Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 158

Thread: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

  1. #1
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    This proposal is already long enough as is, so I'll keep this preamble short. I have come together with the rest of Hex here to draft up this proposal to reflect what we think the best course for the Curia is going forward. The main point I wish to make here being that all of Hex have collaborated and agreed upon this collection of changes to present "To: Curia, From: Hex". I would not say all Hex are in 110% agreement on every little detail, as we all have our slight preferences and differences on some things, but more than enough so on the core concepts and items presented below for me to feel comfortable presenting it from Hex as such. We hope this is enough to help convince the Curia of the need for such changes and our faith in doing so being the proper course for now; obviously, do not take it for granted, and give time and thought to each individual section and feedback/critique as necessary. However, we hope this is whole and conclusive enough as is.

    So without further delay...


    This post is the most updated version. Post #3 is the original version before discussion and edits made any changes.
    ==================================


    Item 1: Curial Moderation

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Reasoning: I don't think we need to go into too much depth here. We just need to hold the Curia to the same standards as the rest of the site, so moderation will be enforced equally here now too. How this will be done is through the addition of a new Curial Officer rank, known as the Praefect. One, the 'Primus Praefect', shall be the 'chief moderator' so to speak of the Curia. They will be an elected position, with certain moderation/tribunal experience requirements (listed below), however they will not have an expiring term, only elected when the current one steps down. They will have up to 2 other Praefects also serving with them. These 2 will serve in rotating terms of 6 months each, with less strict requirements on moderation/tribunal history, to give some a chance to gain experience in this sort of office while still under the mentorship and leadership of one that does have the right experience. Given that they are all tasked with moderation just the Curia and its related forums, no ability to issue infractions, there should be little issue with overstepping bounds or mistakes made on their part when they have both the scrutiny of the whole Curia on top of the support of 2 other Praefects and the ToS as a reference.

    Whenever elected, the Primus Praefect will be ratified by Moderation Hex. Should there ever present any issues with the Praefects at any point, whether due to their behavior, abuse of office, prolonged absence, or significant and consistent lack of activity in their office, Staff Moderation (and specifically Moderation Hex) have the power to step in and relieve/take over Praefect duties, as well as appoint a Staff Moderator to the position until such a time that it is resolved.

    Key points:

    • No Praefect may hold or run for any other curial officer position simultaneously (except when the end one term coincides with the beginning of another election afterwards).
    • All must be citizens at time of election.
    • The Primus Preafect may be a current staff moderator or current Tribune. The other Praefects cannot, nor can they be a Tribune. Should they wish to become a staff moderator (assuming they have gone through the proper channels to do so of course), they must resign their position and ensure a proper election for their successor is held and concluded before transitioning. If the Primus Praefect is also a staff moderator of at least Global Moderator rank, then they may also carry out roles of a staff moderator in any curial ToS violation (including issuing an infraction as well as beginning the proper referral process). If they are not a staff moderator of at least Global Moderator rank, they may only report to the rest of staff moderation any issue requiring an infraction. The fact of their Global Moderator rank should be a non issue for their election, as even if they are not of this rank and able to infract within the Curia, all infractions are going to go through Staff Moderation regardless, and thus we should not be worried about continuity of the process just because of the presence or lack of a Global Staff Moderator as Primus Praefect (or in short, it can only serve to help expedite the process slightly at best, otherwise nothing different happens except it takes longer with a few more hands on deck).
    • The Primus Praefect must have a minimum 3 months of Staff Moderation experience (verified by Moderation Hex/Staff); two full Magistrate terms with reasonable activity to substantiate experience with applying the ToS (verified by Moderation Hex and Tribunes prior to an election); or served a sufficient amount of time as a Tribune (verified if needed by Hex).
    • The rotating offices of the other 2 Preafects will not require any Moderation or Tribunal experience, and while prior experience is certainly allowed and potentially beneficial, this office is encouraged to be utilized by those with little to no experience as a stepping stone towards gaining such applicable experience.




    Constitutional Syntax Changes
    Article II. The Curator and Curial OfficersCitizens elect and can run for9 Curial Officer positions: Magistrates, Censors and the Curator Curator, Censors, Praefects and Magistrates.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. Two Censors, appointed by the Curator, assist with Curial tasks and review referrals from Curial infractions..11 Magistrates review Moderation actions in the Tribunal. and Censors the conduct of citizens Praefects are the full moderators of the Curia and its related forums.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.


    Amend Footnote 10: The Primus Praefect has a one year term after election; the 2 other Praefects have 6 month terms from time of election. The Primus Praefect requires verifiable experience in moderation for 3 months, and/or Tribunal experience as a Tribune or 2 Magistrate terms.

    Amend Footnote 11 as needed

    Amend Footnote 12: Praefects are included in these stipulations only when there is such a time period where none of the 3 Praefects are present or have given notice of extended absence, or any absence without notice places undue burden on any remaining praefects. Should a Curator be removed from office prematurely for any reason, either/both of their Censors may begin the next election process, and in the event they cannot, the duty shall fall to the Praefect(s).

    Add footnote if needed: Off topic and personal references in the Curia will be allowed, within reason, despite their outlining in the ToS as not being allowed, given the nature of the proceedings of the Curia.


    ==============================

    Item 2: Referrals

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Referrals will remain largely the same as they were before, with some slight differences in process due to the passing of the Ostrakon amendment (which this attempts to integrate but not fully implement in the same way) and the presence of Praefects in the process.

    Staff referrals at the very least shall be the same, with any infraction incurred by a citizen generating an automatic referral. The difference now however will be that the Praefects serve as the judging body for the process, with the Primus Praefect assuming the same role the Curator used to, and the two other Praefects the roles of the Censors. Seeing as Censors were just an elected Curial position for just this sort of referral process, moving the role to the Praefects to do the same job, still as the same citizens, with the added duty of knowing, understanding and implementing proper ToS enforcement and Moderation standards, the referral process is largely unchanged in the essence of what it aims to achieve.


    Citizen referrals will also happen in largely the same way, except will be PMed to any Praefect (preferably the Primus Praefect since they still hold the tiebreaker/Curator role, but we are not worried about the seniority, anonymity or extreme formality here anymore because we shouldn't be, so any Praefect is allowed to accept a Citizen Referral). The citizen initiating the referrals must also make clear their desire for either a private referral to be reviewed by the praefects, or a public referral in the method of the Ostrakon. Either way, the Praefects are tasked with ensuring that the referral has both substantial grounds, evidence, and merit to go through either process in the first place. Some training/guidelines will likely be provided to define what exactly constitutes "merit" in these cases, however we believe keeping enough grey area is still important here as we can never control fully who is in the office nor define any and every situation, and want Praefect discretion to not be clouded by too much word of law. It should be enough to be able to tell what is a worthy case with justifiable grounds to be presented, what is nothing more than personal vendetta, what may be a legitimate misunderstanding of rules or one party, or anything else of the sort.

    If the Praefects collectively decide the referral has merit, the process will continue as it did before (there will be no formal vote for further action or dismiss, it shall be discussed briefly at Praefect discretion and moved on from there without a poll). All votes for suspension of rank will happen in the same way, with the Primus Praefect holding the tiebreaking vote if needed. All timeframes for suspension of ranks shall be doubled from previous values. Ostrakons will be posted by the Praefect publicly, as outlined in the Ostrakon amendment.

    If at any point the Preafects collectively agree the referral process is being abused or misused consistently by any member, they may on their own accord initiate a referral for that citizen. In this case, the Curator may preside and give input, but no vote. Any referral initiated in this manner for abuse of the system will result in a minimum revocation of citizenship for 2 months should it pass.


    Constitutional Syntax Changes
    Section III - Praefects, Censors and Magistrates
    Article I. The Triumvirate and ReferralsCitizens are expected to behave in an exemplary manner and can be referred1 to the Triumvirate Praefects 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. Praefects may decide if a referral is frivolous. The Triumvirate If a referral has merit, the Praefects request a defence3 from the referred and decides4 whether5 and which6 disciplinary action is to be taken.7 The Triumvirate consists of:
    • The Censors Praefects- Who discuss and vote on every Referral. The Primus Praefect holds the tiebreaking vote if necessary.
    • The Curator and Censors - Who may discuss Referrals, but only votes in the case of a tie.hold no vote, except in the case of infractions issued on citizens in a Curial post, where they will act in place of Praefects.
    • Hexagon Council members - Who may choose to participate.

    Members of the Triumvirate Praefects, censors and the consul must recuse themselves in their own referrals or any case of a non-curial infraction they may have issued elsewhere as a site moderator..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.


    Amend Footnotes: Any mention of Curator and Censors in the process to properly reflect Praefects role in the process instead

    Amend Footnote 6:
    • Censure
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 2 weeks 1 month
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 1 month 2 months
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 2 months 4 months
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 3 months 6 months
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 4 months
    • Revocation of Citizenship
    • Abstain


    Amend Footnote 7: All citizen initiated referrals processed as Ostrakons are obviously public; citizen initiated private referrals may be kept private or public at request of the member. Staff referrals are kept private by default, as they deal with infractions, except at the member's request.

    Amend Footnote 8: If a Praefect must recuse themselves, the Curator may step into their voting position. Praefects may not recuse themselves from any staff initiated referral (except one against themselves or one they were involved in directly as a site moderator), only citizen initiated referrals. If at any point the majority of Praefects must recuse themselves (2/3 Praefects), the entire process is referred to the Curator and Censors.

