional way because of this part: "While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia".

    The two sentences taken together make that interpretation incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Constitution
    While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia. As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime.
    The first sentence is clear that resigning or refusing (such as pann with his medal) their honours, which does include citizenship, does not reduce their right to them once they've been granted. Requiring them to meet criteria, even the initial criteria goes against that statement, especially when combined with the following sebtence which clearly states that they can be re-requested as long as the honour has not been revoked. The major fault with the intepretation is that by leaving the citizen group the member stops being a citizen which the first sentence clearly says isn't the case, the member is just refusing to be identified as such but they continue to be a citizen.
    Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan
    Click for my tools and tutorials
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein

  11. #51
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    5,299

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    So even when one is not being identified as a citizen one should still be subject to the respective referral procedures?
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal/Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  12. #52
    Squid's Avatar Opifex
    Patrician Artifex Technical Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Frozen waste lands of the north
    Posts
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I think the line emboldened above was an attempt to close a loop hole that Squid is referring to. However, this is ambiguous in practice.
    I started off asking if it is policy of Moderation to make a referral for resigned citizens. The short answer is no. The long answer is it is too complicated and impractical to do so.
    The short answer is the list of resigned citizens is small and to the best of my knowledge none received an infraction since their resignation, so it is more accurate to say the issue has not yet come up or comes up so infrequently that it isn't an issue.
    Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan
    Click for my tools and tutorials
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein

  13. #53
    Squid's Avatar Opifex
    Patrician Artifex Technical Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Frozen waste lands of the north
    Posts
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    So even when one is not being identified as a citizen one should still be subject to the respective referral procedures?
    Yes, hence the remove or revoked part of the second sentence in my quote from the constitution.
    Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan
    Click for my tools and tutorials
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein

  14. #54
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squid View Post
    The first sentence is clear that resigning or refusing (such as pann with his medal) their honours, which does include citizenship, does not reduce their right to them once they've been granted. Requiring them to meet criteria, even the initial criteria goes against that statement, especially when combined with the following sebtence which clearly states that they can be re-requested as long as the honour has not been revoked. The major fault with the intepretation is that by leaving the citizen group the member stops being a citizen which the first sentence clearly says isn't the case, the member is just refusing to be identified as such but they continue to be a citizen.
    Yes, hence the remove or revoked part of the second sentence in my quote from the constitution.
    Well, those are almost word by word the points I've been making in my last few posts (save for not finding that much clarity about whether the citizen is still considered a citizen or not after resigning, which in any case you mark as a major fault with the interpretation).

    So, given that most people here, even those with an higher than average familiarity with the Constitution, have wildly varying interpretations of the matter (and I'm including myself here), and that the reason why the thread was started is apparently an actual issue, I think we can safely affirm that a lack of clarity seems to be a recurrent issue for most if not all of us, and I believe that grants, at the very least, a minor modification of the article in pursuit of clarity (and not requiring three pages of debate to agree on what the Constitution actually says).



    So, let's review some of the considerations to decide how we would want it to function:

    If we keep referrals going despite resignation:

    • Not ideal for those who resign precisely not to be bound by Curia standards (and prone to cause unnecessary friction through potential referrals).
    • Would force moderation to check the (outdated) citizen list for EVERY infraction (of all users who don't show a citizen usergroup, that is all suspended/resigned citizens and all regular users).
    • Once citizenship is granted, no prerequisites are required to request a reinstatement (unless it has been revoked or suspended through a referral).
    • Would still really benefit from being redacted more clearly in the Constitution.


    If we release those who resign from Curia obligations and procedures:

    • Those who leave are considered to all effects regular users. For those who don't request a reinstatement, it has all the benefits of a permanent resignation without any of the inconveniences
    • Not painful for moderation (plus not making every moderator until today an infractor of the Constitution).
    • Would require more adjustments to the Constitution, but no major procedural changes.
    • Can be prone to behavioural exploits if no further prerequisites are applied to reinstatement requests. (read other considerations below)


    Other considerations which might be useful to either case:

    • Possibility to review the original qualifying prerequisites to request a reinstitution (so, if an infraction is commited during "down" time, the user is not allowed to rejoin for 6 months). This would reduce the aforementioned exploits, but render the "right to request it back at will" policy a bit pointless.
    • *NEW* Possibility to require the approval of a simple ratification vote (decision?) for reinstatement, in order to considerate behaviour particularities or any other issues that might have happened during the downtime. (again, against the "right to request it back at will" policy)




    I think I'm leaving nothing major out. If it helps not to begin the whole thing again from scratch, I believe that the possible line that I discussed above with PikeStance would be a decent starting point/line of thought to figure out a possible solution for all of this.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; April 15, 2016 at 12:17 PM.

