Grievance: unprecedented censorship of a grievance against moderation.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I demand an answer of the Curial leadership as to why my thread was closed and archived. Please provide strict constitutional arguments for your closure of my thread, realizing that your complicity in this cover up has harmed the ability of the Curia/citizens to ever question site staff. Was my original question so threatening to corruption that it had to be shut down to save face? Failure to reply will result in calls for dismissal of current curial authority. You can archive things all you like, but it will not save you from accountability of the electorate provided they still care about the Curia at all.

Aikanar unconstitutionally threatens me with extra-constitutional punishments for daring to air grievances against moderation. If he persists I will demand his removal from any position of authority. Does membership in the Curia count for anything, or not? According to Katsumoto and Aikanar, it does not. They are drunk on power and must be refused. I am prepared to propose VONCs/Ostrakon on those curial officials responsible.

If my claims are so spurious, why are they so vehemently covered as to what I'm arguing?

Why is this discussion so threatening that it must be shut down?

Why is the Curia no longer a forum by which staff of the site may be reviewed/critiqued?

[Gaius Baltar]

Do you have proof?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Yes, which was disallowed to be posted about by Curial officials in this case as well as moderation by moving, closing threads, and threatening me with consequences should I post about it. Honest authorities with nothing to hide to not behave in this way.

They are so terrified of an open and honest debate that they must shut the discussion down and punish dissenters for daring to disagree with them. It has happened so clearly in this case, honestly what more evidence is needed?

Should the Curial officials remove my thread again, I will pursue measures to oust them from authority on Constitutional grounds that they have violated the prerogatives of citizens in their free debate within the Curia.

[z3n]

Constitutionally speaking you certainly seem to be within your rights.

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

So... Hmm. Interesting.



Aik... Why exactly did you close the thread? It seems odd.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Constitutionally speaking you certainly seem to be within your rights.




So... Hmm. Interesting.

Thank you sir, it is a mater over whether constitutional rights will be respected regardless of the speech directed against staff, but perhaps especially in this case due to the dire charged being made. Everyone's value of citizenship is being devalued here, and we cannot stand for it. The fact this has been unceremoniously censored by our own Curial officers is a bad omen. We may need to remove them.

[Commissar Caligula_]

If only TWC possessed an amendment which would allow us to take up arms and put these bloody handed baby killers up against a wall.
We could call it the first.... no, lets call it the second amendment. That sounds snappy.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Home Owners Associations and local councils. Katsumoto and Aikanar are merely two more wretched scum who are systematically oppressing our rights.

[Hader]

Technically, within right of the constitution to initiate a VonC on staff members, though the only stipulation of removal for any "successful" VonC is only for curial officers. So it would presumably not make it to vote in any shape or form and only be something for staff to consider.

On such grounds, I'd say the curator should possibly reconsider allowing such a thread.

On the other hand, I'd suggest you probably put together more of a case than a single infraction and its PM, if it is truly as serious as you claim; and additionally, take a step back and be more objective about it. Your use of colorful language both here and in the closed thread (mostly here) honestly does more to discredit yourself and the claim than anything else. Coming on the heels of so much curial mumbo jumbo behind citizen behavior and whatnot, it seems in bad taste. That, and if not already taken up with the curator via PM, I'd think that is the better way to go about this before creating a thread here about it. It may not be a strict chain of command sort of deal but in general solving grievances between affected parties first is good practice, especially when it's something like this.

Either way, I see some fault in both parties here that should probably be self corrected, no grievance had and things cleared up and moved on. Unless we're here to create drama for drama's sake again, in which case I do have the perfect drama llama gif to go along with it all.

I will not comment on moderation or the specifics of those staff involved as a hex since moderation is not my area and this is no moderation emergency by any means.

[PikeStance]

If only TWC possessed an amendment which would allow us to take up arms and put these bloody handed baby killers up against a wall.
We could call it the first.... no, lets call it the second amendment. That sounds snappy.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Home Owners Associations and local councils. Katsumoto and Aikanar are merely two more wretched scum who are systematically oppressing our rights.

Of those listed, Homeowners Associations are the worst sort of scum.

Technically, within right of the constitution to initiate a VonC on staff members, though the only stipulation of removal for any "successful" VonC is only for curial officers. So it would presumably not make it to vote in any shape or form and only be something for staff to consider.

On such grounds, I'd say the curator should possibly reconsider allowing such a thread.

On the other hand, I'd suggest you probably put together more of a case than a single infraction and its PM, if it is truly as serious as you claim; and additionally, take a step back and be more objective about it. Your use of colorful language both here and in the closed thread (mostly here) honestly does more to discredit yourself and the claim than anything else. Coming on the heels of so much curial mumbo jumbo behind citizen behavior and whatnot, it seems in bad taste. That, and if not already taken up with the curator via PM, I'd think that is the better way to go about this before creating a thread here about it. It may not be a strict chain of command sort of deal but in general solving grievances between affected parties first is good practice, especially when it's something like this.

Either way, I see some fault in both parties here that should probably be self-corrected, no grievance had and things cleared up and moved on. Unless we're here to create drama for drama's sake again, in which case I do have the perfect drama llama gif to go along with it all.

I will not comment on moderation or the specifics of those staff involved as a hex since moderation is not my area and this is no moderation emergency by any means.

I agree. There wasn't much there. If you are going to ask for the removal of a staff member, you have better have more compelling evidence than what you presented. The closing of the thread seemed to be an overstep. I urge the Curator to reopen the thread and let the events unfold.

I would also agree that some of Ponti's statements are becoming increasingly unbecoming of a citizen.

[Elfdude]

Ponti, dude you're spiralling. It's not a good look. Your combativeness is becoming self-destructive dude.

[Halie Satanus]

My understanding is Ponti’s grievance has it’s roots in moderation policies regarding the RPG section. That’s the impression I get from our discussions. I imagine there’s a knock on from the GS staff affair. I know RPG is a section he cares about and it’s not uncommon for members to become frustrated by changes they feel are intrusive. Maybe Hex needs to reasses things there. I’m sure Ponti would be open to dialogue.

As for the actions of Aik. Yes Ponti has a point, though the evidence against Kats was pretty minimal and very arguable. I don’t feel Aik acted out of malice and no one died. That can be reassed.

It’s sad how the automising and professionalisation of moderating has resulted in a loss of connection with staff. The site has many corners, but I used to know every staff member, now I doubt I could name more than three. Hex has withdrawn to such a degree they’ve become reactionary only appearing when summoned. Maybe that’s working in some sections, but it doesn’t seem to be in others. I raised this years ago, staff and Hex especially needs to be visable other than when chastising...

[General Brewster]

The critical difference being that I closed the thread not Aik. Aik archived it but I killed the discussion.

It's rather simple, I don't know the constitution from the top of my head, was in a hurry and saw something happening of which I was not sure that it was possible. I decided to close it pending what Hex was going to say, considering Gig was already reading the thread I figured he was making a response. I did not have the time to check the constitution. So if anything, blame me and not Aik. aik probably was just moving onto the course that I had set out.

[Lifthrasir]

I'm wondering what Ponti would have done if Katsumoto wasn't a citizen
Was VoNC the right thing to do for such kind of grievance?

[Iskar]

I think the closure and invalidation by Aik after Gig's message was justified. Gig laid out the standard venues for voicing discontent with a moderation action, so closing the vonc did not silence the grievance itself, and a vonc based on a single infraction constitutes frivolous use of the institute if ever there was one.

[Navajo Joe]

I would like to know why Aikanar felt that his post after Gigantus was necessary? Gigantus has answered Ponti in his response and you could then consider that Aikanar post, only inflammed the situation. I can understand that Aikanar wants to put his position as Curator, but then goes on to talk about further enforcement, which may be true, but how necessary was it, on an already very heated situation.

[Gaius Baltar]

Pontifex Maximus needs to lay out is argument in more detail. However, if these arguments are being censored that is a concern.

VONC of a staff member doesn't amount to much anymore, perhaps 10 years ago when moderators were in part confirmed by the Curia.

[z3n]

The critical difference being that I closed the thread not Aik. Aik archived it but I killed the discussion.

It's rather simple, I don't know the constitution from the top of my head, was in a hurry and saw something happening of which I was not sure that it was possible. I decided to close it pending what Hex was going to say, considering Gig was already reading the thread I figured he was making a response. I did not have the time to check the constitution. So if anything, blame me and not Aik. aik probably was just moving onto the course that I had set out.

My understanding was that Aik closes the thread permanently by archiving it, marking it incorrectly as invalid (it is constitutionally valid), and then proceeds to unilaterally stare there will be further action against Ponti if he exercises his constitutional right again.

So why? Why did he do that? I was trying to be as gentle as possible in such a delicate situation.

[PointOfViewGun]

October 30, 2018, 04:25 AM - Moderator issues thread warning in the thread in question.
October 30, 2018, xx:xx XX - At certain point on this day Pontifex Maximus received an infraction, correct?
October 30, 2018, 06:55 PM - Pontifex Maximus appeals his infraction.
October 30, 2018, xx:xx XX - At certain point around the time Pontifex Maximus opened a Tribunal appeal, he also opened a Praetorium appeal.
October 30, 2018, 07:16 PM - Pontifex Maximus opens a vote of no confidence proposal thread about the moderator that issues the infraction.
October 31, 2018, 08:26 PM - Pontifex Maximus opens this thread to discuss why his vote of no confidence proposal thread was shut down.

Why so much drama? What was so urgent that it had to be resolved through pretty much all channels of TWC? Whether Pontifex Maximus is right or wrong about his grievances this seems to be a hysterical attempt rather than a constructive effort to right out wrongs.

[Iskar]

I would like to know why Aikanar felt that his post after Gigantus was necessary? Gigantus has answered Ponti in his response and you could then consider that Aikanar post, only inflammed the situation. I can understand that Aikanar wants to put his position as Curator, but then goes on to talk about further enforcement, which may be true, but how necessary was it, on an already very heated situation.

The further investigation refers to a separate post made in that thread and is not strictly related to the handling of the VoNC thread itself. Whether or not a situation is considered heated should not prevent moderation of it, in my humble opinion, either.

Pontifex Maximus needs to lay out is argument in more detail. However, if these arguments are being censored that is a concern.

VONC of a staff member doesn't amount to much anymore, perhaps 10 years ago when moderators were in part confirmed by the Curia.

Ponti had the opportunity to lay out such arguments in the OP to begin with, but chose to open a VoNC, a serious matter, based on a single infraction he disagreed with. No further arguments were censored as none were brought up.

My understanding was that Aik closes the thread permanently by archiving it, marking it incorrectly as invalid (it is constitutionally valid), and then proceeds to unilaterally stare there will be further action against Ponti if he exercises his constitutional right again.

So why? Why did he do that? I was trying to be as gentle as possible in such a delicate situation.

Frivolous use of VoNCs is particularly not a constitutional privilege (strictly speaking there are no "rights" on a privately owned website) and I would deem it well within the Curator's remit as local moderator of the Curia and final voice on constitutional practice under his tenure to rule a frivolous proposal invalid.

[z3n]

October 30, 2018, 04:25 AM - Moderator issues thread warning in the thread in question.
October 30, 2018, xx:xx XX - At certain point on this day Pontifex Maximus received an infraction, correct?
October 30, 2018, 06:55 PM - Pontifex Maximus appeals his infraction.
October 30, 2018, xx:xx XX - At certain point around the time Pontifex Maximus opened a Tribunal appeal, he also opened a Praetorium appeal.
October 30, 2018, 07:16 PM - Pontifex Maximus opens a vote of no confidence proposal thread about the moderator that issues the infraction.
October 31, 2018, 08:26 PM - Pontifex Maximus opens this thread to discuss why his vote of no confidence proposal thread was shut down.

Why so much drama? What was so urgent that it had to be resolved through pretty much all channels of TWC? Whether Pontifex Maximus is right or wrong about his grievances this seems to be a hysterical attempt rather than a constructive effort to right out wrongs.

Hey, what's wrong with some site activity? Honestly though, I don't see the harm in calling things out how you see it when things get political. I think you do that VERY often.

[PointOfViewGun]

Hey, what's wrong with some site activity? Honestly though, I don't see the harm in calling things out how you see it when things get political. I think you do that VERY often.

Of course, but I try to that in an orderly fashion. Otherwise its really hard for your viewpoints to get through.