    Amend/add footnote, or keep in non-footnote syntax: except in the case of infractions issued on citizens in a Curial post, where they will take place in the stead of the Praefects for the entire process.




    ==============================


    Item 3: Censors and Curator's Assistants

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Since the Censor's old job of managing referrals is now in the hands of the Praefects, they will instead retain the name and distinction as the official Curator's Assistants instead. They will assume all duties of the Curator's Assistants as before, and this essentially just moves the badge and name over for assistants to have, and the Curator badge to be strictly reserved for the Curator only. They will no longer be an elected position, but chosen by the Curator, as assistants have been. It is recommended however that the Curator pay attention to those with little experience and wanting to gain more, to help build confidence and ability in the position for future applicants to the Curator position. There will remain no limit to the number of Censors in this regard, though it is advised to keep the number modest as well (2-3 on average is probably a good amount).

    These syntax changes are reflected in other areas of this proposal, as they affect multiple parts of the constitution, but aside from the changes to the referral process for who does what, there is little other syntax amendment required for this (that I have noticed, though thorough as I hope I am, I am not perfect either...well, only on Tuesdays at least). If anyone sees this must be reflected in the Constitution elsewhere beyond where the other parts of this proposal already change, let me know.

    ==============================

    Item 4: Opening the Prothalamos to all members

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In an effort to "shake things up a bit" so to speak...let's open up the Prothalamos to all members of the site.

    I know, I know, but Hader we already said no to that like so many times man!

    While this will not likely result in a huge influx of members wanting to propose this and that, it will effectively at the very least break down the barrier of commentary between non-citizens and citizens to the point where a more fluid discussion is at least possible between them on matters that can go to a vote. In tandem with a more strict approach to Curial Moderation and citizenship behavior standards, and the Liaison office (see Item 6), there should theoretically be little issue with this sort of melding of minds and any potential influx of new ideas, discussion, etc. Citizens will still be the only ones allowed to vote, and hopefully be allowed a clearer and more direct view of other members views on certain proposals, decisions, and anything else brought up. This may not necessarily incentivize too many more members to care to get citizenship just for the vote, but at the same time can at least help current citizens a clearer and bigger picture of what Curial proposals may do for the site and for others and not just themselves. And if we are really lucky, perhaps more people actually will give a darn about participating in a meaningful way and becoming citizens.

    I know this will still probably be opposed despite its place within this overall proposal. I'd really like everyone of that mind though to really reconsider this and be willing to give it a shot, if not be persuaded to support it anyways. Personally, I don't see enough out of the Curia's current citizenship that says we are doing a stellar job at getting non citizens to want to contribute as citizens, and more so that any newcomers we do get (as well as many of the most active curialists these days) are almost always already involved in staff in one or multiple branches, or have been in the recent past. We're just not doing good at getting that "new blood" into the Curia for their ideas and input as well as keeping them around and making their citizenship meaningful to not just themselves but the site as a whole. So let's break down this particular barrier and see what happens, and I firmly believe now that it will help more than hinder the status of citizenship and what it means to this site, especially if we work through this entire process and evolve it over time.

    Technically speaking, this will all be achieved by moving the Prothalamos outside of the Curia main forum to facilitate proper posting permissions for more than just citizens. The Prothalamos will still be considered part of the Curia and Capitol, and thus subject to Moderation by the Praefects. Any non citizens that may incur ToS violations while within the Prothalamos will be subject to Curial Moderation by the Praefects the same as any citizens, except no referral process is in place and instead anything done there by Praefects in the way of moderation will be eventually referred to Staff Moderation for proper handling, and forum bans of non-citizens may be requested at any time by any Curial Officer.

    ==============================

    Item 5: Clarifying the Duties of the Curator

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This mainly deals with the interpretation of what it means to be a "Local Moderator" of the Curia. Everywhere else on the site, Local Moderators (most commonly utilized in mod forums by the modders themselves) are mainly there as housekeeping for their own forum (i.e., closing and sticking threads). Beyond that, they are allowed a small amount of authority when it comes to editing and deleting other members posts, or any other moderator related action that could potentially have overlap with the ToS and staff moderation. Generally, allowing Local Moderators to close threads they deem off topic to their mod, editing other members posts for being off topic, or anything along those lines is allowed to happen without staff moderation intervention (as well as obvious cases of spambots or posting porn or anything that warrants immediate removal). Any clear and/or consistent ToS issues with any member is then referred to staff moderation for handling at that level.

    So let us clarify the Curator's role as a local moderator. There has never been an issue with their 'housekeeping' local moderator duties and powers, so that should be fine. When it comes to deleting, closing, or dealing with anything else though, is where the grey area was. However, with the addition of the Praefects as true moderation of the Curia, there will still exists this grey area to some degree. So the best clarification for the Curator as a local mod should be essentially the same way it is dealt with around the rest of the site. Any clear ToS violations should be reported to the Preafects (as well as staff moderation by extension) for dealing with, and only clearly off topic posts/threads, blatant spam or bad no-no posts or anything of that nature that benefits most from immediate action may be dealt with by the Curator in the capacity of a moderator. Additionally, any Curial specific threads (election debate/app threads, proposals, etc.) that may not have ToS violations but obvious need of some moderation (most likely in the form of off topic banter, among other things) still fall mostly under Local Moderator duties, thus the Curator is well within their remit to moderate as appropriate, especially where such things are not likely to incur disciplinary action against a member. In the event of that grey area being rearing its ugly head, the Curator and Praefects are expected to work together to sort it out and come to the reasonable conclusion. If absolutely necessary, Moderation Hex is also allowed here to step in and give input, and if it comes to it, a final determination/veto on a decision.

    This does not necessarily need an amendment I think, though if we wish to add the bolded bit as a footnote in the constitution, that should more than suffice, and we can finally put this debate about what it means to be a local moderator to rest.




    ==============================

    Item 7: Forum Re-shuffling

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    In order to both clear up some forum space and more appropriately categorize the rest, let's move these forums around a bit:


    "The Capitol" Category Renamed to "Site Administration"

    -->Curia
    -->Prothalamos (because you're going to let this whole thing pass so this part happens...right?)
    -->Questions and Suggestions
    -->Infraction Appeals and Discussion
    -->Official TWC Store (Subject to temporary removal, but its place will be here if brought back)
    -->TWC Cemetery (should be private now, if and when it is ready to be cleaned up and perhaps made public again, it may go here, this is no guarantee for now though)

    Staff forums will also be slightly reshuffled, with the only major change being the Technical Bazaar will be made private and public Tech questions we are fine rerouting to the Q&S instead, where they are likely to get more visibility and quicker answers. Staff forums I will not mention here as those are seen only by staff members anyways, so their organization is entirely dependent on what part of staff one may or may not be in, so there is no point in getting too in depth about their reorganizing.





    ==============================
    Last edited by Hader; February 08, 2019 at 11:51 PM.

  2. #2
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    I hope it is clear that most things in this proposal will work best if all are implemented fully, or at least nearly fully as outlined. The trend is not just to try to moderate the Curia better, but integrate it with staff more meaningfully. For instance, by opening the Prothalamos to all and instituting the Liaison positions together, we're hoping to take the first step in giving the Curia a better idea of what staff does, which will hopefully lead to better understanding of what the Curia could do to help staff and the site even more. By also having that open to non-citizens, but still tied to the Curia, it should also hopefully garner more interest in actually being part of the Curia, and turning it more towards the view of a useful institution of the site rather than just a glorified mudpit. It splits the duties somewhat of the Curator to the new Praefects, but allows for full moderation and application of the ToS without placing undue burden on the Curator and Censors, and also allows some members the opportunity to be introduced to moderation practices.

    So without me rambling on even more, I hope you all see the point of keeping all of these things relatively intact together. Not that feedback and criticism won't be welcomed, but I do hope all citizens here can get past any hardline views they have that may be opposed here (my biggest fear being that this would be held back because no one still wants to open the Prothalamos because "MUH CITIZENSHUP" and all that...>_>) and work towards seeing this as a big enough change in the right direction.

    And as I stated in the preamble, this proposal coming from Hex as our agreed perception of a good way forward for the Curia I hope also carries some weight towards helping this. And on my own personal level, having been a salty "had(t)er" of the Curia for quite some time, I would like to see it at a point where I respect it and what it can do for the site and staff again, as opposed to whatever the hell I fancy it as now (nothing flattering I'm sure). Even so, I'd be fine stepping up to help the Curia more actively in the Hex capacity - no position or anything that we have officially stipulated to happen, though perhaps with some more direct Hex involvement/help, things can smooth out in the long run in a way we're all more happy with.

    So I implore all here to take to heart the importance of all of this being one large amendment, staying one large amendment, and passing as one. We all seem to have some small collective agreement that the Curia could use some good, big change, and I think this could be it.

    Note: I will try and keep the first post as is for viewing and reference, and the post below this I will reserve for making a copy of any changes needed to the Constitution that develop through discussion here.

