[Amendment] Dual Consulship & Aedile Act

[PikeStance]

The mod permissions are already in the constitution, it is only your unsupported opinion that we need to put regulations on what task can be delegated to assistants, and the regulations you added how ToS violations are treated aren't needed either, as the Curator can well work that out with Hex himself according to their preference for heavier or lighter moderation.

There is a big difference between "acts as a local moderator" and "acts as a moderator," and I have quotes from when that was enacted to prove it.
There is nothing added to nor taken away from the assistants in exactly the same was when we added "acts as a local moderator" to the Constitution
The ToS provision is taken from Prefect Act proposal in which no one objected to. Like many, I actually liked the inclusion into the Constitution. I objected giving power to an appointed position.

This proposal would add lots of further restrictions to the Curator's/Consul's office, which is the opposite direction of where we should go I think. If we trust our Curators so little that we need to regulate every tidbit of their day to day work, why do we elect them in the first place?

It does just the opposite which is why I proposed the name change from Curator to Consul. This amendment allows the Consuls to act within their own conscience and moderate the forum without criticism. The goal was to create a situation where the Consuls can do just that without any more prolonged debate on what the Constitution says and does not says.

If these are your own objectives, then you should just support the proposal and let's see how it works out. If it proves to be overburdensome, then I will be the first to support a change.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

Support.

[Iskar]

I doubt you will ever get the ok from Hex to let the Curator act as an actual Moderator unless you restrict possible candidates to no one but Moderators and ex-Moderators.

[PikeStance]

I doubt you will ever get the ok from Hex to let the Curator act as an actual Moderator unless you restrict possible candidates to no one but Moderators and ex-Moderators.

The amendment clearly states that the Consul issues a referral for conduct unbecoming a citizen and that ToS violation will be reported to admin. The term "acts" is describing that the Consul will be responsible for any conduct unbecoming. I am not sure what your objection is; first, it was fluff, then it was restrictive, and now it is too expansive. Like Goldilocks and the Three Little bears, this amendment, IMO is just right.



-------------------

Curator, I have the requirements to go to vote.

CONFIRMED SUPPORTERS_________________________________________________________
♔atthias♔ | Quintus Hortensius Hortalus | Katsumoto de Voltaire |

Thank you gentleman!

[Iskar]

The amendment clearly states that the Consul issues a referral for conduct unbecoming a citizen and that ToS violation will be reported to admin. The term "acts" is describing that the Consul will be responsible for any conduct unbecoming. I am not sure what your objection is; first, it was fluff, then it was restrictive, and now it is too expansive. Like Goldilocks and the Three Little bears, this amendment, IMO is just right.

I did not switch between objections, they were just brought up consecutively while no satisfactory answer was given to the previous one. I'll put it all in one post, though, and go through your main points one by one:

The CuratorConsuls acts as a local moderators ^{[New Footnote]}of the Curia in order to maintain orderly discussion and is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks are accomplished.

You cannot simply declare someone an actual moderator. That would require Den access, proper training, Hex oversight and in particular the proper recruitment process by Moderation. I'd say ask Hex before putting something like this to vote to avoid needless vetoes.

The addition of a specific purpose ("in order to maintain orderly discussion") is a needless pseudo-specification that does not add any reliable guidelines while opening up the way for many more VoNCs because someone believes their personal interpretation of "orderly discussion" is the only valid one and the Curator must adhere to it.

^{[New Footnote} The Consuls will be tasked to report directly to Hex any instances where a citizen is in breach of the ToS. Hex reports shall be recorded in the Politia chat thread. (source)

a thread warning posted in 'purple lettering.
a PM.
a referral to the censors.

Apart from the fact that this paragraph is barely readable, why do we need to tell the Consuls how exactly to administrate ToS breaches?

Furthermore,
- anyone can report already,
- you cannot enforce reporting because you cannot check whether a Consul has seen a post,
- and explicitly leaving any and all positive action within the hands of Hex (which would be less authority for the Consules than any local mod of any hosted mod forum has) cripples the moderation of the Curia while increasing the already heavy workload of Hex.

And finally, why the sneak reintroduction of citizen conduct referrals? That's just an even less transparent version of the citizen referrals we just did away with.

^{[New Footnote]} Aedile to perform day to day tasks.

Record keeping
Starting and closing polls.
Opening application, debate, and voting threads for Curial Officers.
Archiving of threads

This is, again, a grammatical ruin. Other than that, it needlessly restricts the kind of tasks the Consules can delegate to their assistants. This is basically sneaking a restriction into the Constitution on the back of the main idea (two consules), that would make the office less flexible, and lead it down the way of being choked by regulations. How long before an overzealous self-declared prosecutor would VoNC a Consul that had an assistant perform a task not strictly listed here?

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.

You cannot just remove this, as you have to account for the case when both Consul positions are vacant (think coinciding VoNC and term expiration, or double VoNC, given how trigger happy the recent past was).

Applicants for the offices of Consul cannot have received an infraction, or a Curial Warning, in at least 6 months, and must have been Citizens for at least three months. They served minimally two terms as either a Censor or magistrate or 3 months as a moderator as a citizen.

This restricts the pool of possible applicants to a small number of veterans, basically the "Curial patriarchy", closing the office off to newcomers and fresh blood.
The very point of having two Consules would be that an experienced Consul can tutor a less experienced one on the go to work as a fruitful tandem of experience and new ideas. Putting such harsh restrictions on the applicant pool completely nullifies that.

Citizens are referred¹ to the Triumvirate by Moderation for infraction incurred or by either Consul for conduct unbecoming a citizen.

Great, reintroducing citizen referrals through the backdoor (also see above). Any more changes you wanted to stuff into this otherwise innocuous idea?

[♔atthias♔]

still support

[Katsumoto]

Support.

[Lifthrasir]

I'm fully in line with Iskar here. Opposed.

[Hader]

While the idea of essentially two rotating Curators is interesting, I'm afraid I must oppose due to the fact I am working on a proposal that would not be able to work with this one.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Reading Iskar's and Lifth's post I'm getting the impression that it'll be simpler and more handy to have the dual curatorship, but without all the further restrictions,micromanagement etc
I'm traveling and my internet access is minimal, so I'll need to recheck all the posts and see how it goes. I very much like and will gladly continue my support for the basic idea though.

[Tango12345]

See Hader's comment for my view on this.

[General Brewster]

While the idea of essentially two rotating Curators is interesting, I'm afraid I must oppose due to the fact I am working on a proposal that would not be able to work with this one.

See Hader's comment for my view on this.

It better be good.

[Gaius Baltar]

I would tend to support but the qualifications section I think should be loosened up. Perhaps add those who have acted as staff members in other capacities, such as creative contest forum managers, modding staff, content staff, etc.

[StealthFox]

Vote thread is now up.

[PikeStance]

I did not switch between objections, they were just brought up consecutively while no satisfactory answer was given to the previous one. I'll put it all in one post, though, and go through your main points one by one:

You cannot simply declare someone an actual moderator. That would require Den access, proper training, Hex oversight and in particular the proper recruitment process by Moderation. I'd say ask Hex before putting something like this to vote to avoid needless vetoes.

As I already stated, the word "acts" is the key term here. The Consules will be enforcing conduct unbecoming and reporting any ToS violations. In both cases, the actions of the Consul would be under review by the Triumvirate and or Moderation.

Furthermore,
[1] anyone can report already,
[2] you cannot enforce reporting because you cannot check whether a Consul has seen a post,
[3] and explicitly leaving any and all positive action within the hands of Hex (which would be less authority for the Consules than any local mod of any hosted mod forum has) cripples the moderation of the Curia while increasing the already heavy workload of Hex.

1, true,
2, go back to 1.
3, Hex is already the moderator for the Curia.
As I stated, this was burrowed and no one objected to it in the other proposal, so I added it to this one. It seems logical.

And finally, why the sneak reintroduction of citizen conduct referrals? That's just an even less transparent version of the citizen referrals we just did away with. ...Great, reintroducing citizen referrals through the backdoor (also see above). Any more changes you wanted to stuff into this otherwise innocuous idea?

What are you talking about? Citizen's referrals are not "added back in"

Citizens are referred1 to the Triumvirate by Moderation for infraction incurred or by either Consul for conduct unbecoming a citizen.

The blue is the only thing I added. It is specific to the Consul only.

This is, again, a grammatical ruin. Other than that, it needlessly restricts the kind of tasks the Consules can delegate to their assistants. This is basically sneaking a restriction into the Constitution on the back of the main idea (two consules), that would make the office less flexible, and lead it down the way of being choked by regulations. How long before an overzealous self-declared prosecutor would VoNC a Consul that had an assistant perform a task not strictly listed here?

Consules are not restricted at all. Assistants defined roles is exactly what they can do now. Since the role of the Cosules as increased, it had become necessary to ensure that only consules "moderate" the Curia. As far as your question is concerned, I am not sure an assistant would be able to issue a referral. It would be invalid.

You cannot just remove this, as you have to account for the case when both Consul positions are vacant (think coinciding VoNC and term expiration, or double VoNC, given how trigger happy the recent past was).

That would defeat the whole point of a dual Consulship, wouldn't it?

This restricts the pool of possible applicants to a small number of veterans, basically the "Curial patriarchy", closing the office off to newcomers and fresh blood.
The very point of having two Consules would be that an experienced Consul can tutor a less experienced one on the go to work as a fruitful tandem of experience and new ideas. Putting such harsh restrictions on the applicant pool completely nullifies that.

I offered it up for discussion and you responded by saying opposed. Besides, there are worse things to do than serve two worthwhile terms as Censor or Magistrate. You would be a better citizen for doing so and it will be a nice learning experience.

Vote thread is now up.

Thank you, sir!

[Iskar]

As I already stated, the word "acts" is the key term here. The Consules will be enforcing conduct unbecoming and reporting any ToS violations. In both cases, the actions of the Consul would be under review by the Triumvirate and or Moderation.

"act as" only distinguishes roles from functions, it does not diminish the reach of either. I do not think it means what you think it means here.

Enforce conduct how? Please elaborate.

1, true,
2, go back to 1.
3, Hex is already the moderator for the Curia.
As I stated, this was burrowed and no one objected to it in the other proposal, so I added it to this one. It seems logical.

2 has nothing to do with 1.
Hex barely if ever and only if asked to moderates the Curia.
I didn't know ideas could be made into burrows.

What are you talking about? Citizen's referrals are not "added back in"
The blue is the only thing I added. It is specific to the Consul only.

You're adding back in a discretionary referral for unbecoming conduct. Less people can launch it than before but it is the same principle.

Consules are not restricted at all. Assistants defined roles is exactly what they can do now. Since the role of the Cosules as increased, it had become necessary to ensure that only consules "moderate" the Curia. As far as your question is concerned, I am not sure an assistant would be able to issue a referral. It would be invalid.

The assistant tasks you list are less than the current ones a Curator can delegate to their assistants. There is neither any real increase of the Consules' remit over the current Curator's remit - both can moderate as local mods of the Curia and as I stated above, just removing the word "local" does not make the Consules actual moderators unless you get Hex to accept elected members of the moderation team - which is extremely unlikely.

That would defeat the whole point of a dual Consulship, wouldn't it?


I offered it up for discussion and you responded by saying opposed. Besides, there are worse things to do than serve two worthwhile terms as Censor or Magistrate. You would be a better citizen for doing so and it will be a nice learning experience.

That does not address the issue that you would severely reduce the pool of possible candidates.

[PikeStance]

"act as" only distinguishes roles from functions, it does not diminish the reach of either. I do not think it means what you think it means here.
Enforce conduct how? Please elaborate.

I know exactly what it means. It is elaborated on what you referred to as "fluff." It is the same function as outlined in both prefects acts.

2 has nothing to do with 1. Anyone can report a post.
Hex barely if ever and only if asked to moderates the Curia. it doesn't change that as a fact and if the Consul reports it, they will act on it one way or another.

You're adding back in a discretionary referral for unbecoming conduct. Less people can launch it than before but it is the same principle.

This is yet another flip-flop of your opinion. You stated here in your own proposal that this amendment would remove the current process of citizen referrals, but it does not exist in a vacuum and there are several proposals under discussion or vote that would fill the intermediate levels of response to unbecoming behaviour, Halie's prefect proposal for instance.

There is no substantive difference between the prefect act and this. The only difference is that instead of an appointed prefect, the two Consuls share the same role. They are also both elected. Moreover, you actually supported the prefect act (here) stating the following; I'll support this, even though I would like the Prefect to have full local mod permissions, including editing and deleting posts. Authoritative thread warnings will go a long way already, though.

If you were fine with Prefect issuing referrals and reporting ToS, then I do not see why you would be against Consules doing the same.

The assistant tasks you list are less than the current ones a Curator can delegate to their assistants. There is neither any real increase of the Consules' remit over the current Curator's remit - both can moderate as local mods of the Curia and as I stated above, just removing the word "local" does not make the Consules actual moderators unless you get Hex to accept elected members of the moderation team - which is extremely unlikely.

Why are you making this same point over and over again? I already stated numerous times how the role is defined. If I were to remove the so-called "fluff" then you would be making a valid point, but the 'fluff" is there.

[Iskar]

I know exactly what it means. It is elaborated on what you referred to as "fluff." It is the same function as outlined in both prefects acts.

I don't know what that sentence is supposed to mean. The prefect idea has nothing to do with this, as contrary to restricting the remit of assistants and the pool of Curatores/Consules it would have simply added a dedicated moderation official for the Curia.

This is yet another flip-flop of your opinion. You stated here in your own proposal that this amendment would remove the current process of citizen referrals, but it does not exist in a vacuum and there are several proposals under discussion or vote that would fill the intermediate levels of response to unbecoming behaviour, Halie's prefect proposal for instance.

What has this statement of mine to do with my reservations about your idea? This is getting increasingly incoherent.

There is no substantive difference between the prefect act and this. The only difference is that instead of an appointed prefect, the two Consuls share the same role. They are also both elected. Moreover, you actually supported the prefect act (here) stating the following; I'll support this, even though I would like the Prefect to have full local mod permissions, including editing and deleting posts. Authoritative thread warnings will go a long way already, though.

If you were fine with Prefect issuing referrals and reporting ToS, then I do not see why you would be against Consules doing the same.

You do see the difference between an additional office with strict requirements not touching the office of Curator/Consul and putting stricter requirements on the office of Curator/Consul itself, do you?

Why are you making this same point over and over again? I already stated numerous times how the role is defined. If I were to remove the so-called "fluff" then you would be making a valid point, but the 'fluff" is there.

Because you fail to actually address it.

It is somewhat tiresome to reply to incoherent random claims and derailing mentions of other things I said that have nothing to do with this proposal or the arguments I brought up at all. Hence I will cease discussing this here.