[Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

[Leonardo]

If they are minor changes it may be better to go for that now rather than later.

It's about staff referral (from what I understand a staff referral only happen when a citizen is infracted by the moderation) and I think a staff referral should end if;

1. Moderation has revoked the infraction before an appeal has a decision (granted or denied) in the Tribunal and the citizen have 0 infraction points and have no moderation history for the last 6 months previous.
2. A citizen has successfully appealed in the Tribunal provided that the infraction points is no higher than 4 and the citizen hasn't got a moderation history for the last 6 months previous before the actual infraction was issued.

As far I am know, a citizen referral will always be initiated in the Curia after a citizen has either appealed in the Tribunal or the moderation staff revoked the infraction.

I think that's not fair play and unjust, because a citizen referral must have something concrete and I don't think a revoked infraction is consider as a valid reason why a citizen referral can continue in the Curia. Based on what?

If a case is solved in the Tribunal then it stays in the Tribunal and not moved into the Curia just, because it has been just like that in the past.

[PikeStance]

And in all due respect, it almost seems to me half your reasons for no/opposing this are contrived or hardly relevant to the main items. My goal is to be convincing in that the overall nature and intent of this proposal is the best first step for the curia now and I get the feeling from you now it isn't worth even trying to convince you. Take that as you will.

How exactly is any of his objections "contrived" when he essential echoed the same reasoning that others have expressed.
"First Step?" How many steps are we going to take?

[QUOTE=Hader;15708346]1- This is essentially enlarging and redefining the position of Censor. New name and badge and shuffling of the title otherwise.

2- You can disagree on the referral system and what is best for it or the best way to handle citizen referrals/behavior in general. However I don't see the referral system as entirely flawed and don't see just ostrakons fixing anything, hence why this aims to make this a hybrid of sorts between referrals, ostrakons, and straight up moderation.

Yeah, the shuffling makes little logical sense.
I would say the expression of emphasis is "hybrid of sorts."
In the past couple of months, we have had several proposals on moderation

[Amendment] Praefectus Creation Act: an Elected position that enforced the "higher Standard."
Curia officer - Prefect act: Appointed Curial officer responsible for enforcing the Code of Conduct and report ToS violation within the Curia.
[Amendment] Global Moderation Act: An assigned moderator responsible for enforcing the ToS within the Curia.
[Amendment] Dual Consulship & Aedile Act: Curators are responsible for enforcing the "Code of Conduct: and report ToS violation in the Curia.

Your proposal is a Global Moderation act except it is elected by the Curia, which isn't actually a new idea either.
The action taken by the Prefects in the proposal is equal to that of a moderator. If deemed a ToS violation, a staff referral would be made. As you admitted here, it is not a serious issue. The problem isn't ToS violations in the Curia, it is the lack of adherence to a nebulous ill-defined code of conduct. However, we now have a definition of what the "higher standards" are.

The problem we have now is that there is no way to enforce the "code of conduct." The ostrakhon is an action of last resort and is unlikely to have any real impact on behavior. The notion of the code of conduct may most likely be a bigger factor than anything we can come up with. However, if you need to cover all of the basis, it would make sense to have someone enforce the "higher standards." There are really two approaches, the Curator or a specific officer like the prefects acts proposed.

4- That only makes liaisons more pointless and doesn't get us trying something new with member involvement in the proposal process. It's not about recognizing productive non citizens, but trying to take a step towards greater curial involvement in staff and the site, alongside breaking a long standing barrier between citizens and the general membership. Staff already "recognizes productive plebs" fairly well. Either we can try and involve the Curia and citizens in this more, or we can just say it and not do anything for the curia in this regard.

A whole lot more could be done. I do not think a single individual will do of the goal is to recognized productive non-citizens. A better option would be to have the different areas to coordinate with each other by having an official representative within the active discussions in the Curia. Recognition would come with the elevation of citizenship as something mroe than just an award.
FYI, plebs are citizens of Rome.

6- So it all has to be about recognition? Do we need more awards maybe? Should the Curia just stay relegated to a glorified awards committee?

It isn't really that. The last time we had 30+ citizenship application was in 2014. Large awards are not much better either. it is hot and cold with them.
What the Curia is a debating society on amendments.

I've already stated in this thread the liaison idea is not perfect and could use work, but hope it lays some groundwork for something good or some progression later. If you have nothing meaningful to say about helping it then I've nothing more to say either.

I don't know; I face a lot of opposition, but I am an optimist. The first time I proposed the Modding Staff it was crapped on too.

[Gaius Baltar]

And in all due respect, it almost seems to me half your reasons for no/opposing this are contrived or hardly relevant to the main items. My goal is to be convincing in that the overall nature and intent of this proposal is the best first step for the curia now and I get the feeling from you now it isn't worth even trying to convince you. Take that as you will.

Harsh. Obviously you are not looking to compromise or engage in any meaningful discussion.

Is the "vote" going to come off like a Chinese election then? Is it reeducation camps for those who disagree now?

[StealthFox]

Come now, gents, let's be civil in our disagreements. Accusations of election rigging and reeducation are quite serious and shouldn't be thrown around lightly, and honestly isn't very helpful for trying to have a good discussion.

BTW, I realize I haven't posted my thoughts on this proposal. I'll try to find time to do so soon.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Ι was away so I missed most of the comments. I'll revisit them ASAP.

[Hader]

It's about staff referral (from what I understand a staff referral only happen when a citizen is infracted by the moderation) and I think a staff referral should end if;

1. Moderation has revoked the infraction before an appeal has a decision (granted or denied) in the Tribunal and the citizen have 0 infraction points and have no moderation history for the last 6 months previous.
2. A citizen has successfully appealed in the Tribunal provided that the infraction points is no higher than 4 and the citizen hasn't got a moderation history for the last 6 months previous before the actual infraction was issued.

As far I am know, a citizen referral will always be initiated in the Curia after a citizen has either appealed in the Tribunal or the moderation staff revoked the infraction.

I think that's not fair play and unjust, because a citizen referral must have something concrete and I don't think a revoked infraction is consider as a valid reason why a citizen referral can continue in the Curia. Based on what?

If a case is solved in the Tribunal then it stays in the Tribunal and not moved into the Curia just, because it has been just like that in the past.

I think it can stand with just a Moderation revocation of an infraction. An appeal in the Tribunal, even if successful, is still at the discretion of moderation to actually reverse or change, so since the nature of the infraction can then be changed or revoked then in procedure it becomes the same as moderation revoking an infraction on their own accord without the Tribunal involvement. I don't remember seeing this explicitly stated anywhere in the constitution, so correct me if wrong, but if not perhaps it can be added additionally to the referral area if needed.

Harsh. Obviously you are not looking to compromise or engage in any meaningful discussion.

Is the "vote" going to come off like a Chinese election then? Is it reeducation camps for those who disagree now?

Yes, reeducation camps for all, why didn't I think of that sooner?

Your initial points were all in opposition to each items with only one sentence as to why. This gives the impression that there is no potentially convincing you or minor changes to items that will change your opinion on it, or that you would perhaps even support each items individually at that. My point being that if you're not supportive of this one way or another and have nothing more to say for feedback and perhaps changing some of it to your liking to support it, then I don't know what more to say to you beyond what I have now said many times to many people or in general in this thread already.

Yeah, the shuffling makes little logical sense.
I would say the expression of emphasis is "hybrid of sorts."
In the past couple of months, we have had several proposals on moderation

[Amendment] Praefectus Creation Act: an Elected position that enforced the "higher Standard."
Curia officer - Prefect act: Appointed Curial officer responsible for enforcing the Code of Conduct and report ToS violation within the Curia.
[Amendment] Global Moderation Act: An assigned moderator responsible for enforcing the ToS within the Curia.
[Amendment] Dual Consulship & Aedile Act: Curators are responsible for enforcing the "Code of Conduct: and report ToS violation in the Curia.

Your proposal is a Global Moderation act except it is elected by the Curia, which isn't actually a new idea either.
The action taken by the Prefects in the proposal is equal to that of a moderator. If deemed a ToS violation, a staff referral would be made. As you admitted here, it is not a serious issue. The problem isn't ToS violations in the Curia, it is the lack of adherence to a nebulous ill-defined code of conduct. However, we now have a definition of what the "higher standards" are.

