[2018-XXIII] [Citizen Referral] Pikestance - Appeal

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

Citizens of the Curia, PikeStance has elected to appeal his referral. A vote will now take place on whether to uphold, overturn or change the ruling of the further action thread. The referral thread and further action thread have both now been made public. Please discuss the case in this thread.

The relevant section of the Constitution (III:I#9) regarding appeals thus follows:

The Curator posts the original private Referral, and the further action thread in the Questiones Perpetuae, and opens a new poll thread with the options to keep, overturn or change the ruling, or abstain. The poll lasts for four days. If the Citizenry votes to change the punishment, the Curator opens a second poll for four days. The options are all punishments excluding the original punishment, and abstention. A simple majority of non-abstaining votes is required for the first vote. In the case of a vote to either increase or decrease punishment, in the second vote, the option with the highest number of votes is the punishment given. Where two options have the same number of votes, the punishment given is determined by the Multiple Transferable Vote System.

Due to a technical oversight, I currently do not have the permissions to open the poll, but it will be added by either myself or a member of Hex as soon as possible.

Also I must stress that this is a vote on the Triumvirate's decision of further action against PikeStance, not whether or not this decision should cost him the office of Curator. The latter is a Constitutional matter - specifically the Triumvirate's specific interpretation of section I:II (and I:II#12) - which should be discussed separately. It is unfortunate - and I do apologise in advance - that both discussions happened in the referral threads themselves. I had wished - and do still somewhat believe - that they should have been kept separate, but in the interests of expediency, I also believe it is important that the Curia get the full details of the case, are privy to our discussions on how best to interpret the Constitution, and understand the constitutional issues posed by the referral of a Curial Officer.

As per recent precedent, neither the Censors nor the referrer are allowed to vote anything other than 'Abstain', although both myself and atthias will be on hand to answer any questions or expand upon the reasons for reaching our decision.

[Commissar Caligula_]

You're a local mod in this forum, are you sure you don't have the permissions to make a poll?
Check whether in the top left right corner under Thread Tools theres an "Add a Poll to this Thread" option.

Also I've gotta say I reckon the censure is pretty harsh. His words were mild compared to a lot of the that is said in the Curia and we already went a few months with Brewster being forced to be Curator so I don't see much luck finding a new Curator.

[Halie Satanus]

Pike is himself a vehement advocate of higher standards being the purview of higher awards. I assume he would hold the position of curator higher still. Yet here we are. In his own words his attitude towards this is ‘facetious.’

For a citizen censure would be reasonable, for a citizen holding the curatorship, this is lenient.

[Jadli]

It is unfortunate to see that GS/HS matters lead to yet another referral...

Based on the text I assume I am the one who is supposed be the most "offended" by his post(s). I did not feel that way, neither I think the other hotseaters were. His opposition, while it could have been more polite, in the end only helped the proposal in my opinion, as it forced me and the others to further explain the issue, which likely helped other people to see the point and reasons behind it. There should always be a plurality of opinions in the curia to fully discuss everything, and he served well in that way in the proposal where this referral comes from. Yes, he should have been more polite. Yes, he is very stubborn and slow to change his opinions (but by the end of the proposal he changed most of them). Yes, he should likely consider more words of those who have more relevant experience and knowledge about the matter than him, before making his own opinions/assumptions that he then fiercely defends. However, I can easily see why some people can have such a sceptical/cynical opinion about the Gaming Staff/hex running the area, considering all that happened there. And they are likely right to be, since the situation was obviously mismanaged. But things are better now...

Im undecided for now, I will first wait for other people's thoughts before voting. Slightly inclined to go for overture...

[PikeStance]

I just wanted to clarify my intent in my response in question.
This was the line in which I was called on by the Triumvirate.

Oh the Great Gaming Staff has spoken, get in line.. ALL Citizens have earned their badge and have earned their right to voice their opinion about the site. You do not have the right to pick or choose who is relevant or not. Get over yourself!

It is unfortunte that my comments were not taken with the context of the discussion and specifically the comment posted below.

And I would like to point out that literally every hotseat Gaming Staffer (joerock, Dragon, Mergor, Athelstan and Berry) as well as every active hotseat citizen (me, joerock, Dragon and Hannibal) are supporting this, and they all keep saying pretty much the same as Im saying. So if 100% agreement amongst all the relevant people (for probably the first time in hotseating history) is not enough to convince some other people not participating in hotseating to at least slightly change their opinion, I dont know what is.

This statement here was the basis of my facetious response, ALL Citizens have earned their badge and have earned their right to voice their opinion about the site. However, this line was not the problem. it was this one, Oh the Great Gaming Staff has spoken, get in line.
It is a clearly facetious statement which is why I followed it with the more straightforward response. I concluded with, Get over yourself!
This statement was also taken out of context and the meaning was misinterpreted.It is not an offensive command, but descriptive of the attitude exhibited.

As it was noted by Jadli, I was genuinely confused by the proposal and the way Gaming Staff operated and I was trying to ascertain the information to make an informed decision. Despite not being part of the gaming Staff I have always supported their efforts. I even offered to patronize two gaming Staff members (Kjestan (sic) but were politely turned down. Moreover, I proposed last year and again this year a badge. I also have a tremendous respect for Jadli and the Gaming staff as I have been communicating with a number of them on the Discord channel. (Well sometimes, I just "listen.").

My intent was to inject facetiousness to an otherwise heated discussion. As Halie noted, I do try to hold myself to a higher standard and my time on TWC has earned zero moderation warnings.

Thank you for your time and I hope the Curia will see my comments for which it was intended and reverse the decision.




[On a side note, after the decision was concluded, I was allowed in the Politia and I wanted to commend the Admin, General Brewster and both Censors for their professionalism and careful deliberation on a difficult situation.]

[Veteraan]

Also I've gotta say I reckon the censure is pretty harsh. His words were mild compared to a lot of the that is said in the Curia and we already went a few months with Brewster being forced to be Curator so I don't see much luck finding a new Curator.

There have been worse comments that went unopposed for sure. However, that is in itself no reason to dismiss this. Also you are probably right about the difficulty we had and might will have to find a new Curator if it comes to that, but that cannot be taken in account IMO. Should somebody be treated differently because it seems we need them?

My intent was to inject facetiousness to an otherwise heated discussion. As Halie noted, I do try to hold myself to a higher standard and my time on TWC has earned zero moderation warnings.

It's convenient to claim that some remarks are to be interpreted as facetious after they have come under scrutiny. Perhaps they were, perhaps not. It's not exactly the first time I see this claim after a post has caused some commotion. It is clear the Censors didn't get the facetiousness for one. I did not either. However, I would not have censured you for this part alone.

There is this though:

** 'get over yourself' is a borderline offensive instruction and susceptible to being deleted (without further action).

link HERE

A citizen is to uphold higher standards, especially a Curial officer I would say. Of course a "higher standard" is something that can hardly be coded, but is rather a case of individual interpretation. I have on a few occasions voted for "no further action" on cases of citizens that were referred for violating the ToS. The opposite can also happen and I think it has now. You try to hold yourself to a higher standard, by your own account, which is to be applauded. "Get over yourself" just qualifies for failing in that account in my view. Not a very serious offence at all, but still deserving of the (very mild) sanction it received, a Censure.

[Gaius Baltar]

I was bracing myself for an epic meltdown by the newly elected Curator. I know there has been some hint of acrimonious interactions in the recent past, and somewhat aggravated by his own personal style which has been called "abrasive". One would expect some colorful language or intense personal references.

Instead we have two comments that may involve some vague references to some maligned group that is being presented as a personal attack/reference. I will continue to research the material to further clarify my position.

[Aikanár]

Sad affair, especially with regards to a possible vacancy of the c
Curator position.

However, regarding the case and the appellants behavior I concur with HS.

As of now, I'm for upholding the Triumvirates decision.

[General Brewster]

Uphold.

As I said earlier in different threads, the curator should be undisputed and in this case he is not.