  3. #3
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    ==============================

    Item 1: Curial Moderation

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Reasoning: I don't think we need to go into too much depth here. We just need to hold the Curia to the same standards as the rest of the site, so moderation will be enforced equally here now too. How this will be done is through the addition of a new Curial Officer rank, known as the Praefect. One, the 'Primus Praefect', shall be the 'chief moderator' so to speak of the Curia. They will be an elected position, with certain moderation/tribunal experience requirements (listed below), however they will not have an expiring term, only elected when the current one steps down. They will have up to 2 other Praefects also serving with them. These 2 will serve in rotating terms of 6 months each, with less strict requirements on moderation/tribunal history, to give some a chance to gain experience in this sort of office while still under the mentorship and leadership of one that does have the right experience. Given that they are all tasked with moderation just the Curia and its related forums, no ability to issue infractions, there should be little issue with overstepping bounds or mistakes made on their part when they have both the scrutiny of the whole Curia on top of the support of 2 other Praefects and the ToS as a reference.

    Whenever elected, the Primus Praefect will be ratified by Moderation Hex. Should there ever present any issues with the Praefects at any point, whether due to their behavior, abuse of office, prolonged absence, or significant and consistent lack of activity in their office, Staff Moderation (and specifically Moderation Hex) have the power to step in and relieve/take over Praefect duties, as well as appoint a Staff Moderator to the position until such a time that it is resolved.

    Key points:

    • No Praefect may hold or run for any other curial officer position simultaneously (except when the end one term coincides with the beginning of another election afterwards).
    • All must be citizens at time of election.
    • The Primus Preafect may be a current staff moderator or current Tribune. The other Praefects cannot, nor can they be a Tribune. Should they wish to become a staff moderator (assuming they have gone through the proper channels to do so of course), they must resign their position and ensure a proper election for their successor is held and concluded before transitioning. If the Primus Praefect is also a staff moderator of at least Global Moderator rank, then they may also carry out roles of a staff moderator in any curial ToS violation (including issuing an infraction as well as beginning the proper referral process). If they are not a staff moderator of at least Global Moderator rank, they may only report to the rest of staff moderation any issue requiring an infraction. The fact of their Global Moderator rank should be a non issue for their election, as even if they are not of this rank and able to infract within the Curia, all infractions are going to go through Staff Moderation regardless, and thus we should not be worried about continuity of the process just because of the presence or lack of a Global Staff Moderator as Primus Praefect (or in short, it can only serve to help expedite the process slightly at best, otherwise nothing different happens except it takes longer with a few more hands on deck).
    • The Primus Praefect must have a minimum 3 months of Staff Moderation experience (verified by Moderation Hex/Staff); two full Magistrate terms with reasonable activity to substantiate experience with applying the ToS (verified by Moderation Hex and Tribunes prior to an election); or served a sufficient amount of time as a Tribune (verified if needed by Hex).
    • The rotating offices of the other 2 Preafects will not require any Moderation or Tribunal experience, and while prior experience is certainly allowed and potentially beneficial, this office is encouraged to be utilized by those with little to no experience as a stepping stone towards gaining such applicable experience.




    Constitutional Syntax Changes
    Article II. The Curator and Curial OfficersCitizens elect and can run for9 Curial Officer positions: Magistrates, Censors and the Curator Curator, Censors, Praefects and Magistrates.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, and two Censors are chosen as assistants to the Curator, by the Curator.11 Magistrates review Moderation actions in the Tribunal. and Censors the conduct of citizens Praefects are the full moderators of the Curia and its related forums.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.


    Amend Footnote 10: Primus Praefect has an unlimited term after election; Praefects have 6 month terms from time of election.

    Amend Footnote 11 as needed

    Amend Footnote 12: Praefects are included in these stipulations only when there is such a time period where none of the 3 Praefects are present or have given notice of extended absence, or any absence without notice places undue burden on any remaining praefects. Should a Curator be removed from office prematurely for any reason, either/both of their Censors may begin the next election process, and in the event they cannot, the duty shall fall to the Praefect(s).


    ==============================

    Item 2: Referrals

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Referrals will remain largely the same as they were before, with some slight differences in process due to the passing of the Ostrakon amendment (which this attempts to integrate but not fully implement in the same way) and the presence of Praefects in the process.

    Staff referrals at the very least shall be the same, with any infraction incurred by a citizen generating an automatic referral. The difference now however will be that the Praefects serve as the judging body for the process, with the Primus Praefect assuming the same role the Curator used to, and the two other Praefects the roles of the Censors. Seeing as Censors were just an elected Curial position for just this sort of referral process, moving the role to the Praefects to do the same job, still as the same citizens, with the added duty of knowing, understanding and implementing proper ToS enforcement and Moderation standards, the referral process is largely unchanged in the essence of what it aims to achieve.


    Citizen referrals will also happen in largely the same way, except will be PMed to any Praefect (preferably the Primus Praefect since they still hold the tiebreaker/Curator role, but we are not worried about the seniority, anonymity or extreme formality here anymore because we shouldn't be, so any Praefect is allowed to accept a Citizen Referral). The citizen initiating the referrals must also make clear their desire for either a private referral to be reviewed by the praefects, or a public referral in the method of the Ostrakon. Either way, the Praefects are tasked with ensuring that the referral has both substantial grounds, evidence, and merit to go through either process in the first place. Some training/guidelines will likely be provided to define what exactly constitutes "merit" in these cases, however we believe keeping enough grey area is still important here as we can never control fully who is in the office nor define any and every situation, and want Praefect discretion to not be clouded by too much word of law. It should be enough to be able to tell what is a worthy case with justifiable grounds to be presented, what is nothing more than personal vendetta, what may be a legitimate misunderstanding of rules or one party, or anything else of the sort.

    If the Praefects collectively decide the referral has merit, the process will continue as it did before (there will be no formal vote for further action or dismiss, it shall be discussed briefly at Praefect discretion and moved on from there without a poll). All votes for suspension of rank will happen in the same way, with the Primus Praefect holding the tiebreaking vote if needed. All timeframes for suspension of ranks shall be doubled from previous values. Ostrakons will be posted by the Praefect publicly, as outlined in the Ostrakon amendment.

    If at any point the Preafects collectively agree the referral process is being abused or misused consistently by any member, they may on their own accord initiate a referral for that citizen. In this case, the Curator may preside and give input, but no vote. Any referral initiated in this manner for abuse of the system will result in a minimum revocation of citizenship for 2 months should it pass.


    Constitutional Syntax Changes
    Section III - Censors and Magistrates
    Article I. The Triumvirate and ReferralsCitizens are expected to behave in an exemplary manner and can be referred1 to the Triumvirate Praefects 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 Primus Praefect, along with other Praefects, has decision making power over the merit of any citizen initiated referral. The Triumvirate The Praefects then requests a defence3 from the referred and decides4 whether5 and which6 disciplinary action is to be taken.7 It consists of:
    • The Censors Praefects- Who discuss and vote on every Referral. Primus Praefect holds the tiebreaking vote if necessary.
    • The Curator and Censors - Who may discuss Referrals, but only votes in the case of a tie.hold no vote.
    • Hexagon Council members - Who may choose to participate.

    Members of the Triumvirate Praefects 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.


    Amend Footnotes: Any mention of Curator and Censors in the process to properly reflect Praefects role in the process instead

    Amend Footnote 6:
    • Censure
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 2 weeks 1 month
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 1 month 2 months
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 2 months 4 months
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 3 months 6 months
    • Suspension of Citizenship for 4 months
    • Revocation of Citizenship
    • Abstain


    Amend Footnote 7: All citizen initiated referrals processed as Ostrakons are obviously public; citizen initiated private referrals may be kept private or public at request of the member. Staff referrals are kept private by default, as they deal with infractions, except at the member's request.

    Amend Footnote 8: If a Praefect must recuse themselves, the Curator may step into their voting position. Praefects may not recuse themselves from any staff initiated referral (except one against themselves), only citizen initiated referrals. If at any point the majority of Praefects must recuse themselves, the entire process is referred to the Curator and Censors.




    ==============================


    Item 3: Censors and Curator's Assistants

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Since the Censor's old job of managing referrals is now in the hands of the Praefects, they will instead retain the name and distinction as the official Curator's Assistants instead. They will assume all duties of the Curator's Assistants as before, and this essentially just moves the badge and name over for assistants to have, and the Curator badge to be strictly reserved for the Curator only. They will no longer be an elected position, but chosen by the Curator, as assistants have been. It is recommended however that the Curator pay attention to those with little experience and wanting to gain more, to help build confidence and ability in the position for future applicants to the Curator position. There will remain no limit to the number of Censors in this regard, though it is advised to keep the number modest as well (2-3 on average is probably a good amount).

    These syntax changes are reflected in other areas of this proposal, as they affect multiple parts of the constitution, but aside from the changes to the referral process for who does what, there is little other syntax amendment required for this (that I have noticed, though thorough as I hope I am, I am not perfect either...well, only on Tuesdays at least). If anyone sees this must be reflected in the Constitution elsewhere beyond where the other parts of this proposal already change, let me know.

    ==============================

    Item 4: Opening the Prothalamos to all members

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In an effort to "shake things up a bit" so to speak...let's open up the Prothalamos to all members of the site.

    I know, I know, but Hader we already said no to that like so many times man!