The problem we have now is that there is no way to enforce the "code of conduct." The ostrakhon is an action of last resort and is unlikely to have any real impact on behavior. The notion of the code of conduct may most likely be a bigger factor than anything we can come up with. However, if you need to cover all of the basis, it would make sense to have someone enforce the "higher standards." There are really two approaches, the Curator or a specific officer like the prefects acts proposed.

I never said anything about it being new.

I saw all of these ideas, and the goings on of all referrals and the triumvirate, and upon discussing with mod hex in general about moderation in the curia and what they felt about approaching it, we came to praefects implemented as such.

If we want to perhaps have praefects additionally be more strict upholders of the code of conduct then that can be more explicit, though I personally question the necessity of even that I wouldn't shy away from maybe putting it in there more directly somehow. Yeah it may not be possible to really enforce in any way, but perhaps there is some way to do it with praefects. Either way I don't think it can or should be an emphasis of their office.

[PikeStance]

I never said anything about it being new.

I saw all of these ideas, and the goings on of all referrals and the triumvirate, and upon discussing with mod hex in general about moderation in the curia and what they felt about approaching it, we came to praefects implemented as such.

If we want to perhaps have praefects additionally be more strict upholders of the code of conduct then that can be more explicit, though I personally question the necessity of even that I wouldn't shy away from maybe putting it in there more directly somehow. Yeah it may not be possible to really enforce in any way, but perhaps there is some way to do it with praefects. Either way I don't think it can or should be an emphasis of their office.

I never stated that you said it was "new," I was referring to your "hybrid" comment. It isn't a hybrid, it is the Global Moderation Act wearing different clothing. The issue in the Curia isn't ToS violation gone unpunished, it is the lack of civility of the debate. If no one was violating the ToS before, and we were lacking civility, then how would this proposal make any difference?

We have a system by which the code of Conduct is being reviewed. To my knowledge, that system is not an issue. It is better to give the authority to the Curator and let the Curator issue referrals and then let the Triumvirate deal with it, in the same manner, they deal with staff referrals. Alternatively, we do nothing and see if the presence of the code has the desired effect.

The way I see it, you made a proposal that isn't needed and then shuffled nameplates that are unnecessary as a direct result of an unnecessary position. The only worthwhile proposal is the liaison position which is the one part of the proposal that will actually have any benefit tot he site as a whole by connection the site to a central hub, but this proposal gets least of your heart.

[Elfdude]

I cant help but wonder if sharing power with more people rather than fewer is a better solution. Seems to me that few in the curia have ever had their integrity tested. I'm not a big fan of an indefinite appointment either.

[Elfdude]

I don't think knowledge of the ToS is something that indefinite appointment requires. Can we at least have a mechanism to remove someone and/or a transparency item to keep aware of their actions?

i.e. All actions of the Primus Praefect must be logged in a publicly available document to promote transparency except where liability enters this will include names and a brief description of each action taken. The Primus Praefectus is subject to VoNC as any other Curial Officer is.

As for opening the Curia, I supported that originally and still do.

[Commissar Caligula_]

I don't think knowledge of the ToS is something that indefinite appointment requires.

The Primus Praefect would already have knowledge of the ToS due to the requirement that they MUST have 3 months of Moderation experience, and/or two full terms as Magistrate, and/or a sufficient amount of time as a Tribune. So I don't see that bit as contentious.

[Elfdude]

I didn't think knowledge was the contention. The contention is whether or not permanent appointment and knowledge are at all related which they're not.

[Iskar]

We also do not need "moderators' in the Curia. I do not recall at any time that I have been a member of the Curia anyone violating the ToS or where an admin or moderator stating that someone has violated the ToS.

Then you should reread the ToS. There have been plenty in the past.

[PikeStance]

Then you should reread the ToS. There have been plenty in the past.

To the contrary, every single time someone stated that comment was "x" (quoting ToS), an admin or moderator was quick to point out that it wasn't. And, I do mean every single time, literally.

[Gaius Baltar]

Then you should reread the ToS. There have been plenty in the past.

I would have to agree with this statement. There are several well-documented cases of TOS violations in the Curia. The Curia has a long and sordid history.

[Gaius Baltar]

As I have stated before in this thread, this proposal has several sections that are unnecessary and should be dropped or revised. I suggest move item #6 to a separate proposal as it would have the best chance of passing a vote.

[Iskar]

A) You don't have access to what actions were taken without someone pointing it out in public beforehand and what other incidents Moderation would consider a ToS violation but leaving it to the local moderaton by the Consul, since moderation interactions and consultations are private.
B) Those incidents where someone thinks something breaks the ToS and says so publicly contain a lot of false positives as people tend to jump on the tone rather than the content of the message and will consider aggressively worded non-violations to violate the ToS while ignoring nicely worded implicit insults.

Summa summarum, you have neither the data nor the authority to allege such a thing and it only goes to weaken your position if you keep claiming such nonsense about ToS violations.

[PikeStance]

Summa summarum, you have neither the data nor the authority to allege such a thing and it only goes to weaken your position if you keep claiming such nonsense about ToS violations.

I did not claim "authority." I know for a fact that accusations of ToS violation were explicitly stated not to be, over, over and over again.

The Curia needs moderation claim is a red herring. Now, if you want to talk about lack of civility, then we have something to chat about. Of course, that is being ignored as an inconvenient truth.

[Iskar]

I did not claim "authority." I know for a fact that accusations of ToS violation were explicitly stated not to be, over, over and over again.

The Curia needs moderation claim is a red herring. Now, if you want to talk about lack of civility, then we have something to chat about. Of course, that is being ignored as an inconvenient truth.

The existence of false positives (people claiming something is a violation and Moderation telling them it isn't) does not preclude the existence of false negatives (actual violations going unactioned). Hence why your account on this issue is meaningless.

[Elfdude]

More to the point moderator actions are usually private. I'd mention some but its been explained that theres an informal non disclosure expectation precluding most references to actions taken. The assertion we don't need moderators especially because the curia doesnt or even rarely requires moderation is absolutely false. Further, the assertion that opening the curia to public would destroy the citizenship is absolutely baseless.

The irritating thing is that pikes meaningless tangents as usual are distracting from meaningful critiques. No one has mentioned any justification for a permanent appointment except with some odd appeal to the idea that knowledge of moderation and etc is necessary, again theres no reason we cant have term limits and knowledge of the tos and moderation. Pikes contentions are suitably ridiculous enough that I doubt itll make or break this proposal, on the other hand authoritarian rule in the curia is something a lot of folks object to.

I respect what you're trying to do hader but I dont see the connection between how you want to do it and what you want to accomplish. I'm open to being convinced but as it stands I'm opposed to this proposal.

[Hader]

I don't think knowledge of the ToS is something that indefinite appointment requires. Can we at least have a mechanism to remove someone and/or a transparency item to keep aware of their actions?

i.e. All actions of the Primus Praefect must be logged in a publicly available document to promote transparency except where liability enters this will include names and a brief description of each action taken. The Primus Praefectus is subject to VoNC as any other Curial Officer is.

As for opening the Curia, I supported that originally and still do.

VonC still exist, it is a curial officer position and this proposal makes no changes to VonC's, if that is ever felt to be a necessary step. Perhaps the Consul's report can be something more required if it isn't already and the praefects are a part of that as well (they would be on the referral side already since news on referrals is generally given in those reports). That can keep the Curator and Praefect(s) working together on another level still. Otherwise transparency should not be much of an issue, moderator actions that they may take in deleting or editing posts or posting thread warnings and such will be publicly viewable by all, and in the case of any infraction given those are still private between moderation and the member unless made public eventually through tribunal or referrals. Is there some other part of transparency you're worried about?

I didn't think knowledge was the contention. The contention is whether or not permanent appointment and knowledge are at all related which they're not.

I realize they can be seen as somewhat mutually exclusive the way it's presented, but the indefinite appointment is more for the fact that it is a position that because of the requirements will not always have the same pool of candidates that Magistrates, Censors and Curator/Consul elections have always enjoyed, and on top of having the other 2 rotating praefects that don't have those requirements, we want to bring consistency to a position as best as possible since it is a position of applying the ToS and site moderation standards outside of actual staff.

[/I]Sorry, this is a definite deal breaker. There is absolutely no point in "reforming" anything if you going to destroy citizenship. As I said, either keep it or lose it, but letting die a slow death is strange.

We also do not need "moderators' in the Curia. I do not recall at any time that I have been a member of the Curia anyone violating the ToS or where an admin or moderator stating that someone has violated the ToS. This is red herring.
What we should be demanding is adherence to a higher standard and we do not need "moderators" for that. I am fine with the Consul doing this role. I'll say let thing progress and I think everyone will be satisfied.

Then there is the name shell game. Don't need that. Right now, there is some recourse.

Part of me would be glad to that you do have faith in the current standing of the idea of citizenship now, but I also think it is naive to think that such current standing is anything truly valued by enough people on this site now to ever become fruitful for both the curia and site. Citizenship is already dying a slow death, and has been for some time, if opening the Proth indeed does help kill it then it is only speeding along the process, it is far from the instigator of it.

I would have agreed the Curia "needed" no moderation as well...ten years ago. I haven't thought it needed it badly, but it could definitely benefit from it, which is what I aim for this proposal to put on track, as it is more than just a simple "slap moderation in and fix".

[/I]
There is no point suggesting the forum change here, it is already done here.

The only thing I see worth exploring here is the Liason concept, but you seem disinterested in the best idea in this thread.

No point? Was it not this thread where yourself and Leonardo had talked a bit about this, and I was open to the idea? I took the notion to hex to discuss some forum movements we would be willing to do and came back after some discussion on that. That is so happened to be ready to add to this proposal soon after your proposal there is nothing beyond crazy coincidence.

Regardless, I attempted to include the Curia movement in the overall plan. If the Curia truly does not want to be moved out of this here "Capitol" category, then so be it, but a good few of those other forum movements are likely to happen regardless, as some do need to be cleaned, gotten rid of, repurposed, etc. (some not all staff or members will even see some of these forums still, which is why I try to focus on the absolutely public forums for this). So I'm keeping this included because I see no reason not to just because you make a similar proposal. I feel like this proposal in its entirety would get No votes from people from just about anything but Item 7 anyways, so if anyone is 100% on Items 1-6 but not Item 7 now for any reason, I would be surprised, and intrigued to know why.

I am not disinterested in the liaison idea, but there has been little discussion at all here on how to actually improve it beyond what I have, only talk that it can be. So without anything substantial to change on it, I'm not going to change it yet, as I also have no new revelations on that front, but feel it is enough to get groundwork for it laid and start working towards improving it later.

As I have stated before in this thread, this proposal has several sections that are unnecessary and should be dropped or revised. I suggest move item #6 to a separate proposal as it would have the best chance of passing a vote.

Unless you wish to elaborate on your fairly short answers to each item before, I don't know what else to discuss with you about any of these items. Agree to disagree is where we're at now then.

More to the point moderator actions are usually private. I'd mention some but its been explained that theres an informal non disclosure expectation precluding most references to actions taken. The assertion we don't need moderators especially because the curia doesnt or even rarely requires moderation is absolutely false. Further, the assertion that opening the curia to public would destroy the citizenship is absolutely baseless.

The irritating thing is that pikes meaningless tangents as usual are distracting from meaningful critiques. No one has mentioned any justification for a permanent appointment except with some odd appeal to the idea that knowledge of moderation and etc is necessary, again theres no reason we cant have term limits and knowledge of the tos and moderation. Pikes contentions are suitably ridiculous enough that I doubt itll make or break this proposal, on the other hand authoritarian rule in the curia is something a lot of folks object to.

I respect what you're trying to do hader but I dont see the connection between how you want to do it and what you want to accomplish. I'm open to being convinced but as it stands I'm opposed to this proposal.

Alright, I read this after your previous posts, so perhaps my reply to that won't be getting us anywhere. Is there a particular reason you want the primus position to have a term limit beyond the fact that all other curial offices do? How would it be viewed as authoritarian just being in the office for a good while, even if the person in it is acting entirely reasonably within the duties of their office the whole time?