[Elfdude]

I'm of mixed feelings with regards to this referral. The referral process itself I feel is highly prone to fits of anger against any member of the curia and can be used as a tool of political weaponry against people for no other reason than to score a point on them. Alas, it was Pike himself which defended this status and ironically has suffered something which seems to be to be of rather little note. Yet as he pushed before, it is merely a warning... a warning which of course carries with it additional sanctions as the imminent loss of his position. The crux of the problem seems to me that Pike refers to others consistently with a dismissive and borderline insulting way. He of course knows how to skirt the rules, anyone with two braincells can, but what's particularly concerning about the underlying traits alluded to by this referral is that they're consistent throughout Pike's posting.

He's prone to making sweeping generalizations and alluding to consensus where there is none. He's prone to attacking concepts and others in what can only be described as stirring the pot. Worse he seems to either genuinely (as he's stated many times) not know what he's doing wrong, or is feigning ignorance.

Here's an example of a good post by him which can be respected:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15667993

Here's an example in the same thread where he becomes hostile and derails discussion:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15668905

He immediately drops the charade of reasoned opposition and goes straight for the implications. His assertion is that my rational (and others) was used for reason of opposition (false equivilency as the same rational may be valid in one case and invalid in another due to characteristics of the candidates). He asserts that this is just likability or ideological basis. He asserts it's online charisma that allows people to get away with things.

The particularly problematic line I have is next:

Initially, I would have no problem supporting this applicant. However, in light of the opposition towards the other applicant, I find difficult to support an applicant who's postings are no better. Ultimately, we have to decide if this style posting is suitable for citizenship or not. We cannot base it off likability or ideological sameness.

Essentially, he's constructed a strawman and eviscerated it in an attempt to press the perspective that support of this citizen is a farce. Most importantly this is as the CURATOR. While I'm not suggesting a curator should be entirely absent of opinion, his initial posts were more than enough to indicate a reasoned approach. He moves immediately towards politicization and attacks to support his position. Of course, perhaps I'm too close to it and it chafes for that reason:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15664853

Here he is defending his candidate Mad orc, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15664853

Notice how he insults the entirety of the citizenry by claiming that those who have done less have earned citizenship. This is typical of pike, when things don't go your way, lower the standard of the body, don't raise the quality of your candidate or opinion. When things don't go your way, raise the standard of the body, don't fight the points of the opposition. This stubborness and trait is what has led him to this referral in the first place and it's one that he seems to have no concept of whatsoever:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15672373

The idea that Iskar of all people is extremely unpleasant towards anyone... is so terribly misinformed. Even when iskar opposes you he does so in a way that is like dumping water on a hot flame, you can't really get mad all you can say is fine, and moreso he often does so in a way where it's clear he's being as gentle as possible while still being firm.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15672591

Then his response? He has no issues talking to people, EVERYONES ISSUES ARE THEIR OWN.

At some point when you walk like a horse, talk like a horse and people tell you that you are a horse, you must start to wonder about it. It's this self reflection and introspection that allows us to grow and become better people but even when people take great pains to try and get through to pike it fails repeatedly. While I'm quite convinced there's something about what Pike is doing that extends from some sort of ingrained character trait I haven't the faintest clue what it is as in the same thread he can be delightful and then immediately and without warning turn on everyone present. He seems to take any debate of his opinions personally and strikes out at those who would be so foolish as to do so and when he's cornered he feigns ignorance and moves on as though nothing ever happened.

At the same moment I struggle with these referral processes entirely and am torn on the use of a referral for something which genuinely was a drop in the bucket of the piss pike regularly dumps on the forums. Can I use preponderance and character evidence to rule here?

As of now I'm undecided, I'll lurk and read commentary until I feel stronger one way or the other.

[Tango12345]

Poll added.

[Love Mountain]

Just spent 10-15 minutes reading the referral thread, and I'm still not really understanding the context. I'll come back and make up my mind, but just from the surface... Pike's words are relatively mild and I don't really see what the big deal is. I also don't really think elfdude's remarks are relevant to this particular referral, no? The referral is about Pike's remarks about the GS, not his comments in the Citizen Application. I'm on the fence of opposing, but I'm more than open to being convinced in either direction.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Just spent 10-15 minutes reading the referral thread, and I'm still not really understanding the context. I'll come back and make up my mind, but just from the surface... Pike's words are relatively mild and I don't really see what the big deal is. I also don't really think elfdude's remarks are relevant to this particular referral, no? The referral is about Pike's remarks about the GS, not his comments in the Citizen Application. I'm on the fence of opposing, but I'm more than open to being convinced in either direction.

I'm on the same boat. Admittedly I'm not very familiar with Curial matters. But except a post deletion or a general warning I don't see any need for more harsh measures. I know Pike is more direct than he should sometimes, but I don't think he had-has malicious intent.
Further study of this will be required ofc, since I have only took a glimpse.

[Iskar]

This is certainly one of the harder cases to form a reliable opinion on.

For once, the comments in question are not nice, although the standard of Curial debate has already been below that, consistently, some time ago. Now previous slips of other people never exculpate anyone, but in the case of an unwritten standard like citizen behaviour we can only hold people to a standard they can at least approximately estimate by the average of what goes unreported and unreferred over time.
As such I can well understand Hitai's and atthias' reasoning in the referral thread given the abrasive general tone and the semi-offensive order to get over oneself, but as a single incident this would be too immaterial for me to uphold.

Alas, it is not a single incident. Do we judge more than the issue brought up by the referral? I think not. Do we judge the issue brought up bar of any circumstance and context? Neither so.
The problem here, as elfdude has already sufficiently elaborated on, is a pattern of abrasive and perhaps inadvertently insulting communication coupled with standard responses of deflection (feigning ignorance, claiming misunderstanding, crying personal foul) when such instances of inadvertent insults are being criticised.
I don't know whether these borderline insulting remarks in debates are intentional or just born from not thinking enough about the implications of what you say. In any case they make up a rather disadvantageous scenery for the particular issue at hand, as it fits into that pattern.
Now, for any of these cases I would prefer a simple open word pointing to the problematic nature of the abrasive comment, as I have frequently stated that I dislike the referral system and would rather resolve such quarrels by discourse. Unfortunately the second element, the deflection of any criticism, renders this endeavour futile. As such, a censure may well be the only way to get the point across.

So, Pike, since you're not absent here, no need to talk about you in third person: I would implore you to think more carefully about the implications of what you write in the future, as you yourself keep pointing out this is supposed to be an enjoyable leisure time activity, and seeing oneself subjected to sweeping generalisations of negative assumptions just because one disagrees with you is, whether you intended it to come across like that or not, not very pleasant for everyone else.

[PikeStance]

There have been worse comments that went unopposed for sure. However, that is in itself no reason to dismiss this. Also you are probably right about the difficulty we had and might will have to find a new Curator if it comes to that, but that cannot be taken in account IMO. Should somebody be treated differently because it seems we need them?

It's convenient to claim that some remarks are to be interpreted as facetious after they have come under scrutiny. Perhaps they were, perhaps not. It's not exactly the first time I see this claim after a post has caused some commotion. It is clear the Censors didn't get the facetiousness for one. I did not either. However, I would not have censured you for this part alone.

There is this though:
link HERE

A citizen is to uphold higher standards, especially a Curial officer I would say. Of course a "higher standard" is something that can hardly be coded, but is rather a case of individual interpretation. I have on a few occasions voted for "no further action" on cases of citizens that were referred for violating the ToS. The opposite can also happen and I think it has now. You try to hold yourself to a higher standard, by your own account, which is to be applauded. "Get over yourself" just qualifies for failing in that account in my view. Not a very serious offence at all, but still deserving of the (very mild) sanction it received, a Censure.

Veteraan,
Yes, I do try to hold myself to a higher standard. On the forum, this 'higher standard" is not what the Curia wants. I actually ran on a "platform" of a higher standard here, and receive the lowest point total I received in an election.
If you have doubt on the facetious nature of my standard (this isn't the first time you have had trouble discerning it) and by an Admin's own admittance such statements would not warrant a warning, then why would you vote to uphold a Censure? I personally, do nt think it is just to hold me to a "higher Standard" to everyone else simply because I stated I would like to hold myself to it.

snip.....As of now I'm undecided, I'll lurk and read commentary until I feel stronger one way or the other.

Elfdude,
I know I voted to uphold your referral and I know you were upset by that. I would like to assure you I do not mean any offense nor was it personal. I apologize if you took my statements personal. I can still recall when you were proposed for the Phalera. I can recall wholeheartedly supporting it as well. Your posts at the time were some of the enjoyable posts I have read. I still have tremendous respect for even when you were appealing. Perhaps that is why I came across so strongly.

This is certainly one of the harder cases to form a reliable opinion on.

For once, the comments in question are not nice, although the standard of Curial debate has already been below that, consistently, some time ago. Now previous slips of other people never exculpate anyone, but in the case of an unwritten standard like citizen behaviour we can only hold people to a standard they can at least approximately estimate by the average of what goes unreported and unreferred over time.
As such I can well understand Hitai's and atthias' reasoning in the referral thread given the abrasive general tone and the semi-offensive order to get over oneself, but as a single incident this would be too immaterial for me to uphold.

Alas, it is not a single incident. Do we judge more than the issue brought up by the referral? I think not. Do we judge the issue brought up bar of any circumstance and context? Neither so.
The problem here, as elfdude has already sufficiently elaborated on, is a pattern of abrasive and perhaps inadvertently insulting communication coupled with standard responses of deflection (feigning ignorance, claiming misunderstanding, crying personal foul) when such instances of inadvertent insults are being criticised.
I don't know whether these borderline insulting remarks in debates are intentional or just born from not thinking enough about the implications of what you say. In any case they make up a rather disadvantageous scenery for the particular issue at hand, as it fits into that pattern.
Now, for any of these cases I would prefer a simple open word pointing to the problematic nature of the abrasive comment, as I have frequently stated that I dislike the referral system and would rather resolve such quarrels by discourse. Unfortunately the second element, the deflection of any criticism, renders this endeavour futile. As such, a censure may well be the only way to get the point across.

I like to say, I have never fake ignorance. ironically, it was genuine ignorance that led to the exchange that led to the referral. It wasn't fake at all. I always try to seek an understanding and to acquire knowledge. Message boards are notorious for misunderstandings. The phrase in question would not be questioned at all if spoken. The intent would be more than obvious. I have always try to resolve misunderstandings. As for crying foul, sure I share my feelings. I see nothing wrong with telling anyone that something they said or did was hurtful. It is often mistaken for a counter attack. it isn't. It's, hey you hurt me, then you mean to?

Yes, I do talk directly. I am not a creative writer. What I wrote was supposed to drive home a point about all citizens having a right to speak on all matter concerning the site. It was not an attack on anyone.

So, Pike, since you're not absent here, no need to talk about you in third person: I would implore you to think more carefully about the implications of what you write in the future, as you yourself keep pointing out this is supposed to be an enjoyable leisure time activity, and seeing oneself subjected to sweeping generalisations of negative assumptions just because one disagrees with you is, whether you intended it to come across like that or not, not very pleasant for everyone else.

Yes, I am always looking at how I communicate my ideas. When someone takes it the wrong way, I often clarify, but as you know, they argue with the clarification. When this happens, it is not enjoyable for anyone. having a difference of opinion is not accuse to make life unpleasant.

[Iskar]

Veteraan,
Yes, I do try to hold myself to a higher standard. On the forum, this 'higher standard" is not what the Curia wants. I actually ran on a "platform" of a higher standard here, and receive the lowest point total I received in an election.
If you have doubt on the facetious nature of my standard (this isn't the first time you have had trouble discerning it) and by an Admin's own admittance such statements would not warrant a warning, then why would you vote to uphold a Censure? I personally, do nt think it is just to hold me to a "higher Standard" to everyone else simply because I stated I would like to hold myself to it.



Elfdude,
I know I voted to uphold your referral and I know you were upset by that. I would like to assure you I do not mean any offense nor was it personal. I apologize if you took my statements personal. I can still recall when you were proposed for the Phalera. I can recall wholeheartedly supporting it as well. Your posts at the time were some of the enjoyable posts I have read. I still have tremendous respect for even when you were appealing. Perhaps that is why I came across so strongly.



I like to say, I have never fake ignorance. ironically, it was genuine ignorance that led to the exchange that led to the referral. It wasn't fake at all. I always try to seek an understanding and to acquire knowledge. Message boards are notorious for misunderstandings. The phrase in question would not be questioned at all if spoken. The intent would be more than obvious. I have always try to resolve misunderstandings. As for crying foul, sure I share my feelings. I see nothing wrong with telling anyone that something they said or did was hurtful. It is often mistaken for a counter attack. it isn't. It's, hey you hurt me, then you mean to?