  15. #55
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,213

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squid View Post
    Requiring them to meet criteria, even the initial criteria goes against that statement, especially when combined with the following sebtence which clearly states that they can be re-requested as long as the honour has not been revoked.
    It does not because that sentence does not state when or under what terms they are to be granted their status back. It only states they have the right to request them. Requesting something and it happening are two different things. I can and have the right to request right now to become the new moderation hex or to rename the Curia to Elitist Thema Devia, doesn't mean it will also happen immediately (or ever).

    While it is true that conventionally people get the badge back as soon as they ask for it - and it would be the ultimate dick move to withhold it without reason - nothing in there excludes a delay when there is a legitimate reason for it.
    Last edited by Settra; April 14, 2016 at 01:56 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  16. #56
    Squid's Avatar Opifex
    Patrician Artifex Technical Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Frozen waste lands of the north
    Posts
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Shuu View Post
    It does not because that sentence does not state when or under what terms they are to be granted their status back. It only states they have the right to request them. Requesting something and it happening are two different things. I can and have the right to request right now to become the new moderation hex or to rename the Curia to Elitist Thema Devia, doesn't mean it will also happen immediately (or ever).

    While it is true that conventionally people get the badge back as soon as they ask for it - and it would be the ultimate dick move to withhold it without reason - nothing in there excludes a delay when there is a legitimate reason for it.
    It does given the first sentence from my quote specifically says that not displaying it does not reduce their rights to it. Which as I point out in a follow up post means that a "resigned" citizen is still a citizen but one who has chosen not to show it in any way.
    Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan
    Click for my tools and tutorials
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein

  17. #57
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,418
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    If you resign you are no longer a citizen.
    You have the option to reinstate your title.
    That does not mean you are still a citizen.

    After I resigned I received a one point infraction. I never heard from the CdeC (still active at the time).

    The line
    Procedures to revoke or remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them.
    Is a remnant from when it was possible to remain a citizen without displaying any recognition of title. This is not possible now since Squid made the change which ensures all citizens have their title displayed whether they choose to display a badge or not. Such as myself.

    If anything. The line is redundant.

  18. #58
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    After I resigned I received a one point infraction. I never heard from the CdeC (still active at the time).
    which really proves nothing but the impracticality of the procedure. I insist, in order for you to have received a referral, moderators would have had to check your citizenship (since it was not diplaying), and to notice that they would need to check citizenship for ALL non-citizenship infractions. And how many moderators do you think do that?


    Is a remnant from when it was possible to remain a citizen without displaying any recognition of title. This is not possible now since Squid made the change which ensures all citizens have their title displayed whether they choose to display a badge or not. Such as myself.
    So, it's outdated and causing confusion. Why not just change it?

  19. #59
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,418
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    which really proves nothing but the impracticality of the procedure. I insist, in order for you to have received a referral, moderators would have had to check your citizenship (since it was not diplaying), and to notice that they would need to check citizenship for ALL non-citizenship infractions. And how many moderators do you think do that?
    They didn't/wouldn't because I was not a citizen. I was no longer in the citizen group. I did not have posting or voting rights in the curia. The underlining privileges associated with citizenship.

    Come to discuss matters of the republic, complaints, grievances, and nominations. Citizens only!

    Why is that so hard to understand.

    So, it's outdated and causing confusion. Why not just change it?
    Or simply remove the redundancy.

  20. #60
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

    They didn't/wouldn't because I was not a citizen. I was no longer in the citizen group. I did not have posting or voting rights in the curia. The underlining privileges associated with citizenship.
    Well, I fear that if I refer to Squid's posts above as a confirmation that the interpretations are wildly different and therefore the system proven to be confusing would be going in circles, so I'll just say that I personally believe that the proposal I've made removes all ambiguity while keeping the best of both worlds (citizens who resign are exempt from obligations but if they are reinstated behaviour during downtime can be referred).

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •