Vote of No Confidance (VONC) - Hitai de Bodemloze

[Gaius Baltar]

Under Section II Curia, Article III Resolutions, the following text deals with a Vote of No Confidence (VONC) process.

… Any Citizen can table a resolution for discussion by posting a thread in the Prothalamos.7 Resolutions can be Amendments, making changes to this document8; Decisions, suggesting changes to the site; Nominations, proposing a member for a Curial award; or Votes of No Confidence (VoNC) against Curial Officers or Staff Members. A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority and, if successful against a Curial Officer, results in their immediate removal from office.

In reference to the above highlighted text, I am charging Hitai de Bodomloze with abuse of authority and ask for a vote of no confidence.

Supporting Statements:

In the citizen referral thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ral-Pikestance), defendant stated in post #5 in reference to the second of the statements;

The second comment is however a lot more clear cut, and I am in agreement with you atthias. Saying 'Oh the Great Gaming Staff has spoken, get in line..' is obviously sarcastic and disrespectful, and telling someone to 'Get over yourself! is just plain rude. Pike is quite correct to say that he has a right to voice his opinions, but he could certainly voice them a lot more politely than that. He was toeing the line in his last referral with a very similar comment, and I let it slide. I can't say I'm pleased to see the same rhetoric again.

Clearly the material is not seen as offensive, or breaking the TOS or even as unrepresentive of a citizen, but as “rude”. So the issue here again as stated by the defendant is “politeness”, not a breach of stated standards, because there is no standard for politeness or rudeness that could be reliably outlined or upheld for either the TOS of for the ideas of citizenship.

In post #7 of the above thread, the defendant acknowledges that the material does not violate the TOS, but represents a breech of the “standards of citizenship”.

Thank you for clarifying where his comments fall in regards to the ToS, I had wondered that myself. Alas I'm not sure I would consider his comments as quite so borderline when it comes to the standards of citizenship

Here a shift has occurred as the statement can no longer be a breach of the TOS, but now are not,”quite so borderline”. Here we have the first hint of overreach that exemplifies this entire episode.

In post #8 of the above thread, the defendant copies over reasoning for further judgement of the statements made in the citizen referral.

The term 'Curial warning' is somewhat vague, but I presume it entails any further action taken by the Triumvirate (as seemed to be the consensus in this thread earlier this year).

Most crucially here, he references an abandoned proposal for a critical part of this interpretation. In his own words, this represents a “broad consensus” for the terminology in question. However, the thread has at most 5 active participants, 2 of which note that there are problems with the constitutional wording, and therefore the interpretation of the term. As this interpretation was used to remove the curator from office, I submit the use of this terminology and the stated support is deceptive and unrepresentative of its intended use. Furthermore, in the defendants own words, “ the term…is vague…”, suggesting that any use would be controversial. Obviously the use of the term, “broad consensus” suggests widespread support, but subsequent discussion in the Curia has suggested that this interpretation would be questionable.

When directly questioned about the actual numbers of participants in the thread, and how they could be used to achieve a “broad consensus”, the defendant was unable to respond meaningfully and became defensive and uncooperative.

After enacting curial action against the Curator based upon this flawed reasoning, the defendant then assumed the role of “senior censor”, even though the line of succession is clearly stated in the Constitution.

According to the defendant again in post #8,..

Next up is the slightly complicated phrase 'When the office of the Curator is empty, the Censor whose term is closest to completion will organize the election of a new Curator, and assume day-to-day administration of the Curia.' This is again a spirit of the law vs letter of the law issue. Whilst at the time of writing my term is closest to completion, I am currently up for re-election, and, presuming that I am re-elected, my term will begin again/be extended by the time our decision about Pike has been made. Thus, technically, atthias will actually be the censor whose term is closest to completion. However, I presume the spirit of the law is that the senior/longest serving censor is the one to organise the new election, and this would still be me. So that might be another semantic issue that may need clarifying. However, whilst I am happy to organise a future election and keep things in check, if we want to go by the letter of the constitution, and if atthias wishes to do this instead, then that is no problem at all.

So the defendant acknowledges that atthias is the Censor who should fill the role mandated by the Constitution. However, he references here, “the spirit of the law”. This is one of the most perplexing parts of the material, and if taken in itself, might not cause to much concern. But taken together with the unlikely sequence of events adds to the procedural overreach of this entire issue. Almost certainly this situation would not have occurred without the deceptive and flawed use of the term “broad consensus”, for the terminology used to remove a curial officer from their rightful duties.

