[Amendment] Censor Duty Act

[PikeStance]

This proposal works best under the Dual Consulship Amendment.
______________________________________________________________________________________


This Proposal:
Eliminate the elected position of Censor and replace it with citizens approved Jury Censors.
Censors will volunteer and serve per case provided they meet the requirements.

Procedure

1. Citizens volunteer for Censor Jury Duty in a dedicated thread for that purpose.
2. All Volunteers must meet the minimal requirements listed below.
3. Each volunteer must be ratified by the Curia. if approved, the volunteer will be placed on the list, Censor Jury List.
4. When there is a referral, a minimum of two to a maximum of Six Censors will be selected in order from the list Allocated at the discretion of the Curator.
5. In the event of simultaneous multiple referrals, the Curator will allocate the censors at his/her discretion, ensuring there are at least 2 Censors per referral.

Additional changes to Procedure
The Curator will be responsible for ensuring the procedure is followed correctly. In the vent there is a tie, the Curator will break the tie.

The remaining procedure is the same as stated in the Constitution.

The Current Minimal Requirement

• Minimal three months as a citizen
• No moderation or Curatorial warning for 6 months
• Cannot be allocated to a case in which you are the referred or the initiating an Ostrakon.

Members can be removed from the list;
+ Voluntarily
+ Refusing to sit on three successive referral cases
+ A vote of No Confidence.
+ No longer meets the requirements stated in the OP

Advantages

• No more elections, accept approval voting.
• No more a need for an official to recuse themselves, thus no delays.
• No more "snap elections" or unnecessary delays
• Citizens not wanting to commit to 4 months of duty can choose one or two cases.
• The Juror list ensures accountability.

Side by side comparison
if you look at the proposal there is very little difference between what is currently being done and what I am proposing.

Currently	Proposal
Apply for Position	Apply for Positionl
Elected (mostly yes/no votes)	Ratified (yes/no vote)
Serves 4 Months on every case	No time limit, but can choose when to serve
Can be Vonc	Can be VonC
Can be removed for inactivity or no longer meet minimal requirements	Can be removed for inactivity or no longer meet minimal requirements

In a nutshell, it has every single advantage that the current system has, but without one single negative the current system has.

________________________________________________________________________________________

So, the Juror List will look like this
1. Citizen A
2. Citizen B
3. Citizen C
4. Citizen D
5. Citizen E
6. Citizen F
7. Citizen G
8. Citizen H
9. Citizen I
10. Citizen J
11. Citizen K
12. Citizen L

The order is determined by the order by which you are ratified. If there is a referral, then the top 6 will serve. If there is a second, then the second 6 or 4 in case there is a third case. Censors can decline to sit on a referral. If this is the case, then their number is skipped. The order is sequential, so the skipped censor will have to wait until the next rotation.

One final note there isn't any rule about a Censor volunteering for duty for multiple cases if the rotation allows it. The system will work with far less numbers.

The system is very simple.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: In the event the Dual Consulship amendment passes, the requirement for Censor will change to per case rather than per term. Assuming an average one and half cases per week for 8 months, then the requirement would be 12 cases.


_________________________________________________________________________________________

Constitutional Changes, the latest changes not done.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Article II. The Curator and Curial Officers
Citizens elect and can run for⁹ Curial Officer positions: Magistrates, Censors and the Curator.¹⁰

The Curator acts as a local moderator of the Curia and is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks are accomplished.¹¹ and Magistrates review Moderation actions and Censors the conduct of citizens.⁷

Undue absence or negligence may lead to an officer's removal from office.¹² Any Curial Officer receiving a Moderation or Curial warning is immediately removed from office.



