Grievance: unprecedented censorship of a grievance against moderation.

[z3n]

The majority of citizens actually like input from other people. They want to make their proposal better and easier to understand.

Sure it'd be great if things could be 100% perfect from the get go but let's not forget. We are not going to run around trampling over the constitution just because our political views dont align exactly with the other person.

The constitution currently gives him that right and If you dont like it then propose an amendment. That's how it works.

[Iskar]

Nobody claimed a VoNC proposal needed to be 100% perfect to be valid. It is true ordinary proposals are fine to be amended and improved as more input comes in, but the burden on a VoNC is higher than a simple "hey, I have an idea"-kind of proposal, and there is a wide range of elaborateness between "discontent with a single infraction" (close 0%) and utopian perfection (100%), in which a VoNC will easily stand as a valid proposal no matter the outcome.

[z3n]

Nobody claimed a VoNC proposal needed to be 100% perfect to be valid. It is true ordinary proposals are fine to be amended and improved as more input comes in, but the burden on a VoNC is higher than a simple "hey, I have an idea"-kind of proposal, and there is a wide range of elaborateness between "discontent with a single infraction" (close 0%) and utopian perfection (100%), in which a VoNC will easily stand as a valid proposal no matter the outcome.

The person marking it as invalid had a serious potential for a conflict of interest to occur. As he was in global moderation.

I would suspect a combination of political views and a history in moderation is getting in the way of accepting the constitution as it is very clearly written.

It seems to me a desperate attempt to interpret the constitution in a way that suits a political value when clearly nothing needs to be interpreted. Again. If you do not like the constitution then propose an amendment.

[Iskar]

I don't think insinuations about the personal integrity of the Curator are necessary or fruitful. The arguments have been heard and will be considered by the Curatorship.

[z3n]

I don't think insinuations about the personal integrity of the Curator are necessary or fruitful. The arguments have been heard and will be considered by the Curatorship.

Actually I was referring to you. As you insist on interpreting the constitution when it does not need to be interpreted.

It's very, very clear about VoNCs.

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 authority⁹ and, if successful against a Curial Officer, results in their immediate removal from office.¹⁰

All resolutions are voted on at the proposer's request^5,

I understand you might be good friends with Aik. But really, there's no need to interpret this.

Clearly he had a right/remit (whatever you want to call it) to do this and subsequently the constitution was violated. Why? That is up for debate about the curator specifically as he has not posted.

[PikeStance]

I have no idea what the debate is here. The constitution is not vague about the procedure.

Any Citizen can table a resolution for discussion by posting a thread in the Prothalamos.⁷Resolutions 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 authority⁹ and, if successful against a Curial Officer, results in their immediate removal from office.¹⁰

9 Frivolous use of this procedure shall be considered grounds for Curial disciplinary proceedings as per Section III

Section III deals with Referrals among other things.

The Curator's duties are equally clear.

The Curator acts as a local moderator of the Curia and is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks are accomplished.

Local moderators are given considerable leeway in moderating their boards, but there are limits to what they're permitted to do—they are not permitted to suppress dissent, for instance, if it does not violate forum rules.

It is the purpose of the Curia to be placed where grievances will be heard.

Come to discuss matters of the republic, complaints, grievances, and nominations. Citizens only!

I do not see anywhere within the Constitution where the Curator can stop dissent or stop a citizen from voicing their grievance against the site, staff, or other citizens. In fact, the Constitution specifically states that "any citizen" may do so. Moreover, the only action that can be taken for a frivolous VonC is a referral, not a closure. The Constitution is specific on this.

[Aikanár]

I do understand that ending the Vonc wasn't the most popular move with Ponti.

I ended this VonC, because the Curia is not the place to take your grievances to when you are dissatisfied with a Moderator or his actions. There are established channels of communication to do so and Ponti knows them all. Also, Gig pointed those out to Ponti again, in case Ponti might have forgotten.
Considering that and the hostile postings, one of which is still under discussion with regard to moderation or behavioral consequences and with the only grounds of this VonC being one infraction, which can be overturned by the Tribunal, dealt with in the Praetorium or negotiated directly with the Moderation Overseers, I considered THIS VonC to be created for personal vendetta reasons only and thus frivolous.

That being said, I recognize that I could simply have let the discussion develop and see where it might end up, accepting full well the hostile way the discussion started with. I choose not to.

However, if Ponti is determined in this case, I reconsider my decision in case he puts together a Vonc based on more than a single infraction.

I also do advise him to go through the propper channels of communication when he has grievances with a staff member or decision.

[PikeStance]

Aik,

I think we all understand (except maybe one person) why you made the decision. In fact, I sympathized with the sentiment Unfortunately, the Curator does not have within its powers to close a discussion on the grounds it is frivolous. The Constitution is very clear on this point.

Shall the "roasting" begin? (probably not going to be the person a certain person hopes it will be).

[Pontifex Maximus]

I find it a bit biased, and maybe I am wrong, but the Curator who who has since threatened me via PM, closed and removed my thread, still has close ties with moderation, continues to threaten me and refuses to allow threads be opened in the Curia which may oppose moderation, but maybe this person is too biased to make decisions? Maybe the fact our current Curator remains such close ties to moderation has contributed to the Curator's negative response to my thread? I wouldn't feel as strongly had Aikanar not directly threatened me via PM should I pursue in my grievances.

I personally think this coverup is overkill. If things had been allowed to be discussed as per usual, we wouldn't be here.

[z3n]

I do find it interesting that the same proponent of the global moderation act goes to such great lengths in order to stop a VoNC in an indisputable violation of the constitution.

Fascinating stuff. Personal agendas , personal vendettas, what next?

[Love Mountain]

I do find it interesting that the same proponent of the global moderation act goes to such great lengths in order to stop a VoNC in an indisputable violation of the constitution.

Fascinating stuff. Personal agendas , personal vendettas, what next?

If you want to talk about irony. I find it ironic that you're defending a VonC that's based entirely upon,

"a personal agenda, vendetta, and political ideology."

You wanna talk about whether it's constitutionally permissible to close a VonC? Fine. It is however, amusing that you would insinuate an ulterior motive when the VonC in question was extremely lacking in its substance and can be easily construed as being entirely based upon "ulterior motives". Let's stick to interpreting the Constitution, and not accuse one member or another of personal bias. It's unproductive and unprofessional, but more than that, it devolves the debate into "he said, she said" rather than objectivity. The solution here is simple. Instead of moaning and groaning about censorship, work with the powers that be, publicly, to determine what would be constitute sufficient evidence and presentation to be allowed to stand as a VonC of a moderator that you don't like.

I agree with closing that thread, if for nothing else than a lack of any substantial evidence. I imagine it would only produce 20 pages of nonsensical discussion (similar to this one) that would produce no result (due to a lack of evidence) but quite a bit of drama. Though I imagine that's what some people here are looking for.

[z3n]

If you want to talk about irony. I find it ironic that you're defending a VonC that's based entirely upon,

"a personal agenda, vendetta, and political ideology."

You wanna talk about whether it's constitutionally permissible to close a VonC? Fine. It is however, amusing that you would insinuate an ulterior motive when the VonC in question was extremely lacking in its substance and can be easily construed as being entirely based upon "ulterior motives". Let's stick to interpreting the Constitution, and not accuse one member or another of personal bias. It's unproductive and unprofessional, but more than that, it devolves the debate into "he said, she said" rather than objectivity. The solution here is simple. Instead of moaning and groaning about censorship, work with the powers that be, publicly, to determine what would be constitute sufficient evidence and presentation to be allowed to stand as a VonC of a moderator that you don't like.

I agree with closing that thread, if for nothing else than a lack of any substantial evidence. I imagine it would only produce 20 pages of nonsensical discussion (similar to this one) that would produce no result (due to a lack of evidence) but quite a bit of drama. Though I imagine that's what some people here are looking for.

Yes you caught me I meant it to be a bit funny.

Wasn't Katsumoto your patron? You know? The guy who was VoNC'd? Fancy seeing you here arguing about personal agendas and personal vendettas. The plot thickens.


But wait... there's more! Who voted against You? Lets see. Ponti? Gee. I wonder if that entails a grudge or any hard feelings? Just kidding. We aren't politicians. We are forum users!

Besides its probably a subconscious (unconcious?) bias at best. I am unaware of the latest lingo. But its something like that. Or probanly nothing at all. I'm just having fun writing posts. Don't mind me.

[Gigantus]

And here I was, looking forward to a good conspiracy story.

[PikeStance]

Personal agenda within the Curia? Never, I'll say!

[Love Mountain]

Yes you caught me I meant it to be a bit funny.

Wasn't Katsumoto your patron? You know? The guy who was VoNC'd? Fancy seeing you here arguing about personal agendas and personal vendettas. The plot thickens.


But wait... there's more! Who voted against You? Lets see. Ponti? Gee. I wonder if that entails a grudge or any hard feelings? Just kidding. We aren't politicians. We are forum users!

Besides its probably a subconscious (unconcious?) bias at best. I am unaware of the latest lingo. But its something like that. Or probanly nothing at all. I'm just having fun writing posts. Don't mind me.

just having fun Im sure. Ill make certain that my future insidious plots remain much better cloaked. My campaign to silence Ponti has been going so well otherwise. No, Ponti’s thread was essentially the same whining we see in the threads discussing Moderation where the same bunch constantly gather to complain about how crnsored they are. Show that thread to anyone and they will likely conclude that its a knee jerk reaction to being given an infraction they dont agree with. It did not set a foundation for any quality discussion to VonC a moderator.


This is a waste of time. If you are so indignated and informed Ponti, gather evidence and testimonials, Im sure you can find both from the same disgruntled bunch that tends to whine about Moderation, and make a compelling VonC. Otherwise carry on stirring up drama in the CVRIA because you are too lazy to do the former

[Aikanár]

I find it a bit biased, and maybe I am wrong, but the Curator who who has since threatened me via PM, closed and removed my thread, still has close ties with moderation, continues to threaten me and refuses to allow threads be opened in the Curia which may oppose moderation, but maybe this person is too biased to make decisions? Maybe the fact our current Curator remains such close ties to moderation has contributed to the Curator's negative response to my thread? I wouldn't feel as strongly had Aikanar not directly threatened me via PM should I pursue in my grievances.

I personally think this coverup is overkill. If things had been allowed to be discussed as per usual, we wouldn't be here.

Threatened you by pm? You pmed me and this was my only reply:

Provide me reasons for your latest actions in closing and removing my threads in the Curia. Do not forget that as Curator, you serve the Curia and it's citizens. Your failure to do so will result in VONC proceedings against you on the grounds you have breached your constitutional duties. Your perusal of threads I have opened should inform you that the reality, or at least their serious consideration, of their passage is evident. Outside those public discussions, I will also disclose to you that many high level individuals have intimated their support for my position.

I do not wish to make an additional controversy out of your censorship of my thread in the Curia, but if you want a war, I am not going to back down.

You're failure to abide by what I have said before, which are your constitutional duties, will result in my full throated support for the suspension of the Curia for 12 months.

Hello,

you can start a Vonc against me any day you wish to. Please do go ahead.

As for the closure of the Vonc against Katsumoto, yes, you are free to open a VonC against any official anytime you see fit. However, I will not accept the Curia to become the playground for your personal beef with Staff, in this case, Moderation Staff. You know the ways of communication with Moderation when you have an issue with them, very good. If not you, who should know them better, considering your staff history. Therefor and with regard to the hostile tone you used against fellow citizens, I decided to close your vonc.

I advise you to take up communication with moderation through the proper channels.

Cheers,
Aik

[Halie Satanus]

And here I was, looking forward to a good conspiracy story.

This has gone from a VonC, which could have been discussed and disputed and dismissed, to threats from Hex and a suppression of open discourse. It would have been smarter to allow the VonC and see it play out to a conclusion, which looked fairy predictable. Instead there are members who will now feel distrust in the curators and in Hex.

Another nail in the coffin.

Conspiracy enough?...

[Gigantus]

The vagaries of responding to a jest in kind....

Would you mind linking to the hex threats pertaining to this issue? Or whatever issue you are referring to?

[Lifthrasir]

The curia doesn't need any conspiracy (from Hex or any other department) to put the nail in the coffin. Just look at it:
- profusion of proposals mostly concerning the curia itself.
- involvement of the curia in the Post of the Fortnight: 0%
- involvement of the curia in a new badge competition for the 3K release: 0%
- a citizen spreading his grievance against a mod and a curator: 3 pages
- another one acting like a white knight in crusade among the curia while not being so white himself (I'm sure that he'll reconize himself ).
Honestly, this place is becoming a joke. I'm out of here.

[Mhaedros]

Outside those public discussions, I will also disclose to you that many high level individuals have intimated their support for my position.

I do not wish to make an additional controversy out of your censorship of my thread in the Curia, but if you want a war, I am not going to back down.

Always good to look into the Curia every once in a while.

Absurd Vonc, absurd "conspiracy", good riddance.