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

[Iskar]

I didn't know elfdude's behaviour was on trial here? Also, elfdude made that accusation referring to a different context (citizenship application of a client, not this very referral) and based it on an actual post rather than mere assumption.

[Veteraan]

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.

I had to read this more than once to be convinced of what I was seeing what was actually what was written.

So you try to hold yourself to a higher standard, which you mention here and quite often in other places too, but you are convinced that on this forum we don't want higher standards. Ergo you can't be blamed for not adhering to higher standards. The latter is my interpretation of your text.
Then you claim that just because you went for a higher standard, you received the lowest point total of your career in an election. Well, regardless of how mind boggling this all sounds to me, it's not really relevant to this case.

If you have doubt on the facetious nature of my standard (this isn't the first time you have had trouble discerning it)

I'm hardly the only one that has quite some trouble discerning when you are facetious or not. And this is certainly not the first time you have to explicitly state after you wrote something, that it should be interpreted as you just being a bit "humorous". But of course it is all the fault of those who don't get 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.

As for holding you to a higher standard than anybody else just because you stated you would like to hold yourself to it, that is complete nonsense. Ultimately I don't care about those sort of claims, whoever makes them. It's what we do that matters.
Fact is we do uphold a higher standard of behaviour for citizens which means that you can be sanctioned for something a moderator would (just) let you of the hook for. I'm honestly baffled that somebody that has acted both as Curator and Censor doesn't seem to realize this. If we don't go for higher standards, it would be very simple. Just get rid of the Triumvirate and citizen referrals, define some standard sanctions to be given based on what the moderation branch refers to the Curia and that's it.

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 would say it is impossible to draw a clear line to what is unbecoming of a Citizen. Although I understand you would want one, it will always be something that every citizen will have to define for themselves.

Also it it does feel wrong in a certain way to punish one individual for something less severe than another one got away with. I was very close to resigning as Censor once due to something like this, be it in the opposite way. In the end I reconsidered it, helped by a few opinions of others. But should we dismiss everything that is perceived less severe than what somebody once was not sanctioned for in the past? Not by default, I would say.

[PikeStance]

I had to read this more than once to be convinced of what I was seeing what was actually what was written.

So you try to hold yourself to a higher standard, which you mention here and quite often in other places too, but you are convinced that on this forum we don't want higher standards. Ergo you can't be blamed for not adhering to higher standards. The latter is my interpretation of your text.
Then you claim that just because you went for a higher standard, you received the lowest point total of your career in an election. Well, regardless of how mind boggling this all sounds to me, it's not really relevant to this case. /...
As for holding you to a higher standard than anybody else just because you stated you would like to hold yourself to it, that is complete nonsense. Ultimately I don't care about those sort of claims, whoever makes them. It's what we do that matters.

I was responding to the notion that because I stated that members would hold me to a different standard than others.

I'm hardly the only one that has quite some trouble discerning when you are facetious or not. And this is certainly not the first time you have to explicitly state after you wrote something, that it should be interpreted as you just being a bit "humorous". But of course it is all the fault of those who don't get it.

For me the context was clear. Jadli made the claim that because Gaming Staff stood together that we (the Curia) should accept their proposal. The following statement, Oh the Great Gaming Staff has spoken, get in line. seem rather obvious it was an attempt to make light of the statement made by Jadli I followed it with a more serious statement defending the citizen's the right to speak on any issue regarding the site. I do not see how that first statement is anything but a facetious statement. The last part is a call to don't be so high and mighty, we are equal here. As I stated in my original defense, I was defending all citizens here, not attacking Jadli or the gaming staff.

Fact is we do uphold a higher standard of behaviour for citizens which means that you can be sanctioned for something a moderator would (just) let you of the hook for. I'm honestly baffled that somebody that has acted both as Curator and Censor doesn't seem to realize this. If we don't go for higher standards, it would be very simple. Just get rid of the Triumvirate and citizen referrals, define some standard sanctions to be given based on what the moderation branch refers to the Curia and that's it. .

A Higher standard is quite nebulous. That I understand quite well. If I thought what I wrote was insulting or demeaning, then I would not have written them. I was trying to make a point about the attitude expressed by Jadli. I chose a facetious and creative way to make this point. I have done so on numerous occasions in many different forums on this board. This is literally the first time I have ever seen this type of approach considered unkind. Garb "made a living" with this sorts of quips.

[Sir Adrian]

Voted overturn.

The comment Pikestance made was extremely mild and it appears to me that the referral was more part of an old feud than an actual honest referral.


Moreover I would like to remind everyone that this referral if for that one post not his general behavior. While there is nothing wrong with using his posting history as a starting basis, judging him for it constitutes derailment of a Curial procedure.

I didn't know elfdude's behaviour was on trial here? Also, elfdude made that accusation referring to a different context (citizenship application of a client, not this very referral) and based it on an actual post rather than mere assumption.

Neither is Pikestance's.

[Elfdude]

Forgive me, but the referral was for behavior unbecoming of a citizen with posts that alluded to that idea, looking back in prior referrals bringing in other examples beyond the inciting incident is common... why should this be different? I'm unconvinced by arbitrary statements one way or another.

[Sir Adrian]

Forgive me, but the referral was for behavior unbecoming of a citizen with posts that alluded to that idea, looking back in prior referrals bringing in other examples beyond the inciting incident is common... why should this be different? I'm unconvinced by arbitrary statements one way or another.

Dp not confuse the job of the Triumvirate with the job of the Curia. We are here to judge whether the Censors did their job right, not to rejudge the whole case.

[Gaius Baltar]

After some research, I find nothing in Pikestance's post that could be considered offensive or unbecoming of a citizen. The argument made at length by other members is that his style of interaction is abrasive or questionable is not acceptable to me as reasoning for a citizen referral. I consider the action as spurious and unwarranted. Use of the referral process as a means to augment a personal feud should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms.

I have voted to overturn.

[Halie Satanus]

Whether this stands or not. Do we have to VonC Pike. ?

Worthy of censure for a citizen is subjective. Worthy behaviour for the curator a more serious issue, I think.

Edit, it occurs this may be the wrong thread to raise this. If pleases the curator, move to an appropriate thread should one exist. The townhall, perhaps.

[StealthFox]

As so many others have already said, I'm on the fence here and can easily see both sides.

On the procedural issue of to consider only the one comment vs. general behavior, again I can see both sides, but I'm leaning towards the opinion that: A referrer shouldn't be expected to provide all instances of a citizen's conduct that might be unbecoming, that's part of the investigation of the censors. So, if a referral is for conduct unbecoming, I don't think it's right to look at one or two posts in a vacuum, the entire context needs to be considered. For example, if it's a one time slip and a citizen otherwise has a spotless records, then dismissal should be more heavily weighted. On the other hand, if there is a general theme of unbecoming conduct, further action should be the more heavily weighted option.

On that note, I do think Pike has a history of posting borderline offensive comments, as a few others have already outlined in detail. I will wait a bit longer before voting but am leaning towards upholding the censure as an official Curial Warning to be more thoughtful before posting.

A thought on how the referral process might be changed is perhaps we need to make a distinction between a Curial Warning and a Curial Infraction. Perhaps a censure should not disqualify you from holding office or immediately remove someone from office. I don't think what we are discussing here is severe enough to have forced Pike out from being Curator.

[Aikanár]

This distinction actually existed before the procedure was appealed multiple times. In former versions a censure was not considered a curial warning. Maybe it's time to go back to this.

[Iskar]

The distinction was in fact consciously removed some time ago in an amendment subsuming all Triumvirate verdicts under "Curial Warning" with the rationale that any slip worthy of Triumvirate action impairs the ability to sit on the Triumvirate or the Tribunal respectively - a view I still hold. If you're called to judging others you must be above any suspicion at all lest it should cast doubt on the integrity of the judgement.

I don't think a VonC would be warranted because Pike did not neglect his duty or abuse his position, which are the defining triggers for a VonC.

[Gaius Baltar]

The distinction was in fact consciously removed some time ago in an amendment subsuming all Triumvirate verdicts under "Curial Warning" with the rationale that any slip worthy of Triumvirate action impairs the ability to sit on the Triumvirate or the Tribunal respectively - a view I still hold. If you're called to judging others you must be above any suspicion at all lest it should cast doubt on the integrity of the judgment.

Interesting that you say it was "consciously removed", without any further clarification of how it would be defined. Perhaps this need s to be revisited with an amendment to make these distinctions clear..

[Elfdude]

Funny, how can you judge the job of the Triumvirate without judging the appropriate judgement of the case? This is an appeal of their ruling, it's normal to appeal cases and include new evidence both at twcenter and in the real world. You seem to be drawing arbitrary lines in the dirt.

[Aexodus]

I feel that two of the main reasons people seem to be opposed to censure are explicitly that it was a very mild statement, and second that Pike/Ominpresent’s position as curator kind of complicates people’s judgement through no fault of their own.

As a citizen, not as a curator, some of these statements would appear to be out of order for a citizen to make in the curia, so a censure and no more is appropriate I think. As a citizen, being a curator shouldn’t magically change how inappropriate his statement was, and if pike not being able to be curator is a problem, then that lies with the constitution, not this judgement in my view.

Yes they were mild, that’s why he’s getting the most lenient sentence that is possible over than clearing his name.

This distinction actually existed before the procedure was appealed multiple times. In former versions a censure was not considered a curial warning. Maybe it's time to go back to this.

I feel the same way really. If censures disqualify you from holding office, it’s not a slap on the wrist then is it, whoch is what I think is all it’s meant to be - “hey, you messed up and we’re letting you know, do it again and there’s actual consequences”

Edit: however, if his two comments judged on their own are much milder compared to precedent that has been let off, I might vote overturn

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

As so many others have already said, I'm on the fence here and can easily see both sides.

On the procedural issue of to consider only the one comment vs. general behavior, again I can see both sides, but I'm leaning towards the opinion that: A referrer shouldn't be expected to provide all instances of a citizen's conduct that might be unbecoming, that's part of the investigation of the censors. So, if a referral is for conduct unbecoming, I don't think it's right to look at one or two posts in a vacuum, the entire context needs to be considered. For example, if it's a one time slip and a citizen otherwise has a spotless records, then dismissal should be more heavily weighted. On the other hand, if there is a general theme of unbecoming conduct, further action should be the more heavily weighted option.

On that note, I do think Pike has a history of posting borderline offensive comments, as a few others have already outlined in detail. I will wait a bit longer before voting but am leaning towards upholding the censure as an official Curial Warning to be more thoughtful before posting.

A thought on how the referral process might be changed is perhaps we need to make a distinction between a Curial Warning and a Curial Infraction. Perhaps a censure should not disqualify you from holding office or immediately remove someone from office. I don't think what we are discussing here is severe enough to have forced Pike out from being Curator.

Well a referral should set the borders of the case. The citizen who is referred should have the fair opportunity do defend himself which he has when gets informed. After that he can write a defence and that is it. Expanding the case afterwards on topics not mentioned in the referral would be an unfair trial which is clearly not what we wanted as Curia when we created the constitution. So I believe we have to restrain us to the borders of the referral.
Of course they can be drawn pretty wide.
In addition I would like to add, that it should not be the job of the censors to search for new evidence. They are judges so they have to judge what is presented

Funny, how can you judge the job of the Triumvirate without judging the appropriate judgement of the case? This is an appeal of their ruling, it's normal to appeal cases and include new evidence both at twcenter and in the real world. You seem to be drawing arbitrary lines in the dirt.

New evidence in the frame of the original indictment. Here the referal refers to the past behaviour so I must admit I'm wrong. This case is about the past behaviour of insulting groups and a line that was seen as nearly an insult according to the ToS.
For the second post I stand by my opinion. I took the time to review the original post and yes it isn't nice but actually the post summarizes the previous one - which he answered to - quite good. This is not To the first post, I simply can't see how he called the new HS-staff incompetent. Even the previous events had nothing to do with incompetence.
Furthermore stating that other citizens have earned their citizenship for less than the applicant is not a new argument and I did not see it the first time in Pikes post. I don't understand how this is insulting to the citizenship?
Since I'm a citizen I've seen citizens which have earned their badge for less work and for more work than me and I think this is just normal.

[Aexodus]

Voted overturn

tldr, Pike had no deliberate malice in his comments, which neither Jadli even took offence to nor are these comments worse than what has previously overturned

[Tango12345]

Most of the major arguments bouncing around in my mind (uphold or overturn) have been expanded on at length by others, so I do not see a reason to go into further detail. There is a danger of this getting overly personal, and I hope that regardless of the result that people can move on without holding grudges.

Reluctantly, I have voted uphold.

[Aikanár]

Iskar, I understand your position. I guess the idea of a censure changed over time, as is to be expected. Pretty much like a note, a censure was a recorded pm in which a member was informed of how he failed with regards to the rules and with some advice how to improve. That's why it was not regarded as a curial warning, but as a slap on the wrist (I agree with you, Aexodus). That was the gist of it.
However, time changes and of course the ideas of people change with the people and with the times. So if the current idea of a censure is as you described it, then. So be it. But then this places a very heavy burdon on curial officers sind everybody can have a bad day, everybody.

[Aexodus]

If these comments are bad enough to deserve censure, then whether or not a censure means curial infraction surely doesn’t matter. It’s then no longer the comments you’re contesting but the constitution (which could have a problem but judicial activism... not great form).

so we should keep the personal implications of a censure for pikestance out, completely of mind i would have thought. Just a lot of the comments have been about just that.

[MIKE GOLF]

Voted.