No justification or support for the ideas of “spirit of the law” are provided. It is unlikely that any thread or post could be referenced to support this idea, so this again points to a deceptive and unsupportable statement that contributes to the judicial and procedural overreach of this entire situation.

Summary:

1. Defendant used a questionable interpretation to enact curial procedure to remove an elected official.
2. Defendant used deceptive reasoning and support for crucial terminology needed for action #1 above.
3. Defendant used deceptive reasoning to assume role of senior censor.

The judicial and procedural overreach demonstrated here should not be tolerated by the Curia. Adherence to the rules set out by the Constitution is often brought up in curial matters, but here we have outright fabrication of constitutional interpretations and procedures. One cannot have it both ways.

The Curia should act in orderly self-interest and support the motion for a vote of no confidence.

Support: z3n

[Aikanár]

Nonsense.

Hitai acted full within the remit of the constition. Indeed he did execute his office despite possibly being subject to a vonc. And he did so in the most transparent and open manner possible.

Oppose.

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

Clearly the material is not seen as offensive, or breaking the TOS or even as unrepresentive of a citizen, but as “rude”. So the issue here again as stated by the defendant is “politeness”, not a breach of stated standards, because there is no standard for politeness or rudeness that could be reliably outlined or upheld for either the TOS of for the ideas of citizenship. In post #7 of the above thread, the defendant acknowledges that the material does not violate the TOS, but represents a breech of the “standards of citizenship”. Here a shift has occurred as the statement can no longer be a breach of the TOS, but now are not,”quite so borderline”. Here we have the first hint of overreach that exemplifies this entire episode.

I believe all citizens should be polite, mature and respectful in their posts, which I consider a standard to be upheld that's above and beyond the ToS.

From the debate thread in May earlier this year, whereafter I was elected to my first term. Actually, I'm a bit more lenient in practice, but nevertheless, you can't say I wasn't clear beforehand about my standards.

A ToS violation and a breach of the standard of citizenship - at least in my view - are not always the same thing. One can make a rude or disrespectful remark that wouldn't result in a ToS violation, and still be referred. Likewise, someone can be punished by moderation for a ToS violation, and as a Censor I would dismiss it.

In post #8 of the above thread, the defendant copies over reasoning for further judgement of the statements made in the citizen referral. Most crucially here, he references an abandoned proposal for a critical part of this interpretation. In his own words, this represents a “broad consensus” for the terminology in question. However, the thread has at most 5 active participants, 2 of which note that there are problems with the constitutional wording, and therefore the interpretation of the term. As this interpretation was used to remove the curator from office, I submit the use of this terminology and the stated support is deceptive and unrepresentative of its intended use.

My meaning of 'broad consensus' was that, according to the last discussion that the Curia seemed to have on the meaning of the term 'Curial warning', most people involved appeared to agree that it included - or rather, should include - a Censure: Frunk, Quintus, Iskar, Halie, and PikeStance himself. Not the largest sample group admittedly, but they were the ones who participated. Perhaps there was another discussion on the topic that I missed; if so then I apologise.

It is, however, largely irrelevant. Whilst I cited the discussion, it was not used to remove the Curator from office. Believe it or not, I am quite capable of making informed decisions on my own (as is atthias, for that matter), and I personally interpreted the term 'Curial warning' to include a Censure. That the majority of the people in the referenced thread agreed merely affirmed my convictions, not determined them.

Furthermore, in the defendants own words, “ the term…is vague…”, suggesting that any use would be controversial. Obviously the use of the term, “broad consensus” suggests widespread support, but subsequent discussion in the Curia has suggested that this interpretation would be questionable.

The term is vague and our interpretation is controversial, but neither could be helped. If something in the Constitution is vague, you still have to work out what to do with it. Whatever interpretation we chose - a Censure being a Curial warning, a Censure not being a Curial warning, or just ignoring the term altogether - it would have been controversial, because it can't not be. Whatever interpretation we chose, someone would have complained that we had not applied the Constitution correctly, because everyone will interpret it differently. Damned if you do, damned if you don't and damned if you try.

When directly questioned about the actual numbers of participants in the thread, and how they could be used to achieve a “broad consensus”, the defendant was unable to respond meaningfully and became defensive and uncooperative.

I think offering to be VoNC'ed is quite cooperative.

I am perfectly able to answer your questions or concerns, but as you had publicly declared your desire to call for a VoNC and that you seemed affirmed in your convictions that I had abused my authority, I preferred you just got on with it. I'd rather address all the allegations against me in one go, rather than do them piecemeal across a chat thread (and still end up VoNC'ed anyway).

After enacting curial action against the Curator based upon this flawed reasoning, the defendant then assumed the role of “senior censor”, even though the line of succession is clearly stated in the Constitution. According to the defendant again in post #8,..

So the defendant acknowledges that atthias is the Censor who should fill the role mandated by the Constitution. However, he references here, “the spirit of the law”. This is one of the most perplexing parts of the material, and if taken in itself, might not cause to much concern. But taken together with the unlikely sequence of events adds to the procedural overreach of this entire issue. Almost certainly this situation would not have occurred without the deceptive and flawed use of the term “broad consensus”, for the terminology used to remove a curial officer from their rightful duties. No justification or support for the ideas of “spirit of the law” are provided. It is unlikely that any thread or post could be referenced to support this idea, so this again points to a deceptive and unsupportable statement that contributes to the judicial and procedural overreach of this entire situation.

You seem to be the only one disturbed by this, and I'm not entirely sure why. I have admitted that we didn't follow the Constitution word for word, and I still defend that my 'assuming the role of senior Censor' is within the spirit of the Constitution. Things are written in the Constitution for a reason; the reason why the term 'the Censor whose term is closest to completion' is in the Constitution is - as Iskar has already kindly pointed out - so that the senior Censor is the one who takes over. Although, personally, I'm not sure it particularly matters which Censor does it, provided they both agree beforehand. If I'm totally honest, another reason I actually wanted to do it was to spare atthias this very ordeal (as I actually declared in the referral thread, and indeed in my statement to the Curia). Once I understood the gravity of the situation and the potential controversy surrounding our interpretation, it became quite clear to me it could very probably end up in a VoNC. I preferred to be the one to take the blame, rather than see him here instead. It is a little ironic that my wanting to be the one subjected to the VoNC is a reason for the actual VoNC.

Are there any more allegations you (or indeed anyone else) would like to make? An honest question, as I would like to get this all aired out now so we can put this behind us.

[z3n]

After questioning the defendant myself I am not impressed with his response. Emotions clouded the defendants judgement which led to the abuses of power outlined within the OP.

Hitai knowingly acted outside of the remit of the constitution and did not want the curia to discuss a change to the constitution in order to further his own goal of not letting something slide ensuring efficiency of execution. His words.

He has not proposed that we discuss the problem at hand despite acknowledging it exists within the constitution again leading me to believe that he simply does not care and wants it not to affect the current proceeding with Pikestances application.

I will note I haven't taken a stance on Pikestances application but in light of this continued resistance I am questioning my position on that now. By supporting this I hope to encourage proper action by the defendant in the future.


Fully support.

[Tango12345]

Opposed, strongly.

He did his job the best way he could in my view. To be honest Hitai doesn't have to propose anything-the curia is already discussing the problem and anything anyone comes up with would be too late for the current debacle anyway.

[Halie Satanus]

OPPOSED.

Pike should have resigned to preserve the integrity of the office. For a curator to be found wanting and then launch a public appeal is embarrassing for the entire curia and has brought the standards of behavior for citizenship to such a low bar it is meaningless.

And now this. For shame...

[z3n]

OPPOSED.

Pike should have resigned to preserve the integrity of the office. For a curator to be found wanting and then launch a public appeal is embarrassing for the entire curia and has brought the standards of behavior for citizenship to such a low bar it is meaningless.

And now this. For shame...

Quite right about the standards but the execution of the process was marred by this. Frankly letting an abuse of power slip simply because we think one person is doing better than than the other is an awkard situation I would rather not see occur.

The proper procedure would have been have somebody involved in the process propose we discuss the constitution. atthias would have been a suitable person for that. He would be less conspicuous than Hitai who felt he would be giving it away.

[Halie Satanus]

Quite right about the standards but the execution of the process was marred by this. Frankly letting an abuse of power slip simply because we think one person is doing better than than the other is an awkard situation I would rather not see occur.

The proper procedure would have been have somebody involved in the process propose we discuss the constitution. atthias would have been a suitable person for that. He would be less conspicuous than Hitai who felt he would be giving it away.

Stepping in temporarily to maintain curial integrity is not an abuse of power. Hitai is an elected official, elected as censor, am member of the triumvirate and trusted to execute that office. If we can't trust him to maintain the position of curator temporarily wtf were we thinking in voting him into the role of censor.

Of course, the curia voted in Pike, so maybe it can't be trusted.

[z3n]

Stepping in temporarily to maintain curial integrity is not an abuse of power. Hitai is an elected official, elected as censor, am member of the triumvirate and trusted to execute that office. If we can't trust him to maintain the position of curator temporarily wtf were we thinking in voting him into the role of censor.

Of course, the curia voted in Pike, so maybe it can't be trusted.

So you admit my posts reference to an abuse of power exists? And now you're arguing another one in the OP doesn't?

[Halie Satanus]

So you admit my posts reference to an abuse of power exists? And now you're arguing another one in the OP doesn't?

Does 'is not an abuse of power' not mean the same thing when I say it as when you say it?.

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

After questioning the defendant myself I am not impressed with his response. Emotions clouded the defendants judgement which led to the abuses of power outlined within the OP.

Hitai knowingly acted outside of the remit of the constitution and did not want the curia to discuss a change to the constitution in order to further his own goal of not letting something slide ensuring efficiency of execution. His words.

1. Can you highlight where my 'emotions clouded [my] judgement'?
2. If I let something slide, am I not derelict of duty?

He has not proposed that we discuss the problem at hand despite acknowledging it exists within the constitution again leading me to believe that he simply does not care and wants it not to affect the current proceeding with Pikestances application.

Are you suggesting I should be removed from office because I haven't (yet) proposed a Constitutional amendment? I've been very clear that the Constitution needs amending, and to that effect I elected to make public in the referral the bulk of the Triumvirate's deliberations on the Constitutional problems we faced, which could and arguably should have been kept private (they are only in the referral thread because Gigantus replied to me there, presumably because he didn't know where Pike had access). However, it was my hope that these discussions and the specific examples of ambiguous/inadequate clauses in the Constitution would prove helpful as a foundation for future amendments. I apologise if you were expecting me to immediately make a proposal myself.

The proper procedure would have been have somebody involved in the process propose we discuss the constitution. atthias would have been a suitable person for that. He would be less conspicuous than Hitai who felt he would be giving it away.

I'm afraid I don't understand you here. Do you mean instead of proceeding with the case, we should have clarified the Constitution with the Curia first? I have already highlighted the problems with this approach. If you mean clarifying the Constitution after having reached a decision, as I mentioned before, it could have been a viable option (although not without its own problems), but it didn't occur to us. The entire point though, is that for what happens when the Curator receives a 'Curial warning' (whatever that is) the Constitution isn't good enough and it doesn't tell us the 'proper procedure'. It gives us some vague guidelines that people presumably put forward when this was a hypothetical scenario. In practice, they don't work as well as we might have hoped. I have tried to do my best by what I believed was the spirit of what was written, in the hope that we'll be able to rectify the Constitution and know better what to do next time.

[Lifthrasir]

Opposed.
Special case requiers special action. I don't see any "abuse of authority" from Hitai here and I second Tango's comment about Hitai's action.

[Veteraan]

Opposed.

We should commend Hitai for taking responsibility in a difficult situation, whilst dealing with the absence of very clear rules. It shows his commitment to the Curia and I personally find it very disappointing that he is rewarded with a VONC for it.

[Aikanár]

We vote people in to take decisions in our name. That is precisely what Hitai did. He even followed the Constitution to the letter and he even took care of a possible unconstitutional participation of the referred. He performed his office in a very considerate, calm and over all commendable manner and he did so with the utmost integrity.

It is a joke that he should now be vonced for doing exactly for what we entrusted him to do by voting him in.

This is a shame and it reflects very poorly on the citizen who started this and on all who support it.

[Gaius Baltar]

We vote people in to take decisions in our name. That is precisely what Hitai did. He even followed the Constitution to the letter...

If you had taken the opportunity to read the original post, you would see quote definitively that there is no constitutional support at all for his actions. All of it is speculative, "sprit of the law" and personal opinion. If the constitution had been followed to the letter the curator would still be in office. There is no other way to interpret it unless you fabricate an interpretation, which is what has transpired to bring us to this point.

[Mhaedros]

Opposed, Aikanar phrased the reasoning it better than I would.

[Jadli]

Opposed.

Since there was no or little precedent for what do in such situation, I think they (Hitai and atthias) did it well. And as can be seen in the referral threads, some hexers poked in and were supportive to the way atthias and Hitai were taking, which Im sure influenced them to take the way they did a lot, so perhaps you should VoNC them all? (what fun would that be...)

I mostly disagree with the censors voting for further action, but we have an appeal for that. This is definitely not needed.

[General Brewster]

Opposed and let me tell everyone that this VonC is nothing but a disgrace.

[StealthFox]

Opposed.

As others have said, Hitai's service in all of this has been exemplary and should be commended.

[Prince of Essling]

Opposed, Aikanar phrased it excellently!