Yes, I do talk directly. I am not a creative writer. What I wrote was supposed to drive home a point about all citizens having a right to speak on all matter concerning the site. It was not an attack on anyone.



Yes, I am always looking at how I communicate my ideas. When someone takes it the wrong way, I often clarify, but as you know, they argue with the clarification. When this happens, it is not enjoyable for anyone. having a difference of opinion is not accuse to make life unpleasant.

So let me sum up
1) It is Veteraan that doesn't get your facetiousness.
2) You insinuate elfuded may be acting on personal revenge and instead of addressing his points of criticism you're bringing in an emotional bribe by his, here completely unrelated, Phalera award.
3) I am being told that you clarify all misunderstandings and it's the others trying to argue that clarification that is the problem.

In short, you always did everything right and it's the other's fault for not getting it or being emotionally biased against you. Great. I would have hoped for at least a shred of reflection on how you come across instead of more of the same autohagiography. Given your comment in the Townhall I have my doubts that even a Censure would get the message across now, but since you refuse to even consider that your comments might be thoughtlessly offending other people I see no other option but to uphold.

[PikeStance]

So let me sum up
1) It is Veteraan that doesn't get your facetiousness.
2) You insinuate elfuded may be acting on personal revenge and instead of addressing his points of criticism you're bringing in an emotional bribe by his, here completely unrelated, Phalera award.

I was responding to their concerns as I best understood them.

3) I am being told that you clarify all misunderstandings and it's the others trying to argue that clarification that is the problem.
In short, you always did everything right and it's the other's fault for not getting it or being emotionally biased against you. Great. I would have hoped for at least a shred of reflection on how you come across instead of more of the same autohagiography. Given your comment in the Townhall I have my doubts that even a Censure would get the message across now, but since you refuse to even consider that your comments might be thoughtlessly offending other people I see no other option but to uphold.

Misunderstandings are always a two-way street. No one is in the right.

Townhall comments were me expression my objection to accusations made apparently in my defense. I would like everyone (which includes myself) to step back and then move forward.

Jadi is on record tatting that he was NOT offended by my comments, as he shouldn't be since they were sarcastic in tone.

I am not on trial for my posting history. I am appealing a decision of a censure about one comment that I made only.

[Sir Adrian]

2) You insinuate elfuded may be acting on personal revenge and instead of addressing his points of criticism you're bringing in an emotional bribe by his, here completely unrelated, Phalera award.

You missed the part where elfdude made the exact same accusation against him.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

I make it short: I'll vote for overturn.

Why?
Because I think we should draw a clear line towards what is unbecoming of a citizen. Looking at Elfdudes case some time ago, we did overturn a censure for - in my opinion - harsher comments. So I think we should take previous decisions into our consideration in order to be able to define what unbecoming of a citizen is.
In addition I've seen even harsher comments here without any consequences.

Furthermore I like to add that you've done some good research elfdude but all of this is more or less not significant. I can't rule for 'further action' on base of those post because Pike wasn't referred for them. I would only consider them for the ruling, but as stated above, I'm not coming to any ruling.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I make it short: I'll vote for overturn.

Why?
Because I think we should draw a clear line towards what is unbecoming of a citizen. Looking at Elfdudes case some time ago, we did overturn a censure for - in my opinion - harsher comments. So I think we should take previous decisions into our consideration in order to be able to define what unbecoming of a citizen is.
In addition I've seen even harsher comments here without any consequences.

Furthermore I like to add that you've done some good research elfdude but all of this is more or less not significant. I can't rule for 'further action' on base of those post because Pike wasn't referred for them. I would only consider them for the ruling, but as stated above, I'm not coming to any ruling.

I'm leaning towards Quintus. I believe most people judge Pike for his general behavior instead of the comment in question and that's not fair IMO. It's true that his comments are too direct most of the time, but I just can't see any malice in this occasion specifically and since this is a referral for that comment (not his general behavior) I don't see how I can uphold it without remorse.