    While this will not likely result in a huge influx of members wanting to propose this and that, it will effectively at the very least break down the barrier of commentary between non-citizens and citizens to the point where a more fluid discussion is at least possible between them on matters that can go to a vote. In tandem with a more strict approach to Curial Moderation and citizenship behavior standards, and the Liaison office (see Item 6), there should theoretically be little issue with this sort of melding of minds and any potential influx of new ideas, discussion, etc. Citizens will still be the only ones allowed to vote, and hopefully be allowed a clearer and more direct view of other members views on certain proposals, decisions, and anything else brought up. This may not necessarily incentivize too many more members to care to get citizenship just for the vote, but at the same time can at least help current citizens a clearer and bigger picture of what Curial proposals may do for the site and for others and not just themselves. And if we are really lucky, perhaps more people actually will give a darn about participating in a meaningful way and becoming citizens.

    I know this will still probably be opposed despite its place within this overall proposal. I'd really like everyone of that mind though to really reconsider this and be willing to give it a shot, if not be persuaded to support it anyways. Personally, I don't see enough out of the Curia's current citizenship that says we are doing a stellar job at getting non citizens to want to contribute as citizens, and more so that any newcomers we do get (as well as many of the most active curialists these days) are almost always already involved in staff in one or multiple branches, or have been in the recent past. We're just not doing good at getting that "new blood" into the Curia for their ideas and input as well as keeping them around and making their citizenship meaningful to not just themselves but the site as a whole. So let's break down this particular barrier and see what happens, and I firmly believe now that it will help more than hinder the status of citizenship and what it means to this site, especially if we work through this entire process and evolve it over time.

    Technically speaking, this will all be achieved by moving the Prothalamos outside of the Curia main forum to facilitate proper posting permissions for more than just citizens. The Prothalamos will still be considered part of the Curia and Capitol, and thus subject to Moderation by the Praefects. Any non citizens that may incur ToS violations while within the Prothalamos will be subject to Curial Moderation by the Praefects the same as any citizens, except no referral process is in place and instead anything done there by Praefects in the way of moderation will be eventually referred to Staff Moderation for proper handling, and forum bans of non-citizens may be requested at any time by any Curial Officer.

    ==============================

    Item 5: Clarifying the Duties of the Curator

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This mainly deals with the interpretation of what it means to be a "Local Moderator" of the Curia. Everywhere else on the site, Local Moderators (most commonly utilized in mod forums by the modders themselves) are mainly there as housekeeping for their own forum (i.e., closing and sticking threads). Beyond that, they are allowed a small amount of authority when it comes to editing and deleting other members posts, or any other moderator related action that could potentially have overlap with the ToS and staff moderation. Generally, allowing Local Moderators to close threads they deem off topic to their mod, editing other members posts for being off topic, or anything along those lines is allowed to happen without staff moderation intervention (as well as obvious cases of spambots or posting porn or anything that warrants immediate removal). Any clear and/or consistent ToS issues with any member is then referred to staff moderation for handling at that level.

    So let us clarify the Curator's role as a local moderator. There has never been an issue with their 'housekeeping' local moderator duties and powers, so that should be fine. When it comes to deleting, closing, or dealing with anything else though, is where the grey area was. However, with the addition of the Praefects as true moderation of the Curia, there will still exists this grey area to some degree. So the best clarification for the Curator as a local mod should be essentially the same way it is dealt with around the rest of the site. Any clear ToS violations should be reported to the Preafects (as well as staff moderation by extension) for dealing with, and only clearly off topic posts/threads, blatant spam or bad no-no posts or anything of that nature that benefits most from immediate action may be dealt with by the Curator in the capacity of a moderator. Additionally, any Curial specific threads (election debate/app threads, proposals, etc.) that may not have ToS violations but obvious need of some moderation (most likely in the form of off topic banter, among other things) still fall mostly under Local Moderator duties, thus the Curator is well within their remit to moderate as appropriate, especially where such things are not likely to incur disciplinary action against a member. In the event of that grey area being rearing its ugly head, the Curator and Praefects are expected to work together to sort it out and come to the reasonable conclusion. If absolutely necessary, Moderation Hex is also allowed here to step in and give input, and if it comes to it, a final determination/veto on a decision.

    This does not necessarily need an amendment I think, though if we wish to add the bolded bit as a footnote in the constitution, that should more than suffice, and we can finally put this debate about what it means to be a local moderator to rest.


    ==============================

    Item 6: Liaison Positions to Staff


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The new Staff Liaison Curial position will be created; it will not be an officer position, as it will not have any formal duties on a regular basis. Rather, it will function as a way for any citizens or non citizens to "get a feel for" a certain branch of staff. The branches of staff will include Gaming Staff, Content Staff and Modding Staff. Moderation staff is not included as it deals with user privacy and infractions, which will also potentially end up going through the Curial Praefects, thus the Praefect positions will serve as a smaller scale liaison-equivalent position. Technical Staff is also not included, as this usually will deal with server access permissions in one way or another and is not something that can be given out lightly or just temporarily, nor benefit from this sort of position. If it helps, think of this as a sort of internship or job shadow like position.

    No member may be a liaison to a branch of staff they already serve in. The goal is to facilitate ties between the Curia and staff that can show users what each branch does (and potentially be hired fully to that branch at some point), give the Curia a more direct means of communicating with each part of staff (in a non-invasive way that should not hinder staff and hopefully only help the Curia and its citizens), and with luck, more than we can foresee now.

    While these Liaison positions will have no requirement of citizenship to apply for them, all applications will go through the Curia to be vetted by the Curator. Any member wishing to apply to these positions must understand that they are not part of that staff branch while they are in this position. This means they may not act as a member of that branch of staff at any point for any reason, and what they can do and see can be restricted as staff sees necessary and changed at any time. Since these members may also have access to some select staff forums, they must also be aware of staff policies for that department and especially the all inclusive staff policy of SND, or Staff Non Disclosure. It is the Curator's job to ensure each applicant has been made aware of all of this before allowing their application to be pushed forward to the respective staff branch Hex for final approval. The Curator may at any time request moderation background on any applicant from staff moderation, and may reject any application from going further if they feel the member is for any reason not sincere in their venture or has had a less than stellar recent history on the site overall. However, since this is again not a citizen only position, nor one with much power or responsibility, it is advised to not read too much into any one person's application and be too strict on it, as the point of these positions is to be a sort of low-middle ground for fostering both staff-curial ties and potentially recruits for each staff branch.

    The extent of viewing and posting permissions given to any Liaison at any time are at the discretion of the Hex Admin of that staff branch. This means that not all staff forums will be viewable or some may not allow posts by liaisons, and the respective Admin may change such viewing and posting permissions as they see fit. This may also mean, depending on the branch or department, that they get no real viewing permissions, and could instead be setup in a position more akin to an internship, where they are introduced more directly to a specific area of staff as a way of introducing them to the area. While this seems to add extra layers to a recruitment process, it is still another avenue for recruitment for staff, and the act of recruitment for all staff is always a difficult task to begin with, so while this particular way of dealing as a liaison may not seem too appealing, it is just another possible door for people to staff and helping the site and a way for the Curia to be more directly involved in that. It could also help some citizens just become more familiar with a part of staff, and hopefully they can bring that knowledge in a positive way back to the Curia if they don't end up joining that branch.

    Hex may also terminate the Liaison's position immediately if necessary. There is no limit to the number of Liaisons per staff branch save what that branch allows at any given time. For example, Gaming Staff may allow only 3 at a time, whereas Content may allow up to 6. No member may be a Liaison to more than one branch at once. Should they wish to serve as a Liaison to a different branch than the one they currently serve, they must submit another application to the Curator requesting that branch and that their current one be terminated.

    An entirely new Article III shall be created in this section of the Constitution to outline this new position, and the Section title amended to reflect such.

    Syntax Changes
    Section III - Censors, Magistrates and Liaisons
    Article III. Curial Liaisons
    Curial Liaisons are site members volunteering to serve as a liaison between the Curia and a selected branch of staff - Content, Gaming or Modding (Moderation and Technical Staff are not allowed). The purpose of the office is to introduce users to a branch of staff and facilitate better cooperation and understanding between the Curia and Staff. The position is open to all members regardless of citizenship, however all applications for these positions will still be vetted by the Curator.

    To apply for these positions, a member must message the Curator with the branch they desire to work with as well as why they wish to do so and what they hope to accomplish through their commitment. If the Curator feels the member is fit for the position, they may forward the application to the appropriate Hex of that Staff Branch, who will make the final decision and implementation of their position, along with all stipulations associated with it. No specific permissions of any sort are guaranteed at any time or consistently throughout any Liaisons tenure.

    All members in any Liaison position are subject to Staff Rules and Staff Non Disclosure for the duration of their stay. How much they may post and view in a staff forum (if at all) is subject entirely to the discretion of the Hex Admin in charge of that Staff Branch, and their position may be terminated at any time by Hex.



    Probable new Footnotes


    • No member may be Liaison to a branch of staff they currently serve in
    • Citizens in these positions that incur a referral of any sort that results in any further action will be removed from this position, if not already removed by the Hex of that branch
    • Non Citizens that incur infractions are subject to removal by the branch Hex, at their discretion
    • There is no limit to the number of Liaisons to any branch of staff, save what limits the Hex in charge of that branch may place, which can vary between each branch of staff




    I will note that of all Items in this proposal, this one is about the only one I am willing to possibly let stand alone later if more discussion could actually help it improve before implementation. However, I still prefer it to stay together with the rest of this proposal. I don't see Liaisons in the way I have outlined being a particularly fruitful venture right away, possibly not even in the long term even. However, my hope is that it is at least a stepping stone to some better way(s) for the Curia to be more involved with Staff and the Site as a whole, and that other citizens can get ideas and take positive action as a result of it moving forward, and not necessarily use this position as an end all for Curial-Staff relations. It is also a first stepping stone (along with opening the Proth) to connect non citizens to the Curia in a way that can still help staff and garner interest in becoming a citizen and contributing in the Curia, as more direct and meaningful work hopefully appears not just to exist but be reasonably within reach for all.


