Vote of No Confidance (VONC) - Hitai de Bodemloze

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

This is an active proposal. Additional charges are pending and the OP will be updated.

Additional charges ?

[Veteraan]

How very disappointing. IMO your are not doing this site, the Curia and yourself a favour by continuing this charade and throwing in even more charges.

Well, if this has to be and I have to visit this thread again, you might as well edit that spelling mistake in the title when you are at it.

[Halie Satanus]

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.

The standard is decided by the curia on the presentation and review of the evidence, at the appeal stage. In Pike's case the curia upheld the censors decision.

Had you initiated this VonC after the curia had found in Pike's favour you would have had a case. But you didn't and it didn't. This was, at best, premature, at worst unbecoming of a citizen.

I think we'd all like to see and end to this. The curia is not going to find any evidence you produce now to be damning. I think the best thing now would be for you to chalk this up as an example of misreading the mood of the curia, and closing this.

Spoiler for Copied for posterity.: 

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



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;

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.

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. 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,..

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

[Jadli]

Ïndeed, end this please.

You dont even have enough ppl to move this to vote...

[z3n]

To be honest the most annoying part was that Pike was doing perfectly fine. Things were actually happening in the curia and citizen votes etc. were not stagnating.

[Iskar]

An officer's fulfillment of duty and their personal conduct are two separate pair of shoes and a referral (concerning the personal conduct) as happened to Pike is neither mitigated nor aggravated by how the officer does their duty otherwise.

Moreover, what does that have to do with this VonC?

This is an active proposal. Additional charges are pending and the OP will be updated.

Do yourself and the site a favour and end this farce. Given that the previous charges were already the most obvious ones and got widely opposed and argumentatively dismissed I doubt anything you could add to this would make it look any better.

[z3n]

An officer's fulfillment of duty and their personal conduct are two separate pair of shoes and a referral (concerning the personal conduct) as happened to Pike is neither mitigated nor aggravated by how the officer does their duty otherwise.

Moreover, what does that have to do with this VonC?

Aside from the fact that nothing is actually happening in the curia? If you're going to pull somebody from the office, and assume their position, then you better do their job. Especially if they were performing it more than adequately beforehand.

[Gigantus]

Aside from the fact that nothing is actually happening in the curia? If you're going to pull somebody from the office, and assume their position, then you better do their job. Especially if they were performing it more than adequately beforehand.

The only one pulling here was the constitution by way of being invoked. I am joining in Iskar's observation regarding 'job performance' vis a vis 'personal conduct'.

[Mhaedros]

I'm sure you did what you thought best, but considering the Curia has already officially upheld the Triumvirate's decision, what is this vonc actually based on? By this point it's looking more like character assassination than real conviction Hitai did something wrong.

[PikeStance]

I was not going to get involved in this thread for obvious reasons. While I disagree with their decisions and some actions, I see no fault.

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.

Yes, this is true, but the Constitution states: "Such a Referral is initiated automatically by Moderation for infractions incurred, or discretionally by Citizens2 for behaviour considered unbecoming."
While this ill-defined, it is a question of discussion as evidence of my Censure vote, not abuse to take a position.

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.

While this is true; there is no broad consensus. There is also no broad consensus the other way either. It should be noted, and I haven't seen it noted that this was a decision not made by the Censors alone. The Administration also added their thoughts. When the issues are unclear in the Constitution, it is hard to find fault with one person's interpretation.

In my opinion, the standard of abuse would be behavior that clearly goes beyond or contradicts what is stated in the Constitution. The standard is not meant here.

----

The objectionable aspect of the scenario was the prohibiting me from the Politia. It prevented me from doing my job as Curator as I did not have access to the resources available. I did everything from memory from 3+ years ago. I could have been instructed to not enter the threads concerning my own referral. I would have added, obviously, I am being referred for conduct unbecoming. It would have been nutty to not bid. To make matters worse, the CAs were also removed, which is never done. I did everything on my own; which was perfectly fine. I am home alone away from my wife and baby. There is nothing like TWC to get your mind off of things. Anyway,...

Van Zandt, make this stop! Please!

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

An unbiased post coming from Pike who arguably is the most involved-affected person, so I guess this will need to stop. No need to continue with the matter IMO.

[Gaius Baltar]

Some serious constitutional issues have been raised here. I am not sure I have the answers to these questions so I will leave the proposal open.

I note with the imminent entry of General Brewster into the Curator chair that some semblance of normality will return. The normal activity of the Curia has been neglected for several weeks now.

[Iskar]

your choice, but what serious issues do you mean? And how has the Curia been neglected? Some belated citizenship polls because the Censores do not have the local moderation permissions to add polls to threads?

[Sir Adrian]

One of the many admins currently present could have the polls if asked.

[Iskar]

One of the many admins currently present could have the polls if asked.

And so they did once Hitai asked them to, so what is the point?

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

One of the many admins currently present could have the polls if asked.

And so they did once Hitai asked them to, so what is the point?

Tango did it AFAIK.

[Sir Adrian]

That the delays could have been avoided and the curia has indeed been neglected given that citizenships and awards is almost everything it does nowadays.

PS: Opposed to the VONC btw, I understand where you are coming from but this is exaggerated.

[General Brewster]

That the delays could have been avoided and the curia has indeed been neglected given that citizenships and awards is almost everything it does nowadays.

PS: Opposed to the VONC btw, I understand where you are coming from but this is exaggerated.

I'm notoriously slow with Curator Reports so I guess I neglect the Curia too. Same as that an election sometimes happened a day or so later than it had too.

[Sir Adrian]

I'm notoriously slow with Curator Reports so I guess I neglect the Curia too. Same as that an election sometimes happened a day or so later than it had too.

A day is not a week. My point is that we should either give the Censor LM powers while interrim or create some mechanism that will allow a new Curator/interrim curator to be elected with record speed.

[Veteraan]

Can this go on indefinitely if the OP does not get enough support to get it to the voting stage and he insists to keep going?