Section III - Censors and Magistrates
Article I. The Triumvirate and Referrals
Citizens are expected to behave in an exemplary manner and can be referred¹ to the Triumvirate for a review of their behaviour and possible disciplinary action.
Such a Referral is initiated automatically by Moderation for infractions incurred, or discretionally by Citizens² for behaviour considered unbecoming. The TriumvirateCurator then requests a defence³ from the referred and announces the need for Censors to judge on the referral. The Censor Jury decides⁴ whether⁵ and which⁶ disciplinary action is to be taken.⁷ It consists of:

• The Censors Jurors- Who discuss and vote on every Referral.
• The Curator - Who may discuss Referrals, but only votes in the case of a tie.
• Hexagon Council members - Who may choose to participate.

Members of the Triumvirate must recuse themselves in their own Referrals.⁸

If a Citizen is not satisfied with the result of their Referral, they may request a public appeal. The appeal will be discussed and decided in the Curia.⁹ The result is binding and is not subject to further appeal.

Article II. Magistrates and the Tribunal
The Tribunal reviews appealed infractions and notes issued by Moderation in order to ensure that the Terms of Service are applied correctly and fairly.

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of Tribunes is appointed by the Hexagon Council and two Magistrates are elected by the Curia. Magistrates rotate as acting Tribunes, each voting on one of every two cases.¹⁰

Regulations and Procedures to Section III
¹ No Citizen may be subject to more than one Referral for a single post.

New Footnote: Curator has the responsibility to determine the merit of referrals and dismissed referrals with discretion. The Curator has the responsibility to mediate between citizens to resolve the matter.

² The defendant receives an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

New Footnote: Censors must be the following requirements; Minimal three months as a citizen, No moderation or Curatorial warning for one year, and not be the referrer or referred.

New Footnote: In the event in multiple referrals, the Curator has the discretion to allocate the Censors.

³ Any defence must be provided within ninety-six hours of the request. At the request of the referred, the Curator also accepts materials provided on behalf of the referred. Such materials shall be posted until the first voting poll is concluded, and must be considered by the Citizens' Triumvirate in the second voting poll, if such a poll is required.

[Hader]

While I like this being more simplistic, I still don't see it as the right course, especially in eliminating anonymous referrals, which I don't believe is the big problem many seem to think it is, nor in getting rid of the elected position.

Or, in keeping with the simple theme, I don't see this actually changing anything that would benefit from being changed.

[PikeStance]

The proposal isn't intended to change anything that is part of the current crisis.

For me, the anonymous thing is a slight red herring. I do not think it is a big issue at all. As I stated I like the concept of mediation and if that could be used to help cool down two people in a heated discussion, then it is worth having it and eliminating anonymous referrals.

The Censor position has the least amount of application with a real election being a rare exception, rather than the rule. We technically shouldn't have to elect anyone to do something that each of us should be able to do. Citizens judging citizens rather than an artificial hierarchy of two/three members. Moreover, if you are referred and there is a clear consensus on the punishment, this will reduce appeals, thus reducing unnecessary ill repute. The fact that this proposal will not add any additional time to current procedure and will eliminate any other forms of delay means this can only be a beneficial improvement.

[Lifthrasir]

Based on the "stick and carrot" policy (without the carrot), your main idea was/is to encourage citizens making more referrals, in the hope that if they behave badly, there'zs a lot of cxhance that they get referred. Fair enough.
By removing the principle of anonymity, don't you think that the opposite effect may result?

[PikeStance]

The proposal is not contingent on anonymity being preserved or removed.

[Lifthrasir]

Ok, noted. Thanks for the clarification.

[Sir Adrian]

Let's pretend I'm a very popular citizen with lots of friends. Let's say one of my friends gets referred. What is to stop me from running for that one case, get elected, and drive the case to the point where he gets the lowest possible punishment. Or, what's to stop me from doing the opposite to an enemy.

Alternatively what's to stop one of the old customers from creating a ruckus that he would have got a fairer trial if the previous pair of censors had stayed for his referral as well. A single click on the mod com thread will show you just how often it happens (and Gig's patience rivaling that of a saint).

Imho having elected censors is better in the long run. Sure, some cases may get tangled up but it's a small price to pay.

[PikeStance]

Let's pretend I'm a very popular citizen with lots of friends. Let's say one of my friends gets referred. What is to stop me from running for that one case, get elected, and drive the case to the point where he gets the lowest possible punishment. Or, what's to stop me from doing the opposite to an enemy.

Alternatively what's to stop one of the old customers from creating a ruckus that he would have got a fairer trial if the previous pair of censors had stayed for his referral as well. A single click on the mod com thread will show you just how often it happens (and Gig's patience rivaling that of a saint).

Imho having elected censors is better in the long run. Sure, some cases may get tangled up but it's a small price to pay.

There isn't a limit to how many Censors will deliberate on a case. It can be 2, 3, 6, 12. It depends on how many volunteers. Though matter what, you are being judged by your peers. If your peers are engaged in an unscrupulous activity, it would not matter if they are elected or not; the standards will be too low to make a difference.

[Sir Adrian]

An elected peer can be revoked and banned from running. A one timer with no stake in the position cannot be handled that way. Moreover I findf the high number distrbing. Too many cooks spoil thje broth and having half the curia in as censors is basically mob justice. I did not support Iskar's similar proposal, I will not support this.

Fundamentally Opposed.

[General Brewster]

Opposed.

[♔atthias♔]

opposed for the reasons by ngugi here

[Halie Satanus]

Opposed.

[Iskar]

Elected Censores are accountable by vote and VonC and can be trusted with confidential information in staff referrals, as Hex can veto applicants they deem unsuitable. All this does not or only very limitedly work with freely appointed volunteers who have no duty of office.

Opposed.

[PikeStance]

opposed for the reasons by ngugi here

Ngugi is referring to having all referrals public. The referrals are still private in this proposal.

An elected peer can be revoked and banned from running. A one timer with no stake in the position cannot be handled that way. Moreover I findf the high number distrbing. Too many cooks spoil thje broth and having half the curia in as censors is basically mob justice. I did not support Iskar's similar proposal, I will not support this.
Fundamentally Opposed.

Elected Censores are accountable by vote and VonC and can be trusted with confidential information in staff referrals, as Hex can veto applicants they deem unsuitable. All this does not or only very limitedly work with freely appointed volunteers who have no duty of office.
Opposed.

Apparently, I have misjudged the low opinion some people have of other citizens. Apparently, citizens cannot be trusted unless they are elected and under threat of a VonC to stay in line.
Jurors have been deciding cases for centuries now; regular people interpreting the law and yet we cannot have the same accountability here. (I supposed someone is going to argue that sometimes they screw up, but that is the exception, not the rule). This is also a closed environment in which membership is limited and scrutinized.

The best way to determine how best to determine if someone is behaving in a manner that is unbecoming is to discuss it. There is no better venue than an actual referral.

I should not the process is not etched in stone as I noted above. An additional option is possible.

The Curator can maintain a list of potential Censors. Citizens volunteer to be placed on the list. This list can also go through a ratification process. For example, you can ask to be on the list, the Curator creates a poll where the citizenry ratifies your listing. Each ratified member is then placed in an order. They serve on a rotational, per case basis. Each referral could have a minimal 2 to maximum 6 Censors.

Members can be removed from the list;
+ Voluntarily
+ Refusing to sit on three successive referral cases
+ A vote of No Confidence.
+ No longer meets the requirements stated in the OP

This solves a number of issues stated;
+ Friends/ enemies helping or hurting (the rotational system)
+ Lack of accountability

[Halie Satanus]

Apparently, citizens cannot be trusted unless they are elected and under threat of a VonC to stay in line.

Not all, and I don't agree with the sweeping generalisation, but on occasion having a fail safe is just good common sense..

[Sir Adrian]

Apparently, I have misjudged the low opinion some people have of other citizens. Apparently, citizens cannot be trusted unless they are elected and under threat of a VonC to stay in line.
Jurors have been deciding cases for centuries now;

This is not about trust, this is about reality. This behavior exists, has existed and will exist for as long as internet communities exist. It is human nature to exploit things in your favor, to defend your friends and torpedo your enemies. Sure, there are individuals who for one reason or another will try to do the right thing, but they are individuals. You yourself have been on the receiving end of this type of behavior twice now, yet you put chopsticks in your ears and shout lalalala at the sky like nothing ever happened.

Justice by committee is lopsided, unfair and sometimes spiteful. It is never fair and I would not condone it even if the proposal was to come from GED.


There is a very good reason why jury trials are not a thing in most countries and even the place which invented it only uses it with half measure.

[PikeStance]

This is not about trust, this is about reality. This behavior exists, has existed and will exist for as long as internet communities exist. It is human nature to exploit things in your favor, to defend your friends and torpedo your enemies. Sure, there are individuals who for one reason or another will try to do the right thing, but they are individuals. You yourself have been on the receiving end of this type of behavior twice now, yet you put chopsticks in your ears and shout lalalala at the sky like nothing ever happened.
Justice by committee is lopsided, unfair and sometimes spiteful. It is never fair and I would not condone it even if the proposal was to come from GED.
There is a very good reason why jury trials are not a thing in most countries and even the place which invented it only uses it with half measure.

You are making a lot of false assumptions. You cannot compare the behavior within the context of an appeal with the referral case. if you look at the proposal there is very little difference between what is currently being done and what I am proposing.

Currently	Proposal
Apply for Position	Apply for Positionl
Elected (mostly yes/no votes)	Ratified (yes/no vote)
Serves 4 Months on every case	No time limit, but can choose when to serve
Can be Vonc	Can be VonC
Can be removed for inactivity or no longer meet minimal requirements	Can be removed for inactivity or no longer meet minimal requirements

In a nutshell, it has every single advantage that the current system has, but without one single negative the current system has.

[Ngugi]

Ngugi is referring to having all referrals public. The referrals are still private in this proposal.

I question that definition:

No Elections. I doubt we will reach a large number but we can restrict to 12, first come first serve

Furthermore I argue there is a difference between somone who has been elected by his peers for a responsibility and someone who meet a minimum of requirments to apply to the responsibility in the first place.

Apparently, I have misjudged the low opinion some people have of other citizens. Apparently, citizens cannot be trusted unless they are elected and under threat of a VonC to stay in line.

Considering most cases are Staff Referrals it shall be recalled we Citizens are not even allowed to ask if an applicant has a clean moderation record in the patronization process, Pike.
These matters are sensitive and private, by site regulation, as we are not in Hex or Moderation. Only by virtue of an election process, that as said contain the elements of peer trust, Hex veto and accountability, are Citizens allowed informations about another member's record.


The OP proposal adds bureaucratic workloads [an assignment process for each case] and, I argue, decrease the confidence Citizen might have for the process by a lack of elected trustees.
Also the last proposals seems contrived, compaired to an expansion of the Censor seats for example. Ergo it looks like a vision-less call for changes for the sake of changes, to me.
I'm opposed.

[PikeStance]

I question that definition:
Furthermore I argue there is a difference between somone who has been elected by his peers for a responsibility and someone who meet a minimum of requirments to apply to the responsibility in the first place.

Considering most cases are Staff Referrals it shall be recalled we Citizens are not even allowed to ask if an applicant has a clean moderation record in the patronization process, Pike.
These matters are sensitive and private, by site regulation, as we are not in Hex or Moderation. Only by virtue of an election process, that as said contain the elements of peer trust, Hex veto and accountability, are Citizens allowed informations about another member's record.

The OP proposal adds bureaucratic workloads [an assignment process for each case] and, I argue, decrease the confidence Citizen might have for the process by a lack of elected trustees.
Also the last proposals seems contrived, compaired to an expansion of the Censor seats for example. Ergo it looks like a vision-less call for changes for the sake of changes, to me.
I'm opposed.

Contraire mon ami! Everything I do has a vision. However, in light of the concerns, I switched to option B. You can see it in the OP. It is also indicated in post #15.

[Tango12345]

Opposed.