    ==============================
    Last edited by Hader; January 31, 2019 at 02:52 PM.

  4. #4
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,996
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    First off, are you really proposing this as one proposal? I'd rate your chance of success low if you group it.

    Item 1: I'm sympathetic to it but I want to see guarantees that things like personal references and off topic posting are not moderated before I can support. Further the creation of those positions seems to create a new "elitist" branch which inst even open to everyone. I'd feel much more for it being open to everyone and that the occupiers of the position can be trained in moderation.

    Item 2: I'll be clear that I'm again the whole overhaul of the referral system that's already taking place(okastron proposal). I'm not terribly fond of this either, especially the fact of cutting out the Curator in the discussion is what makes me oppose for now.

    Item 3: Sure.

    Item 4: Hell no. It's even been denied in a recent proposal. Is it not democracy to respect the will of the majority?

    Item 5: It feels to me that this is only diminishing the role of Curator and I feel it will only de-popularize the position further.

    Item 6: Sympathetic to the idea, I do have the feeling it's a little rough on the edges still.


    Also, I would've liked some more reasoning behind it all.

  5. #5
    Tango12345's Avatar Never mind the manoeuvres...
    Moderation Overseer Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    19,868

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    You can have a guarantee for off-topic posting right now.

  6. #6
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,996
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Thanks Tango. I'll nuance that personal references should ofc be within limits!

  7. #7
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    5,299

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    While I am somewhat averse to a couple smaller details (non-staff referrals, non-citizens serving as liaisons) I see the big picture of this proposal. Hence I will not bog it down with discussion of such details and rather support it wholesale - small adjustments can better be made after a couple of months when we have hard data rather than mere opinion to go upon.

    I must also commend the rather visionary reach tried here that is a welcome change to the anxiously-cautious piecemeal of the Curia's day-to-day.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal/Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  8. #8
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    First off, are you really proposing this as one proposal? I'd rate your chance of success low if you group it.

    Item 1: I'm sympathetic to it but I want to see guarantees that things like personal references and off topic posting are not moderated before I can support. Further the creation of those positions seems to create a new "elitist" branch which inst even open to everyone. I'd feel much more for it being open to everyone and that the occupiers of the position can be trained in moderation.

    Item 2: I'll be clear that I'm again the whole overhaul of the referral system that's already taking place(okastron proposal). I'm not terribly fond of this either, especially the fact of cutting out the Curator in the discussion is what makes me oppose for now.

    Item 3: Sure.

    Item 4: Hell no. It's even been denied in a recent proposal. Is it not democracy to respect the will of the majority?

    Item 5: It feels to me that this is only diminishing the role of Curator and I feel it will only de-popularize the position further.

    Item 6: Sympathetic to the idea, I do have the feeling it's a little rough on the edges still.


    Also, I would've liked some more reasoning behind it all.
    Yes, as I stated in I believe both posts, I have reason to keep it all together. I would possibly be fine with each being voted on separately, though at the same time, though that still somewhat defeats the purpose of this all staying together in the first place. We'll see as more discussion happens though.

    1) Why these in particular? To uphold the flavor of the Curia or something? I think distinction can be made between what is being a ToS breach needing moderation versus what may be allowable in the special context of what goes on the the Curia as well.

    And it is not meant to be elitist, though I suppose citizenship may not have been at one point either, so I see why it can be seen as such. But it is an office with a specific duty and one that has always been held to the highest standard (ToS enforcement/moderation). Yes, it will kinda be elitist in a small way, but it is also relegated to just the Curia. It is already open for two rotating positions for people with no experience in it at all. Only the one position is kept as one requiring experience to ensure there is fair application of moderation to staff moderation standards, instead of 3 citizens with no experience at all and little direction or help running around moderating in the capacity of essentially a staff moderator.

    2) The Curator can remain part of the discussion (I may not have made that clear in areas while editing), but will note have a vote on referrals anymore. The rest takes Ostrakon into consideration and integrates it with the rest of the proposal, especially concerning Praefects and their new role. I do not see why cutting the Curator's vote in the matter should be such a big deal; there is still a Curial Officer position that now deals with this directly, it is still made up of citizens either way.

    4) This is the exact attitude I have wished to address. Yes, I understand the recent proposal did not pass. I believe I have stated it was something I was definitely in more support of. This is not an attempt to flip the finger to democracy and the Curia's will. If I wanted to do that, I would have reproposed that all by itself. Like I have said, this entire proposal is meant to be considered collectively. Opening the Prothalamos alone is not the sole goal we're striving for here, but integral in helping the rest of the proposal reach its best outcome.

    5) If you feel this is diminishing the role of the Curator, I think that may be more from the Praefect addition more than anything. Item 5 is more of a clarification than anything. It really shouldn't be changing anything about how local moderation works, just clarifying it for the Curator more specifically, while taking some consideration in the light of Praefect additions. I included this here because it was relavant and overdue anyways. I am sure that even if I never made this proposal in its entirety, Tango or Loli would have eventually come as mod hex to clarify what local moderation means more officially anyways.

    6) I agree it is rough, I am not even entirely happy with it myself, but hopefully it can be discussed more here as I feel more eyes on the idea is better than just myself and some hex at this point.


    Reasoning behind what then? The entire proposal? In short:

    -Start moving the Curia towards a more active role in the site than it has been in recent times
    -Enforce moderation in a way that reinforces citizenship standards
    -Encourage more participation and change in a meaningful way for the site and Curia itself

    And passing everything here together instead of piecemeal is enough of a big, driving change to hopefully actually encourage that sort of positive activity in the right direction. It won't be perfect or instantaneous, but I believe the right shift in gears for now.
    Last edited by Hader; December 04, 2018 at 05:12 PM.

  9. #9
    Quintus Hortensius Hortalus's Avatar Lex duodecim tabularum
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Electorate of Hannover
    Posts
    2,350

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    This sounds mostly good but I have one big problem. As I understand the proposal right now the Praefects are all moderators of the Curia.
    In addition they handle all referrals. So in the end, they basically judge if their own moderation action was all right and further punishment is needed. This is not working and there is a reason why judges can't be prosecutors.
    This isn't working in my opinion. So I would keep the Censors with their current duty and they basically act like a Tribunal for the Praefects.

    EDIT:

    In regards to Caligula:

    Item 2 is not working for me right now and this affects of course Item 3.

    For the rest you have my support.
    Last edited by Quintus Hortensius Hortalus; December 04, 2018 at 05:18 PM.

    Under the patronage of wangrin my workshop

  10. #10
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,718

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Strong support from me for everything listed.
    Also, I appreciate the level of work that went into the proposal and even if you disagree with the proposal you've got to admit that Hex put a lot of thought into it.

    I think everyone who replies to this thread should say which parts they like, and which they don't so that Hex can split the proposal into multiple smaller ones if necessary.




  11. #11
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    5,299

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by Quintus Hortensius Hortalus View Post
    This sounds mostly good but I have one big problem. As I understand the proposal right now the Praefects are all moderators of the Curia.
    In addition they handle all referrals. So in the end, they basically judge if their own moderation action was all right and further punishment is needed. This is not working and there is a reason why judges can't be prosecutors.
    This isn't working in my opinion. So I would keep the Censors with their current duty and they basically act like a Tribunal for the Praefects.

    EDIT:

    In regards to Caligula:

    Item 2 is not working for me right now and this affects of course Item 3.

    For the rest you have my support.
    The prefects do not deal out infractions in their capacity as prefects, so there should be no such mixing of responsibilities. It also helps to consider that referrals aren't part of the judiciary, as they are disciplinary measures to enforce certain rules/standards just as infractions are. Hence both moderating the Curia and dealing with referrals are ultimately executive actions in nature. The only actual judiciary element we have on the site is the Tribunal which is unrelated to this proposal.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal/Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  12. #12
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by Quintus Hortensius Hortalus View Post
    This sounds mostly good but I have one big problem. As I understand the proposal right now the Praefects are all moderators of the Curia.
    In addition they handle all referrals. So in the end, they basically judge if their own moderation action was all right and further punishment is needed. This is not working and there is a reason why judges can't be prosecutors.
    This isn't working in my opinion. So I would keep the Censors with their current duty and they basically act like a Tribunal for the Praefects.

    EDIT:

    In regards to Caligula:

    Item 2 is not working for me right now and this affects of course Item 3.

    For the rest you have my support.
    They will not always be judging their own moderation action though, not every infraction a citizen incurs will be in the Curia. All staff referrals for any infraction go through them, so there should be no issue with anything coming from an infraction outside the Curia, where they will likely not have moderated at all.

