Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

  1. #1
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,816

    Default Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site


    SUPPORTERS: Belthasar Bolton, Parafix, atthias

    Disregard This Proposal
    Preamble
    I'd like to propose a constitutional amendment that discussion pertaining to a user's behaviour on a site other than Total War Center be prohibited from the Curia.
    This would only apply to the Curia, and thus Moderation and Hex would still be allowed to take this behaviour into consideration for ToS violations such as harassment, vote inducement or other issues.

    This proposal would prohibit discussion of a user's behaviour on any other medium of communication; be it Discord, Facebook or Reddit, from being allowed in Citizenship debates, Curial Staff debates or Large Awards debates.

    The reasoning is that of course a user behaves differently on other sites, and this behaviour despite being on the Internet is part of their private life and is not bound by the rules that we follow on Total War Center.
    I see it as a violation of privacy to copy a user's posts from a medium other than Total War Center and use it against them in a different setting. In addition, their behaviour on other mediums has no bearing on their behaviour on Total War Center. You cannot expect a player to abide by the strict Terms of Services of Total War Center in every single facet of their life.


    Section I - Article I - Footnote 3 - Bulletpoint 4
    4. The patron posts the introductory letter and application in a new thread in the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum. Discussion will ensue relating to the proposed user's eligibility for Citizenship. Discussion pertaining to the proposed user's behaviour on sites other than Total War Center is prohibited.



    Section II - Article II - Footnote 4
    4 The debate thread remains open until the conclusion of the vote. Discussion will ensue relating to the proposed user's eligibility for the Curial office. Discussion pertaining to the proposed user's behaviour on sites other than Total War Center is not prohibited.



    Section IV - Article III
    Small Awards are granted for notable contributions to an area of the site:7
    • Man of the Hour Award - Awarded by the Curia for a remarkable deed that benefited the TWC community.8

    Regulations and Procedures to Section IV
    8 Discussion concerning the bestowal of the The Man of the Hour Award is not restricted solely to the user's behaviour on Total War Center. As the Man of the Hour behaviour often occurs when Total War Center's servers are down, the user's behaviour on other mediums during this time may be taken into account.


    Additional Points
    I will now address a few potential concerns.

    - This rule would mean that behaviour that is directly against the best interests of Total War Center, such as setting up your own community or threatening to ddos Total War Center would not be actionable.
    If a user did this behaviour, Hex would still be free to act against it, and would most likely ban the user if it was bad enough thus the matter would be unlikely to come before the Curia. If the member did appear before the Curia seeking a Curial staff position, large award or Citizenship, the prohibition on behaviour or messages not posted publicly on Total War Center would be in place, and discussion about their behaviour would not be tolerated.

    - There are some instances where a caveat similar to that provided for the "Man of the Hour" award is needed, such as when the user TinCow was awarded Opifex for his service towards Total War Center and the Westeros: Total War team against potential legal actions.
    Perhaps someone can come up with a similar caveat that would provide for the possibility of awarding such a user with Opifex, but I'd lean towards them being awarded with Man of the Hour.





    Second Proposal - Preamble
    I'd like to propose a constitutional amendment that discussion pertaining to a user's behaviour on a site other than Total War Center cannot be used against them if it has no bearing or effect on Total War Center in any manner.
    Pertinent information that would be allowed would be discussion of users, proposals, threads or institutions but not their opinion on politics for example.
    Currently if a user goes on a tirade on a private Discord about something completely unrelated to Total War Center, it could be used against them as an example of "behaviour unbecoming of a Citizen".

    I do not think this is fair because of course a user behaves differently on other sites and I believe that this behaviour, despite being on the Internet, is part of their private life and is not bound by the rules that we follow on Total War Center.
    I see it as a violation of privacy to copy a user's posts from a medium other than Total War Center and use it against them in a different setting. In addition, their behaviour on other mediums has no bearing on their behaviour on Total War Center. You cannot expect a player to abide by the strict Terms of Services of Total War Center in every single facet of their life.


    Section I - Article I - Footnote 3 - Bulletpoint 4
    4. The patron posts the introductory letter and application in a new thread in the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum. Discussion will ensue relating to the proposed user's eligibility for Citizenship. Only discussion or behaviour directly related or referring to Total War Center subject matters (including but not limited to users, proposals, threads or institutions) is allowed when debating a Curial proposal. Discussion not pertaining to the aforementioned is prohibited.


    Section II - Article II - Footnote 4
    4 The debate thread remains open until the conclusion of the vote. Discussion will ensue relating to the proposed user's eligibility for the Curial office. Only discussion or behaviour directly related or referring to Total War Center subject matters (including but not limited to users, proposals, threads or institutions) is allowed when debating a Curial proposal. Discussion not pertaining to the aforementioned is prohibited.

    Last edited by Commissar Caligula_; February 19, 2018 at 05:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,520
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Talking about matters pertaining directly to TWC.

    Evidence of off site activity has been used in many cases, inc; accusations of attempting to delete the site, bullying and the Tony83 thing. We also had the case of a staff member breaching SND, which personally saddened me, yet the evidence was undeniable.

    In the most recent case they were using the identities they have on TWC on a public YT discord, If you use your identity/fame on TWC to your advantage on another site (to gain popularity/followers) you loose your right to claim it is private when discussing events or people on TWC.

    That should be especially true of Citizens who are held to a higher standard, if they can't keep to that standard off site while talking about events and/or people on TWC then their 'privacy' is defaulted.

    This would put us in a position where the curia could be giving awards to people where there was evidence which proved them unfitting. You would create an atmosphere where the citizenship felt they were being mugged off. Especially since this sort of information always finds a way of coming out.

    Opposed.

  3. #3
    Tango12345's Avatar Never mind the manoeuvres...
    Moderation Overseer Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    20,180

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    What Halie said. I do not believe a blanket 'no discussion' rule like this would be a net benefit to the Curia.

    I would also strongly advise not to list anyone as actual or potential supports unless they say so in the thread, for the avoidance of doubt. Their positions/awards on the site are also not relevant here.

    Opposed.
    Last edited by Tango12345; February 14, 2018 at 03:16 AM.

  4. #4
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,816

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    Evidence of off site activity has been used in many cases, inc; accusations of attempting to delete the site, bullying and the Tony83 thing. We also had the case of a staff member breaching SND, which personally saddened me, yet the evidence was undeniable.
    Hex would be allowed to view evidence regarding accusations such as these to act according to the ToS, and if need be the Triumvirate as well if a Citizen is Referred to them but I don't believe that the general body of Citizens should be (especically as non-Citizens can view applications and would be able to see these accusations).

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    In the most recent case they were using the identities they have on TWC on a public YT discord, If you use your identity/fame on TWC to your advantage on another site (to gain popularity/followers) you loose your right to claim it is private when discussing events or people on TWC.
    And if other people in that particular Discord were to have their conversations revealed? They don't "profit" from using their identity/fame, especially if they have been using their particular username since before joining TWC for example.

    Also, discussions from outside TWC mean you have to rely on whoever is posting the information to post the backstory so it can actually be understood. If they simply post the damning evidence and not other lines which provide context then the player might suffer an injustice. If we only rely on information from Total War Center there is a much higher likelihood that Hex can ensure it is all kosher and hasn't been edited or parts left out. By allowing non-TWC "evidence" it just turns into "he said this, he said that" and derails any conversations since the only people able to shed light on the matter would be partisan and biased.

    This isn't just about the SoulGamesInc-Parafix-Jadli thing, I wouldn't want stuff I say, or what other people say, on other sites being permitted as evidence here in any form since of course people act differently in different communities.
    Last edited by Commissar Caligula_; February 14, 2018 at 03:47 AM.




  5. #5
    Lifthrasir's Avatar A Clockwork Orange
    Patrician Artifex Content Staff Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    13,109
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Caligula's proposal is genuine in its principle. However, Halie made a point as well. I'd tend to oppose but I abstain for now, waiting for more inputs.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Results published

  6. #6
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,520
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula View Post
    And if other people in that particular Discord were to have their conversations revealed? They don't "profit" from using their identity/fame, especially if they have been using their particular username since before joining TWC for example.
    We are only interested in the relevant part of the conversation. Parafix was talking about an Opifex nomination using the name Parafix in a discussion with Soulgamer (using the name Soul). Define 'profit.'

    Also, discussions from outside TWC mean you have to rely on whoever is posting the information to post the backstory so it can actually be understood. If they simply post the damning evidence and not other lines which provide context then the player might suffer an injustice. If we only rely on information from Total War Center there is a much higher likelihood that Hex can ensure it is all kosher and hasn't been edited or parts left out. By allowing non-TWC "evidence" it just turns into "he said this, he said that" and derails any conversations since the only people able to shed light on the matter would be partisan and biased.
    It would be a rare case where anything was decided on the basis of off site information without intense scrutiny. This would remove the curia's ability to scrutinise. What you'll likely do is have info passed via PM's without giving the 'offender' the opportunity to refute an allegation.

    This isn't just about the SoulGamesInc-Parafix-Jadli thing, I wouldn't want stuff I say, or what other people say, on other sites being permitted as evidence here in any form since of course people act differently in different communities.
    Then why did you list them as supporters without them stating such in the thread.

  7. #7
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,816

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    We are only interested in the relevant part of the conversation. Parafix was talking about an Opifex nomination using the name Parafix in a discussion with Soulgamer (using the name Soul). Define 'profit.'
    I assumed you meant Parafix and SoulGamesInc were profitting by linking their work as Gaming Staff on TWC to their Youtube channels, and bringing those two communities of fans together in 1 Discord.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    Then why did you list them as supporters without them stating such in the thread.
    I asked a number of people beforehand whether they would be interested in offering their support to the proposal (I didn't coerce their vote). The three listed were the ones who 100% supported it. I did the same thing with Dresden's Opifex application and I'm found a number of large awards/amendment proposals did a similar thing in the past. Its so I can get an idea of potential concerns, and either amend the proposal or address them in a seperate box so the proposal is stronger from the get-go. I didn't try and convince them of my point of view or argue besides the preamble.
    I've got a Constitutional Amendment I'm planning on posting but first I want to gather a few supporters for it that I'll list at the top so it'll have a bit more weight behind it.
    Would you support the general idea contained in the preamble? You don't necessarily have to support the exact wording of my proposed legalese.

    Also, I've edited my post before this one with a bit of extra info for you Halie.
    Last edited by Commissar Caligula_; February 14, 2018 at 03:58 AM.




  8. #8
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,520
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula View Post
    I assumed you meant Parafix and SoulGamesInc were profitting by linking their work as Gaming Staff on TWC to their Youtube channels, and bringing those two communities of fans together in 1 Discord.
    You assumed wrong.

    I asked a number of people beforehand whether they would be interested in offering their support to the proposal (I didn't coerce their vote). The three listed were the ones who 100% supported it.
    There's nothing wrong with discussing a proposal before posting it. However, given the nature of the discussion and where this has come from, it was not prudent to list them as supporters without them posting here themselves..

    I'll also reiterate Tango's comment re: listing titles/positions. I recall that happened once before, it's not a good idea.

  9. #9
    Veteraan's Avatar TATW Local Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tilburg, Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,995

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Although I think we should be very hesitant in bringing off site personal references to TWC discussions, I agree with Halie and Tango that we shouldn't just prohibit it. There are cases that warrant it IMO. Halie listed a few good examples. I would add to that that when a (disgruntled) TWC Citizen is bashing TWC on others sites, the Curia should be able to look into it. Of course I'm not advocating that we should prosecute every remark made that is a bit critical about TWC, far from it in fact. I think when dealing with off site material it will be a 'we know it when when we see it' thing.

    Citizenised by Shankbot - Patron of b0Gia - House de Bodemloze

  10. #10
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    6,455

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    When someone directy talks about TWC (curia) matters on non-TWC site, it should be still relevant, at least in some way. And as Halie pointed out, those sorts of information tend to find their way out anyway. You can easily say things you dont want to get out in personal messages, doesnt matter much if you chat about it on TWC, steam, discord, etc. But by talking about such matters publicly on non-TWC sites, where many people can see it, you should still be responsible at least a bit for it.

    Opposed
    Last edited by Jadli; February 14, 2018 at 04:49 AM.

  11. #11
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,816

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    At the very least does anyone agree that we should codify the limits as to what is allowed? Something along the lines of

    Only discussion or behaviour directly related or referring to Total War Center subject matters (including but not limited to users, proposals, threads or institutions) is allowed when debating a Curial proposal. Discussion not pertaining to the aforementioned is prohibited.

    Its unlikely, but currently it sounds as if a player's behaviour on another site that isn't at all related to TWC could be brought up.
    For example if a user goes on a tirade on a private Discord about something non-TWC related, it could be used as an example of "behaviour unbecoming of a Citizen".




  12. #12
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,520
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Completely unnecessary... Not trying to sound harsh, I recognise your intent is honourable. But that would be a total waste of constitutional space.

  13. #13
    Frunk's Avatar Form Follows Function
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    6,485

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Via PM I pointed Caligula to the case of TinCow, who was granted an Opifex after he provided TWC/GeD/Westeros TW with free legal aid when the latter received cease and desist orders over copyright. Essentially all of this action by TinCow took place off-site, and, by the current wording of this, he would be ineligible for Opifex (though not Man of the Hour, a much more modest trinket).

    This is just an example of where off-site actions are highly relevant to TWC; in a good light, in this case.

    I think the status quo is acceptable, if possibly not ideal. The Curator and/or Hex are able to exercise discretion on the matter of what is and what is not acceptable.

    Here are the threads if anyone would like to learn more about TinCow:

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...and-Fans-alike
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Cow-for-Opifex

    EDIT: Shame on me for skimming the OP; Caligula already mentioned this.
    Last edited by Frunk; February 14, 2018 at 07:47 AM.
    FrunkSpace | Mod Announcements | Colonies & Empires

    Under the patronage of Iskar of the House of Siblesz. I am the proud patron of:

    atthias | PaulH | Athos187

  14. #14

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    I see the concerns about a complete ban of off-site evidence and I believe Caligula's revised amendment to be the best solution. I don't believe that members should be allowed to pull in evidence of discussions not pertaining to TWC. I concede that if members are discussing TWC off-site then their discussions should be made available as evidence should a need ever arise.

    Support.

  15. #15
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,520
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Nvm.. phone glitch...

  16. #16

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    I'm opposed to this, as the other way to read it is giving safe harbor to any discussions, no matter how damning, in off site activity. We once had a member who photoshopped pornographic images, passed them off as being personal photos of himself, and then solicited other members to post similarly scandalous images of themselves but this time, real. This went on for years and when he was finally exposed, it was due in part to some off site evidence. Then he faked his own death. This is of course a matter far more serious than award proposals, but any diminution in the veracity of off site evidence for scandalous behavior whether in citizen applications or any other function here is a step in the wrong direction.

  17. #17
    StealthFox's Avatar Consensus Achieved
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    8,167

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    Opposed for all the reasons already said.

  18. #18
    Lord William's Avatar Duke of Nottingham
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    10,741

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    I don't believe you should be protected because your illicit activities are offsite. All evidence should be at the very least discussable and taken into consideration in accordance to its merits.

    Opposed

    Section Editor ES
    Librarian Local Moderator Citizen CdeC
    Under the patronage of Jom Patron of Riverknight & Stildawn

  19. #19
    Mega Tortas de Bodemloze's Avatar Divide & Conquer Ver 3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    11,527

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    If you cannot stand behind what you say.... then do not speak. If your words are taken out of context, then the weight of the evidence will fall in your favor and carry the day.


    Opposed

  20. #20
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,385

    Default Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment - No Discussion About Behaviour Off-Site

    I'm 50-50. On the one hand I can understand where he is coming from. The TWC ToS does indeed stop at TWC. On the other hand cases of people doing things off-site with the intention of causing harm to the site are not unheard of and we do need o talk about that.

    My advice is that you should really refine this based on what the others have said.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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