[2018-XXVII] [Citizen Referral] Pontifex Maximus - Appeal

[General Brewster]

Dear citizens of the Curia,

Pontifex Maximus has decided to appeal the outcome of his referral. As outlined by the constitution per the below article he has that right.

The Curator posts the original private Referral, and the further action thread in the Questiones Perpetuae, and opens a new poll thread with the options to keep, overturn or change the ruling, or abstain. The poll lasts for four days. If the Citizenry votes to change the punishment, the Curator opens a second poll for four days. The options are all punishments excluding the original punishment, and abstention. A simple majority of non-abstaining votes is required for the first vote. In the case of a vote to either increase or decrease punishment, in the second vote, the option with the highest number of votes is the punishment given. Where two options have the same number of votes, the punishment given is determined by the Multiple Transferable Vote System.

Might I remind the censors, referrer and referred that under the current precedent they are not allowed to vote anything else but abstain.

On behalf of the citizen's triumvirate,
General Brewster

[PikeStance]

My Thoughts

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus Let the leftist tears flow. The Senate has confirmed a man who has been so unbelievably and irreconcilably slurred and dragged through the mud for political purposes that it is hardly believable they have any position other than that of partisan hack. I cannot wait to see the detrimental impacts this absolutely moronic and ineffective strategy has had on the idiot democrat party on the midterms. They have already squandered a 10 point lead in most states thanks to their dumb ass strategy, and I can only hope to god they lose big time next month. How anyone could ever vote for a democrat given this recent idiotic scandal is beyond me. What a bunch of ing, masquerading morons. We can't trust a single thing any of those idiots say. Oh please lord let any of these moron democrats win their presidential nomination for 2020. Please let it be Booker or Harris. Those unmitigated racist idiots.


The next time any of you absolutely degenerate senator morons want to bring false rape accusations in order to undermine a political process for your own gains, at least make it halfway credible. Absolutely pathetic.

Why was this included? He is referring to politicians.

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus Ahahaha the UN, what a useless organization. Cut off all funding from the US and see if they're still standing. Those hypocritical, worthless, moronic sons of whores.

Again, he is referring to a political organization. Apparently, he is making a joke with the emoji.

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus Opposed. His temperament in the D&D cannot be less than awful. His debate mechanic is absolutely abysmal. Having debated with him over the course of at least five years I will assert here that his strategy and contributions to debate are not only subpar- they are denigrating to debate over the entire forum. His contributors are brainless and negligible at best. This is the sort of application which makes me doubt there is any possible value to any citizenship value should this applicant be granted citizenship.

This was posted in an application for citizenship thread. While a bit rough, scrutiny and outright criticism is allowable

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus Colored me shocked the Europeans don't understand due process of law. This is why we fought in 1776. The leftist idiots overplayed their hands in this case because as it turns out when you accuse someone of gang rape you actually need evidence. I'm not surprised really, but the libtards will be when they lose in a catastrophic way in November. Congratulations you senatorial idiots: Booker, Feinstein, and other stupid as hell black democratic congresspeople. I'd be ashamed to vote for any of those idiots.

The European is a point of debate. It isn't offensive. The rest is the normal nonsensical over the top comments the left and right make towards each other. I personally, do not engage in this type f talk, but it has been allowed to fester in the mudpit, so it seems a bit harsh now to bring down the hammer.

The above should not have been included int he referral in my opinion.

---

What follows is more disconcerting;

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus I'm completely unconvinced this wasn't proposed in a self serving way in which those holding opposite opinions won't be bludgeoned to the benefit of those holding "rights" based on this proposal; "Offensive speech" being among those things which can be punished. It seems like a transparent and frankly puerile attempt to censor the speech of others based on what someone subjectively defines as offensive speech.


Awful proposal.

This is borderline. However, he is referencing the poster rather than the substance. This is an off-topic post. Does it matter who is proposing? No.

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus What a load of ad hominem riddled drivel. If you can't form a counterargument or debate just say so.


I accept your surrender.

This is technically a disruptive posting since there is no real point to be reasonably debated. it is a mild case, so I can see why it was not dealt with by moderation.

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus Not a single actual, substantive argument made, Elfdude, and you've completely ignored every legal argument. Hilariously predictable. I accept your surrender of the actual content of debate since you are obsessed with the manner in which an argument is made. Absolutely pathetic. Yes, I'd love to see the likes of that "argument" made before a judge. I could sit down, smile, and let him rule. In my experience it is the most arrogant parties which fall in court. It's always nice when reality imitates internet.


...I'm going to abstain from listing your half dozen logical fallacies because it's just not worth it.

Same as above

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus@ spartan


Yeah so the rules apply when you want to apply them and they don't apply to democrats, your argument has fallen apart on you. There's really nothing more to say. Your moral relevancy really undercuts your white knighting here.

If he had stopped before the bold part, I would have thought, why did he bother posting at all, but he didn't. He ends with a bang.

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus






you're not a citizen. Your opinion counts for less than nothing with regards to a citizen application.

This isn't polite. Hubris is bad. It is difficult to promote the virtues of citizenship if you act without virtue.

---

To my knowledge and it was never mentioned in the discussion is if Ponti has ever been Censured in the past. If you post "x" and then later you post "Y" is it fair to judge on both instances if the first was never referred? It was mentioned that none of these violate the ToS, they "skirt" the ToS. Should citizens be this sort of poster? Another question is if a censure would be an effective deterrent for future posts? On the other hand, a two-week suspension may provide a "cooling down" period. I am undecided on whether or not to uphold or Change the ruling to Censure.

[PointOfViewGun]

I can easily say that the language and its content that Pontifex Maximus uses in these examples and many other is not really skirting the ToS but outright violating it. Many are specifically designed to agitate the other posters or heavily disruptive of a discussion. Being someone that often argued that the site moderation is being lenient on some people, Pontifex Maximus, have always been someone that I could give as an example. I have, and many others have, received nothing but demeaning comments from him. His posts gives the message that you can bully your way around this website.

What really puts the nail in the coffin is his defense in the referral. It basically says "bohoo" to everyone. So, I don't see why he even appealed this one. In anyways, I support upholding the decision and to see if two weeks is enough to cool things down.

[Halie Satanus]

He could turn the aggression down a bit, though there’s a fine line between dismissing the opposition because they have good arguments or because they have bad ones. He’s crossed it a few times, but that’s a meh from me. It’s the pit.

Being rude in the CCT is boarderline. As a statement of fact, Ponti was correct. However that would be a censure under the current system.

The citizenship proposal was over the top. Ponti let personal bias get the better of him.

The ‘moral relevancy’ comment. I’m not sure that’s actually insulting. If he’d said ‘lack of’ it might be, mild, but he didn’t.. Some see the use of you/your as automatically inferring insult.

All in all I see a harsh ticking off. But I also see how the censors got to a two week suspension under a weight of evidence.

Leaning between change ruling and abstain...

[Aexodus]

A lot of those comments are fine, some are disruptive, but the only insulting one I see is this.

you're not a citizen. Your opinion counts for less than nothing with regards to a citizen application.

I think that crosses the line. I can see how together this could look like a suspension, but judging by the very worst comment here, I would judge it to be a censure, but a suspension while perhaps a harsh ticking off as Halie said, isn’t necessarily unreasonable maybe.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15692468

This is solely based on what I deem to be a serious case of conduct unbecoming of a Citizen. The language used in the posts is certainly a bad example for all our members and reflects poorly on the Citizenry IMO. Also, carefully remaining just within what the TOS allows in multiple posts, but still making very unpleasant remarks might be something you get away with where moderation is concerned, but is not the behaviour we expect from a citizen in my view.

I think I agree with Veteraan that this does not outright violate the TOS, but is unbecoming of a citizen at the end of the day. Devil lies in the question of censure vs suspension.

[Abdülmecid I]

''Leftist tears'' is obviously not referring to politicians. Pontifex's posts are clearly inflammatory, rude, bullying and represent a textbook example of arguing in bad faith. Pontifex Maximus is disregarding the Discussion and Debate rules, which may not be the globally applied Terms of Service, but which I expect from every citizen to at least pretend to respect.

[Halie Satanus]

''Leftist tears'' is obviously not referring to politicians. Pontifex's posts are clearly inflammatory, rude, bullying and represent a textbook example of arguing in bad faith. Pontifex Maximus is essentially spitting at the face of the Discussion and Debate rules, which may not be the globally applied Terms of Service, but which I expect from every citizen to at least pretend to respect. Edit..

I might be missing something, but is your use of language that far off what you’re vilifying Ponti for... ?

[Abdülmecid I]

I might be missing something, but is your use of language that far off what you’re vilifying Ponti for... ?

You are right. My apologies, the last part was quite unnecessary.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

After reviewing all the statements and quotes provided I'll vote for uphold.
Regarding the statement in the CCT I'm with Vet, Aexodus and Pike. Even if the statement is technical right, it shows a certain disregard for on-citizens which is defiantly not the higher standard expected from citizens.
For the other statements, Pike made quite a good summary which I'll join. No need to repeat the same arguments.

The ruling of 2 weeks is in my view correct. This isn't just one post over the top. I can't vote for censure when a repeated disregard for the higher standard for citizens is shown. The "defence" adds the last nail to the coffin for me. As all people I mentioned (sorry if I forgot someone) pointed out the worst post was made in the CCT. It isn't a political post and why it's unbecoming of a citizen has nothing to do with political partisanship. Ignoring this and blame everything on political bias is with this post simply wrong. The refered shows an utter disrespect for non-citizens and blames his ruling in forwarding just on political bias shows that he doesn't care. And yes, this referal is at least in this post to do with the conduct of the refered.

[Adamat]

Play with fire and you might get burned. Censure might have been enough, but 2 weeks really isn't so harsh that I'd be willing to say the censors made the wrong decision.

[Sir Adrian]

I have voted by accident. I would like my current vote to be discarded.

[Iskar]

I have voted by accident. I would like my current vote to be discarded.

Your vote (Overturn) has been cancelled. Since the poll has you registered as already voted please indicate your vote preference in this thread once you have made up your mind, so your vote can be added to the count.

[Love Mountain]

Your vote (Overturn) has been cancelled. Since the poll has you registered as already voted please indicate your vote preference in this thread once you have made up your mind, so your vote can be added to the count.

Shouldn't his vote/mistake remain private?

[Commissar Caligula_]

Suggestion: Write what the actual outcome/punishment was in the opening post, rather than having us check the further action thread. Just makes sense to make it as obvious as possible what we're voting about.

[Iskar]

Since the vote was by accident it conveys no information as to his actual intended vote. Furthermore the final vote will be known anyway due to the public poll in an appeal.

Finally, when editing votes, which is a delicate matter, every single action needs to be requested and noted publicly to ensure all edits are accountably being kept track of.

[StealthFox]

I went through the Curial reports for 2018 and 2017 and did not see any instances of disciplinary action against Ponti. It looks like this is his first reprimand (at least recently), and as such I am voting to change the ruling in favor of a censure.

[Iskar]

While most of the posts listed (and similar behaviour shown in recent times) are in fact nominally directed at the post, not the poster they are bereft of content beyond derisive and disparaging tirades. This is well below the standard of debating I would expect from a citizen. This alone would only warrant a censure in my opinion, though.

However, the post from the CCT is beyond everything the citizenry stands for in its unshackled arrogance towards non citizens (besides being argumentatively unfounded, but that is not the question). Therefore the two weeks suspension seems justified to me.

[Veteraan]

Dear citizens of the Curia,

Might I remind the censors, referrer and referred that under the current precedent they are not allowed to vote anything else but abstain.

General Brewster

Not entirely sure if this is a recommendation or a strict rule, but it seems not to have been adhered to by all that are mentioned.

Not that it makes any difference on the outcome either way.

[General Brewster]

Not entirely sure if this is a recommendation or a strict rule, but it seems not to have been adhered to by all that are mentioned.

Not that it makes any difference on the outcome either way.

Ponti’s vote will need to be discounted

[Iskar]

Not entirely sure if this is a recommendation or a strict rule, but it seems not to have been adhered to by all that are mentioned.

Not that it makes any difference on the outcome either way.

Ponti’s vote will need to be discounted

I don't think there is a rule in the Constitution against Censores, referrer or referred voting in appeals. In fact a proposal trying to prevent them from voting and participating in an appeal was abandoned earlier this year after gaining little to no support.

As such, I would say there is no basis to prevent the Triumvirate, the referrer or the referred from voting and discussing in an appeal. After all the appeal process is there to establish an authoritative assessment by the entire citizenry and regardless of their role in the previous (and closed) referral procedure, the Triumvirate, referrer and referred are citizens in their own right.