    Even in the case of a referral being initiated by their own moderation action in the Curia, I don't think we should be worried about this. The Praefects are acting as moderators, and the ToS dictates the standards they are enforcing, so ideally all Praefects should be moderating objectively in the first place. Obviously if not, the infraction gets reviewed by staff moderation in the first place, and if in that part of the process it is found the infraction was issued wrongly or the Praefect acted wrongly, it is already subject to reversal by staff moderation and thus a staff referral in the Curia becomes illegitimate. If they begin the referral process on a Curial infraction though, they are essentially shifting gears from moderators to citizen censors. I believe you bring up a good point, though I see this only being an issue if the Praefects are acting unjustly knowingly. Any mistakes are likely to be self corrected within the office and and understanding reached, and since all infractions will still have to go to staff moderation, there is extra vetting on the grounds of the infraction. If it can pass through all that and a staff referral is then still initiated, there shouldn't be much keeping the Praefects from acting accordingly in that role.

    Though I wouldn't be against some shuffling of things for the Curator and Censors to act more as a tribunal to the Praefects in certain cases. I just don't think they should in all cases, as it defeats half the purpose and workload the office of Preafect aims to take on.
    Last edited by Hader; December 04, 2018 at 05:32 PM.

  13. #13
    Quintus Hortensius Hortalus's Avatar Lex duodecim tabularum
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Electorate of Hannover
    Posts
    2,350

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    The prefects do not deal out infractions in their capacity as prefects, so there should be no such mixing of responsibilities. It also helps to consider that referrals aren't part of the judiciary, as they are disciplinary measures to enforce certain rules/standards just as infractions are. Hence both moderating the Curia and dealing with referrals are ultimately executive actions in nature. The only actual judiciary element we have on the site is the Tribunal which is unrelated to this proposal.
    My concern is that doing the same thing twice doesn't produce better results.
    If what you're saying is right, I would like to hear from Hex what moderation of the Curia is. Are the Praefects issuing only referrels? And are the referrals somehow the infractions inside the Curia?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    They will not always be judging their own moderation action though, not every infraction a citizen incurs will be in the Curia. All staff referrals for any infraction go through them, so there should be no issue with anything coming from an infraction outside the Curia, where they will likely not have moderated at all.

    Even in the case of a referral being initiated by their own moderation action in the Curia, I don't think we should be worried about this. The Praefects are acting as moderators, and the ToS dictates the standards they are enforcing, so ideally all Praefects should be moderating objectively in the first place. Obviously if not, the infraction gets reviewed by staff moderation in the first place, and if in that part of the process it is found the infraction was issued wrongly or the Praefect acted wrongly, it is already subject to reversal by staff moderation and thus a staff referral in the Curia becomes illegitimate. If they begin the referral process on a Curial infraction though, they are essentially shifting gears from moderators to citizen censors. I believe you bring up a good point, though I see this only being an issue if the Praefects are acting unjustly knowingly. Any mistakes are likely to be self corrected within the office and and understanding reached, and since all infractions will still have to go to staff moderation, there is extra vetting on the grounds of the infraction. If it can pass through all that and a staff referral is then still initiated, there shouldn't be much keeping the Praefects from acting accordingly in that role.

    Though I wouldn't be against some shuffling of things for the Curator and Censors to act more as a tribunal to the Praefects in certain cases. I just don't think they should in all cases, as it defeats half the purpose and workload the office of Preafect aims to take on.
    Thanks for the clarification but this is exactly my concern and was more or less a reason why magistrates are not judging referrals anymore. It's not that I would not trust them but I would see the problem when 1 of 1000 cases goes wrong for whatever reason.
    My idea was the referrals are simply left in the hand of the Censors then it's clear who is responsible for what and we would not have a differentiate between "Curia" referrals and Staff referrals.
    Last edited by Quintus Hortensius Hortalus; December 04, 2018 at 05:46 PM.

    Under the patronage of wangrin my workshop

  14. #14
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,996
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Yes, as I stated in I believe both posts, I have reason to keep it all together. I would possibly be fine with each being voted on separately, though at the same time, though that still somewhat defeats the purpose of this all staying together in the first place. We'll see as more discussion happens though.
    You'll have to excuse me, I'm rather sick atm and my head is acting like a potato so me missing some stuff is an occuring this.

    1) Why these in particular? To uphold the flavor of the Curia or something? I think distinction can be made between what is being a ToS breach needing moderation versus what may be allowable in the special context of what goes on the the Curia as well.
    I've been proven wrong the past months but I'm a staunch believer in self moderation. Strong leadership on this aspect under Frunk proved it could be done. If someone else disagree's do say so but I never heard someone complain about moderation under my own tenure either. To a degree I think that saying "to keep the flavor of the curia" is indeed correct.

    And it is not meant to be elitist, though I suppose citizenship may not have been at one point either, so I see why it can be seen as such. But it is an office with a specific duty and one that has always been held to the highest standard (ToS enforcement/moderation). Yes, it will kinda be elitist in a small way, but it is also relegated to just the Curia. It is already open for two rotating positions for people with no experience in it at all. Only the one position is kept as one requiring experience to ensure there is fair application of moderation to staff moderation standards, instead of 3 citizens with no experience at all and little direction or help running around moderating in the capacity of essentially a staff moderator.
    I get it really, but in my own I'm disqualified because I wasn't a moderator. Not because I couldn't be trusted( I hope not at least ) but because I never seriously tried to become one due to the time it consumes. This creates a position that only few active curialists can furfill and that's wrong imo.

    2) The Curator can remain part of the discussion (I may not have made that clear in areas while editing), but will note have a vote on referrals anymore. The rest takes Ostrakon into consideration and integrates it with the rest of the proposal, especially concerning Praefects and their new role. I do not see why cutting the Curator's vote in the matter should be such a big deal; there is still a Curial Officer position that now deals with this directly, it is still made up of citizens either way.
    Sorry! I meant to say voice and not vote. I how no objection to the vote being romoved. I believe the Curator's right to participate is a good right.

    4) This is the exact attitude I have wished to address. Yes, I understand the recent proposal did not pass. I believe I have stated it was something I was definitely in more support of. This is not an attempt to flip the finger to democracy and the Curia's will. If I wanted to do that, I would have reproposed that all by itself. Like I have said, this entire proposal is meant to be considered collectively. Opening the Prothalamos alone is not the sole goal we're striving for here, but integral in helping the rest of the proposal reach its best outcome.
    Are you attacking me on my attitude here or am I grossly misunderstanding? Anyway, I don't think this will be integral in helping the rest of your proposal. When you look at the CCT there's what, 3-4 non citizens participating. I don't see a great influx of people. Earlier point still stands. This was already voted down.

    5) If you feel this is diminishing the role of the Curator, I think that may be more from the Praefect addition more than anything. Item 5 is more of a clarification than anything. It really shouldn't be changing anything about how local moderation works, just clarifying it for the Curator more specifically, while taking some consideration in the light of Praefect additions. I included this here because it was relavant and overdue anyways. I am sure that even if I never made this proposal in its entirety, Tango or Loli would have eventually come as mod hex to clarify what local moderation means more officially anyways.
    Tbh I was more referencing to the Praefect yes. Sorry, my head really is a potato.

    6) I agree it is rough, I am not even entirely happy with it myself, but hopefully it can be discussed more here as I feel more eyes on the idea is better than just myself and some hex at this point.
    I like the idea, really but this should really be hammered out more. If you aren't willing to budge on splitting some aspects, please do on this one. So this can be developed to succeed.


    Reasoning behind what then? The entire proposal? In short:

    -Start moving the Curia towards a more active role in the site than it has been in recent times
    -Enforce moderation in a way that reinforces citizenship standards
    -Encourage more participation and change in a meaningful way for the site and Curia itself

    And passing everything here together instead of piecemeal is enough of a big, driving change to hopefully actually encourage that sort of positive activity in the right direction. It won't be perfect or instantaneous, but I believe the right shift in gears for now.
    Yup, that was what I wanted to know thanks.
    I want to be clear, I'm not opposing because I'm some crazy conservative. ( Though yes, I certainly am just that sometimes.) I'm just pointing out the problems I have with it. For now I'm still opposed, opening the Prot and de-popularizing the Curator's role in the ways as they are proposed here really are a bridge to far for me.

  15. #15
    Hitai de Bodemloze's Avatar
    Magistrate Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,197
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    I'm afraid I don't have quite enough time right now to give this the attention it fully deserves (but I echo Iskar and Caligula's sentiments above); perhaps at the weekend I can go over it with more of a fine tooth comb. But initial impressions:

    1. I'm largely ambivalent about this. The fact that we even have to have a discussion about moderation here at all is quite shameful. But if we want dedicated moderators, then this seems reasonable.
    2. & 3. I liked the idea of Censors in a mediating role during Curial conflicts, and thought that might be an interesting route to go down. But again, if you want to do away with Censors and conflate the position with new moderators, then I don't particularly mind trying it.
    4. No~ (sorry, I know you mean well and I do understand where you're coming from)
    5. Sounds okay.
    6. I like the idea, but as Brew said, a little rough around the edges still. But definitely an interesting and productive way forward.

    As I say, I will go over it in more depth when my schedule clears up somewhat, but with a bit of tweaking and ironing out, this is something I could support - if, and alas only if, item 4 is scratched.

  16. #16
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex Modding Staff Director

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,646

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Only thing I strictly disagree with implementing is the 4th.

    I do feel one thing we could perhaps look at instead of directly implementing the 4th is allow members to apply themselves -- instead of via a patron.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  17. #17
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    I get it really, but in my own I'm disqualified because I wasn't a moderator. Not because I couldn't be trusted( I hope not at least ) but because I never seriously tried to become one due to the time it consumes. This creates a position that only few active curialists can furfill and that's wrong imo.
    Take a look again, or if I didn't make it clear: the Primus Praefect position is the only one with a requirement with moderation/tribunal experience. The other 2 Praefects have no such requirement. Since the Liaison deal is not something that, in its current form, is really not doable for moderation staff, this is in a small way an extension of that. A way and place for those without the experience to get exposure to it. It guarantees nothing as far as becoming staff moderator down the line of course, but it should serve some small amount in that exposure to a new sort of position that otherwise the Curia has only had when former staff have held offices.

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    Are you attacking me on my attitude here or am I grossly misunderstanding? Anyway, I don't think this will be integral in helping the rest of your proposal. When you look at the CCT there's what, 3-4 non citizens participating. I don't see a great influx of people. Earlier point still stands. This was already voted down.
    Yes Brew, I am attacking you

    No, rather what I aimed at in my conclusion paragraph, that my worry about people being too hardline about maintaining citizens as the only ones allowed in the Proth and unwilling to budge on that matter under any circumstances. We can't use the CCT as a gauge for how many people would potentially participate here if able to without being citizens. As I've said elsewhere, I think breaking down this barrier - this obvious and intentional separation of members and citizens - is more key than anything. No, I don't expect a huge influx of members coming here to post and make proposals. But some inevitably will, and that barrier of entry is brought down to a point where it won't seem to non citizens that their opinions may go unheard of or just be relegated to the CCT as some plebeians side opinion that won't really have a bearing on anything. They'll have active discussion in the same place all citizens do. The main point is not simply just an influx of more people.


    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    I like the idea, really but this should really be hammered out more. If you aren't willing to budge on splitting some aspects, please do on this one. So this can be developed to succeed.
    I would still like to see it stay with the rest of this. If necessary, this is the one bit I am willing to potentially split off to vote on separately after some work, but if some work and agreement can be had on it to the point it works well with the rest of these changes, I would prefer it stay. So on that, I'd like to see some more discussion on this item and what can be done with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    I want to be clear, I'm not opposing because I'm some crazy conservative. ( Though yes, I certainly am just that sometimes.) I'm just pointing out the problems I have with it. For now I'm still opposed, opening the Prot and de-popularizing the Curator's role in the ways as they are proposed here really are a bridge to far for me.
    You are entitled to that opinion, but it is still what I aim to sway in people here of that mind. I'm glad in a way you see it as a bridge too far. I think that's more of what the curia needs now. And frankly, I don't think this "de-popularizes" the Curators role as much as you and others may seem to think. The local moderation of the Curator has barely changed, rather been clarified. They never could give infractions before, and won't still. They have only really been removed from the referral process directly, and while they won't have as great a role in it without a vote or having to setup the process, I do not see why that should be such a big deal. Our goal should be to uphold standards of citizenship to the point where the job of referrals does not even need to be done, so why does it matter who does it in the end? I understand that those words can even be an argument against the need for Preafects as well, but keep in mind Praefects in the context of this whole amendment are meant to represent and help more than just doing referrals too. And as the Liaison bit is now, that actually adds another duty for the Curator that I think is more worthy of helping staff and the site than managing referrals.

  18. #18
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Basically, just repurposing previous proposals, but not necessarily for the better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Item 1: Curial ModerationReasoning: snip
    We have had two Prefect proposals and numerous proposals where there is a "moderator" in the Curia and all of them have failed. I am not personally averse to the concept. I proposed this years ago. What I find objectionable about this proposal is that there is no check on the action taken. Moderators have the Tribunal as a check to ensure that it is applied. We have passed a "higher standard of conduct" which I want to keep because enforcing more civil discourse is in the best interest of the site. A Higher standard must be maintained, thus the need for Censors. I would prefer prefects go beyond the Curia; it is time we get the citizens in the mudpit to act as role models. it would be great if people would support the higher enforcement of this higher standard in my staff referral change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Item 2: Referralssnip.
    I do not get the point of reintroducing the referral system that was just removed. Moreover, why create moderators and still have citizen referrals? Plus, in my proposal, this was a sticking point as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Item 3: Censors and Curator's Assistants snip
    On the surface, I am in favor of separating CA's with Curators. Call it something else. I want to keep the "Triumvirate." I wish you better luck than I had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Item 4: Opening the Prothalamos to all memberssnip
    If you want "new blood," there is a simple solution, patronize! It isn't that difficult. why devalue citizenship when you can promote it. If there is a member who wants to participate and they do not want citizenship then you should look at why that has happened. For now, we have a great system of patronage to promote eactly what these "open the proth" proposals cry for. If citizenship is so bad for some members, there is always the CCT. many of us now active citizen started sharing our views there. Heck I made the firsrt prefect proposal before i was even a citizen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Item 5: Clarifying the Duties of the Curator
    This mainly deals with the interpretation of what it means to be a "Local Moderator" of the Curia. Everywhere else on the site, Local Moderators (most commonly utilized in mod forums by the modders themselves) are mainly there as housekeeping for their own forum (i.e., closing and sticking threads). Beyond that, they are allowed a small amount of authority when it comes to editing and deleting other members posts, or any other moderator related action that could potentially have overlap with the ToS and staff moderation. Generally, allowing Local Moderators to close threads they deem off topic to their mod, editing other members posts for being off topic, or anything along those lines is allowed to happen without staff moderation intervention (as well as obvious cases of spambots or posting porn or anything that warrants immediate removal). Any clear and/or consistent ToS issues with any member is then referred to staff moderation for handling at that level.

    So let us clarify the Curator's role as a local moderator. There has never been an issue with their 'housekeeping' local moderator duties and powers, so that should be fine. When it comes to deleting, closing, or dealing with anything else though, is where the grey area was. However, with the addition of the Praefects as true moderation of the Curia, there will still exists this grey area to some degree. So the best clarification for the Curator as a local mod should be essentially the same way it is dealt with around the rest of the site. Any clear ToS violations should be reported to the Preafects (as well as staff moderation by extension) for dealing with, and only clearly off topic posts/threads, blatant spam or bad no-no posts or anything of that nature that benefits most from immediate action may be dealt with by the Curator in the capacity of a moderator. Additionally, any Curial specific threads (election debate/app threads, proposals, etc.) that may not have ToS violations but obvious need of some moderation (most likely in the form of off topic banter, among other things) still fall mostly under Local Moderator duties, thus the Curator is well within their remit to moderate as appropriate, especially where such things are not likely to incur disciplinary action against a member. In the event of that grey area being rearing its ugly head, the Curator and Praefects are expected to work together to sort it out and come to the reasonable conclusion. If absolutely necessary, Moderation Hex is also allowed here to step in and give input, and if it comes to it, a final determination/veto on a decision.

    This does not necessarily need an amendment I think, though if we wish to add the bolded bit as a footnote in the constitution, that should more than suffice, and we can finally put this debate about what it means to be a local moderator to rest.
    First, you know as well as I do that there is a strong resistance to empowering the Curator with too much authority in the Curia. When I added the "acts as a local" part into the Constitution it emphasized what exactly that meant and it is not what you described above. That being said, I am not averse to giving the Curator more authority. heck, I have tried on several occasions to do so and failed every time. The incident that brought up the issue wasn't anything you described above. The citizen was fully within his rights to make the proposal.

    Secondly, you need to define the relationship of the Primus Prefect to the Curator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Item 6: Liaison Positions to Staff
    The new Staff Liaison Curial position will be created; it will not be an officer position, as it will not have any formal duties on a regular basis. Rather, it will function as a way for any citizens or non citizens to "get a feel for" a certain branch of staff. The branches of staff will include Gaming Staff, Content Staff and Modding Staff. Moderation staff is not included as it deals with user privacy and infractions, which will also potentially end up going through the Curial Praefects, thus the Praefect positions will serve as a smaller scale liaison-equivalent position. Technical Staff is also not included, as this usually will deal with server access permissions in one way or another and is not something that can be given out lightly or just temporarily, nor benefit from this sort of position. If it helps, think of this as a sort of internship or job shadow like position.

    No member may be a liaison to a branch of staff they already serve in. The goal is to facilitate ties between the Curia and staff that can show users what each branch does (and potentially be hired fully to that branch at some point), give the Curia a more direct means of communicating with each part of staff (in a non-invasive way that should not hinder staff and hopefully only help the Curia and its citizens), and with luck, more than we can foresee now.
    So this is basically my Liason idea but in reverse. I had it that a staff member would serve as a Liason officer for the Curia, thus accomplishing the same goal as this proposal. The criticism I received was that I was promoting Curia interference within staff even though the liaison officer were chosen among their own ranks. However, you are proposing as an outsider to have a look in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    I don't see Liaisons in the way I have outlined being a particularly fruitful venture right away, possibly not even in the long term even. However, my hope is that it is at least a stepping stone to some better way(s) for the Curia to be more involved with Staff and the Site as a whole, and that other citizens can get ideas and take positive action as a result of it moving forward, and not necessarily use this position as an end all for Curial-Staff relations. It is also a first stepping stone (along with opening the Proth) to connect non citizens to the Curia in a way that can still help staff and garner interest in becoming a citizen and contributing in the Curia, as more direct and meaningful work hopefully appears not just to exist but be reasonably within reach for all.
    This was exactly the same reason why I was promoting the liaison position. The goal was to get the staff to work with the Curia to help improve the site in the same way "citizens" not part of staff could do the same in the Curia.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  19. #19
    Caillagh de Bodemloze's Avatar to rede I me delyte
    Content Director Patrician Citizen Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    the British Isles
    Posts
    6,364

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Before I can decide what I think about item 6, I need to ask a(t least one) question, I'm afraid:

    Hader, can I ask precisely what you envisage the liaisons doing?

    Admittedly, I work for two Content departments that both have a great deal of contact with people outside staff, which probably affects my view of what might be useful. But in the departments I work for, it's already very easy for anybody to get information about what those staff departments do. We're around for anyone to talk to, whenever they want to. At least as far as the News team goes, that won't change - we need people to be able to contact us directly, without going through a Curia-appointed liaison, and if people want to PM me and talk about working for the News team, I'll be very happy to talk to them, whoever they are. So what would the liaisons do that can't be done (or isn't done) now?

    I'm not asking this as an objection - as I say, I'm asking so that I can decide what I think.






  20. #20
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,953

    Default Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    We have had two Prefect proposals and numerous proposals where there is a "moderator" in the Curia and all of them have failed. I am not personally averse to the concept. I proposed this years ago. What I find objectionable about this proposal is that there is no check on the action taken. Moderators have the Tribunal as a check to ensure that it is applied. We have passed a "higher standard of conduct" which I want to keep because enforcing more civil discourse is in the best interest of the site. A Higher standard must be maintained, thus the need for Censors. I would prefer prefects go beyond the Curia; it is time we get the citizens in the mudpit to act as role models. it would be great if people would support the higher enforcement of this higher standard in my staff referral change.
    Staff moderation is their check, since staff moderation has to issue infractions then anything that goes that route will most definitely be seen by staff moderation eventually. Any moderator action that does not go the route of a note/infraction is not something likely to be appealed in a referral format anyways. Much like the Tribunal.

    The job of referrals is just passed on to preaefects as well. Other than considerations for the Ostrakon, there is little functional change here besides who is doing it. They are still citizens, like Censors are, and elected.

    If you want to see something like praefects go beyond the curia, do propose that, however as I see it now it is best for them to remain in the curia and moderate here. What I liked about the initial proposal(s) regarding praefects weeks ago was the idea of a Curia office for moderation, and I wanted to expand that in a way that staff moderation was okay with allowing, a way to keep it within the Curia and a matter handled by citizens still, allow exposure to moderation processes for those interested, and keep the referral process and the good of it while combined with better enforcement of standards (still by citizens) to hopefully stop any abuse of the system and cover our bases for any other unforeseen circumstances.



    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I do not get the point of reintroducing the referral system that was just removed. Moreover, why create moderators and still have citizen referrals? Plus, in my proposal, this was a sticking point as well.
    I have been working on this proposal for weeks now, and the ideas had been there just before the Ostrakon proposal even passed. I even opposed that, but I am fine with it remaining, and would prefer it be alongside the old referral process (and the modifications this proposal makes) because that seems like a more waterproof system together. Citizen referrals would still exist because the issue with them before wasn't their existence, but their usage (and perceived abuse). They should still be few and far between, but they can have merit potentially and I don't think should be done away with because we all had one bad time with them being used improperly.



    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    On the surface, I am in favor of separating CA's with Curators. Call it something else. I want to keep the "Triumvirate." I wish you better luck than I had.
    I went for simplicity. Keeps the badges and offices pretty much the same with some name shuffling. There is still a distinct Curator, their assistants are clearly labeled as Censors, and Praefects are the clear moderator of the curia. The Praefects are the new triumvirate for all that it matters, which is referrals.



    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    If you want "new blood," there is a simple solution, patronize! It isn't that difficult. why devalue citizenship when you can promote it. If there is a member who wants to participate and they do not want citizenship then you should look at why that has happened. For now, we have a great system of patronage to promote eactly what these "open the proth" proposals cry for. If citizenship is so bad for some members, there is always the CCT. many of us now active citizen started sharing our views there. Heck I made the firsrt prefect proposal before i was even a citizen.
    And where has that gotten us in the past few years? I realize you do quite well in looking for that new blood, but the overall stagnation of the curia in recent years doesn't show to me that just patronizing more people is in any way helping enough to matter on its own. I wonder what the number of new citizens is on average that apply and are accepted and have had no prior staff work as part of their resume? I feel it would be low. I could be wrong, but my perception is more people have staff work as part of their resume, meaning they are already doing something for the site before even being in the curia. So what does patronization do for them besides a shiny new badge?

    I knew I would be met with a lot of resentment towards this particular item, and even so it still sorta irks me how many people care so much about this in this way. The Curia right now offers little reason for anyone to want to be part of it other than it maybe being a fun little way to pass time in some debate and banter among other citizens. Patronization is little more than the process to getting your first Curial award right now. It doesn't guarantee anyone will be able to be more productive in any way, especially if they were staff before. And I see little about all the discussions in the Proth that screams "higher standards" or "wow I can get so much done there!". We keep trying to incentivize people to want to become citizens with no reason other than the sake of becoming a citizens.

    I don't say open the Proth because I aim to devalue everyone's citizenship, but to break down one important barrier of potential participation in a way that could better lead to the Curia having a better helpful presence on the site and maybe even give a decent incentive for people to want to become not just citizens, but active citizens.

    I'm not sure I've expressed this properly here, but overall I am just sick and tired of this bit about the value of citizenship. We either make it something to value beyond the shiny badge or its pointless IMO. If current citizens would stop valuing their citizenship for the badge its worth and instead look towards how it can actually be useful, we may get somewhere. I think opening the Proth is a step in the right direction, or if I am wrong, will at least have a good chance of showing us where the right direction is.

    Not all of the above is directed at you personally Pike, I'm speaking/soapboxing pretty generally there.



    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    First, you know as well as I do that there is a strong resistance to empowering the Curator with too much authority in the Curia. When I added the "acts as a local" part into the Constitution it emphasized what exactly that meant and it is not what you described above. That being said, I am not averse to giving the Curator more authority. heck, I have tried on several occasions to do so and failed every time. The incident that brought up the issue wasn't anything you described above. The citizen was fully within his rights to make the proposal.

    Secondly, you need to define the relationship of the Primus Prefect to the Curator.
    What else needs to be defined about it? Praefects are moderators, the Primis Preafect the "chief" moderator, and the Praefects run the referrals and moderation of the Curia. The Curator has all normal past duties save their place in referrals.



    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post

    So this is basically my Liason idea but in reverse. I had it that a staff member would serve as a Liason officer for the Curia, thus accomplishing the same goal as this proposal. The criticism I received was that I was promoting Curia interference within staff even though the liaison officer were chosen among their own ranks. However, you are proposing as an outsider to have a look in.
    I probably did not see your proposal then, I've only pretty recently paid attention more consistently to the Curia. In any case it isn't a bad idea but one that does have trouble finding a way to implement. I have spoken a lot with the other Hex about this and it is still something that is hard to nail down. I'm hoping that the fact that this is coming from us in Hex more directly that it can show this concept is something we're willing to work more with and that such Curial dealings with staff are something we want to encourage, as long as we can find an appropriate way to do so. Really I think the hardest thing is that it may not be something that can easily be applied to all areas of staff. I excluded Tech and Mod staff, and Content is also a hard one to get this to work with, with Modding staff probably having some unforeseen issues with it as well, and only Gaming Staff being one where at this point in time it would implement the easiest.



    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    This was exactly the same reason why I was promoting the liaison position. The goal was to get the staff to work with the Curia to help improve the site in the same way "citizens" not part of staff could do the same in the Curia
    As above, the idea is good, but I've gone with the reverse of citizens going to staff in some way, as I think that is what is more likely to foster the right relationship for the Curia, if at all. But as I and others have said, its rough around the edges and could use work. The concept though is something worth working towards.


    Quote Originally Posted by Caillagh de Bodemloze View Post
    Before I can decide what I think about item 6, I need to ask a(t least one) question, I'm afraid:

    Hader, can I ask precisely what you envisage the liaisons doing?

    Admittedly, I work for two Content departments that both have a great deal of contact with people outside staff, which probably affects my view of what might be useful. But in the departments I work for, it's already very easy for anybody to get information about what those staff departments do. We're around for anyone to talk to, whenever they want to. At least as far as the News team goes, that won't change - we need people to be able to contact us directly, without going through a Curia-appointed liaison, and if people want to PM me and talk about working for the News team, I'll be very happy to talk to them, whoever they are. So what would the liaisons do that can't be done (or isn't done) now?

    I'm not asking this as an objection - as I say, I'm asking so that I can decide what I think.
    Precisely what is going to vary in each part of staff. I can see them having a good bit of potential for gaming staff. Having been content hex before and speaking with Alwyn and other hex on it though, I can see many ways content can struggle to implement this in the same way gaming staff could. Hence why I have it along the lines of "as stipulated by that branch hex". The needs or abilities of each branch for a liaison may change over time, or may be untenable for some areas. It really becomes a case by case basis sort of thing. It may only serve as an extension of recruitment abilities for some places, especially Content. The end goal though is to start a process of fostering Curial involvement in the site and staff in a more meaningful way.

Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •