Easy to read version:
"Changes" version:
Click to view content:
Old Version:
Click to view content:
Old Version 2:
Click to view content:
Easy to read version:
"Changes" version:
Click to view content:
Old Version:
Click to view content:
Old Version 2:
Click to view content:
Last edited by Lifthrasir; May 04, 2016 at 12:57 AM. Reason: updated in order to be sent to vote.
That is the simplest solution. Support.
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.
Would there be any issue with changing "Members who have been granted Citizenship or any award listed in Section V, Article 3, can resign their honours" to "Members who have been granted Citizenship or any other award can resign their honours"?
If there is none, I think that has a better flow and removes unnecessary references to other articles. (I guess the question would be, are there other awards not listed in sec.V art.3 which might cause issues with this?).
Period(s) of prescription?Members who resign their citizen status are not bound by the obligations of citizenship while on leave, but any misbehaviour during a leave can be subject to referral should they be reinstated.
Kingdom of Lindon preview video out
DCI: Last Alliance - WIP Second Age mod | DCI: Tôl Acharn - mighty Dúnedain Counter Invasions |
Additional Mercenary Minimod - more mercs; for TATW and DCI | Family Tree minimods - lore improvements | Remade Event Pictures - enhance cultures trough images |
Favorite TATW compilation: Withwnars Submod Collection
Patron of Mank, Kiliç Alì, FireFreak111, MIKEGOLF & Arachir Galudirithon, Earl of Memory
Hmmm... you've got a point.
Maybe:
I see two options here:
- up to a year: + no dates math required - too much?
- up to six months: + same period as the other condition. - saying "six months" twice can lead to confusion.
* Since any citizen can spot and denounce behaviour prior to a reinstatement, maybe a year is handier to work with. Note thought that it's up to a year after resignation, so it can be a shorter period if the request is made before a year from the resignation has passed.
By the way, as a side note:
Is it clear enough here that "not bound to the obligations of citizenship" implies that they are not subject to disciplinary procedures? Or should I further clarify that? (not bound by the obligations AND procedures of citizenship or something like that)Members who resign their citizen status are not bound by the obligations of citizenship while on leave
Last edited by HigoChumbo; April 22, 2016 at 09:14 PM.
A year sounds fine. I think the reference to Sec V can be left out and obligations are clear enough to include triumvirate procedures.
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.
Ok, updated the op with the replacement of the sec.V art.3 mention and the addition of the prescription time for referring "downtime behaviour".
What is the point of a referral if the 6 months provision prevents the reinstatement in the first place?
Also, why are you going back to a year. What if the member receive multiple infractions but more than 8 months prior to the request? Ok, now they are eligible, but you going to consider each offense even though they have never received a warning from the CT? Why a year now? Seems a bit excessive. This is way too much. Keep it simple. This site needs to be fun and enjoyable, no one once to be handle like this.
"Subsequent to the resignation" is a unnecessary redundant phrase.has no active curial suspensions and has not received a moderation warning subsequent to the resignation within six months prior to the request.
I think Higo means Citizen referrals that can address non-ToS breaking behaviour in the downtime, not staff referrals.
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.
The point, as has been discussed in other threads, is that the 6 months provision only covers moderation infractions, but a former citizen could be behaving like a complete jerk without breaching the TOS during downtime, and the possibility to refer that behaviour ONLY in case of reinstatement prevents that resignation can be used as an exploit to misbehave and then come back with no possible consequences.
What this achieves is that people who want to resign citizenship permanently are not bothered by citizenship-specific disciplinary procedures as far as they are not reinstated, but those who rejoin could see negative behaviour during downtime penalized with curial warnings. It's essentially the currently existing (although not enforced) system with the difference of not forcing referrals on people who have resigned.
I explained the pros&cons in post #5. The penalty of making moderation infractions prevent reinstatement for 6 months is actually quite more severe than the "penalty" of allowing behaviour to be referred for a year, since the former would always be a 6 month penalty while the later could have no consequence at all, and the consequences could be minor (a censure or a 2 week suspension is by far a much milder penalty than a 6 months "exile"). Not to mention that the older the post, the most unlikely it'll become that it's undug back, unless it has been a behaviour so obviously negative that it's easily remembered. So, this would only really mean a hindrance for those members who behave particularly bad, and I don't see how that's a negative effect.Also, why are you going back to a year. What if the member receive multiple infractions but more than 8 months prior to the request? Ok, now they are eligible, but you going to consider each offense even though they have never received a warning from the CT? Why a year now? Seems a bit excessive. This is way too much. Keep it simple.
Put it simpler: moderation infractions ARE penalized. Referrals CAN be started, but not necessarily in all cases, and the potential consequences would be minor except for particularly negative cases. A moderation infraction prevents you from being a citizen for 6 months, the possibility of being referred for posts up to a year old does not necessarily affect your citizenship status.
In any case, I also said I see two options here (6 months or one year), so I'll let you guys discuss which is better (but I insist, consider post #5).
I don't agree, for the reasons explained in the op. If we don't add "subsequent to resignation" clarification, it means that moderation warnings issued during citizenship and that then had no effect whatsoever on the citizen status (or whose curial punishment has already expired) would suddenly become a major penalty only due to a voluntary resignation. I see no reason to penalize voluntary resignation like that, what I want to prevent is that resignation can be exploited to misbehave during downtime and then come back "unharmed", and that's covered by the proposal, since misbehaviour, and not resignation, is what should be penalized."Subsequent to the resignation" is a unnecessary redundant phrase
Summarizing, if a warning had no impact during citizenship, it should not become a major penalty just because of resignation.
Well, I make no differentiation between the two. It's more of an "indirect" consequence than an intentional feature: Staff Referrals would not be started during downtime due to the member not being bound by obligations, but if he or she were reinstated, I see no reason why a Staff member couldn't highlight the past infraction same as any citizen. Citizen being the ones to highlight misbehaviour would probably be more common though, if only due to their usually higher involvement in the Curia.Originally Posted by Iskar
Staff members would in no way be be forced to search for possible misbehaviour instances in case of reinstatement though, it's more like an optional tool for those (staff or not) who want to voluntarily highlight a reason why the citizen should be penalized by the Triumvirate.
Last edited by HigoChumbo; April 23, 2016 at 03:59 PM.
Do non citizens have posting rights in the antechamber?At the conclusion of the process, the Curator informs the referred member of the result, and asks whether the member wants the case to be made public or kept private. Cases made public are moved to the Antechamber, viewable by all members; private cases are kept in the Politia.
If they don't, how do they post an appeal?
Is this a whoopsy?
Opposed.
If a resigned - 'non-citizen' is referred by another citizen do they not have the right to post an appeal?. But can't because they don't have access to the curia. I may have that wrong, but that seems to be the case.
Here, mish has posted in the appeal thread, he must have done that because he was a citizen and had access. If he was referred now, he wouldn't be able to do so.
Doesn't seem fair to me.
Last edited by Halie Satanus; April 23, 2016 at 06:20 PM.
Nope, the way its worded it means re-instated people can be subject to a referral after they have taken up the badge again, not before, so they are perfectly well able to appeal a decision. This has nothing to do with the Antechamber, though. Nobody can post there in fact as it is only for archiving, for example, triumvirate threads where the referred requested public archivation.
/resident bureaucrat over and out
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.
=>
Resigned citizens could not be referred. Only if they are reinstated it would be possible to do so, and once reinstated the citizen has every right to appeal the outcome. In any case, appeals are not posted by the penalized member (I assume you mean in the Questiones Perpetuae), but by the Curator, otherwise suspended members could not appeal a suspension.Members who resign their citizen status are not bound by the obligations of citizenship while on leave, but any misbehaviour during a leave and up to a year prior to a request of reinstatement can be subject to referral if the petitioner is readmitted.
Was that the only reason why you opposed it or is there something else I should take into consideration?
Last edited by HigoChumbo; April 23, 2016 at 06:34 PM.
What if a reinstated citizen (who now has access) decides they can't be bothered and resigned again (no more access). Does the referral still go ahead?
Of course it should. If they decide they cannot be bothered in the midst of a referral it is their choice to reduce their capabilities of posting in the relevant threads. Apart from that, you could still appeal a triumvirate decision by a simple PM to the Curator asking them to open an appeal thread in the QP and forward them your defense reasoning or whatnot.
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.
Yes, just like now. I think that's covered by the "while on leave" comment (if the process starts before resignation the member is not "on leave" and therefore bound by the obligations of the Curia and legitimately judged).
I wanted to keep the paragraph as reduced as simple as possible, and I believe that part is clear enough, but if you guys think that could be an issue, we could always add another part in the end in the lines of "resigning citizenship does not invalidate ongoing disciplinary procedures". Shouldn't be necessary though.
Whatever penalty was decided in that referral would be considered for reinstatement (for instance, it the outcome is a 4 months suspension, the resigned citizen would not be able to request a reinstatement during that period).
Originally Posted by IskarExactly, a resigned citizen could appeal a previous referral just like a suspended citizen does now.Originally Posted by Veteraan
But they can't post in the thread themselves any more.
I think, in that position I would wonder if it was worth the hassle. I think I would decide it wasn't and walk away. Since we know referrals can be made for the most arbitrary of reasons, that would be a shame.
If this was based on staff referrals only, as per the requirements of citizenship, it might fly. But citizen referrals. No, I don't think that's right.