Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 158

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

  1. #41
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,274

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

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

  2. #42
    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
    12,949

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonardo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Zandt View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,338

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

    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.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  4. #44
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    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.
    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

  5. #45
    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
    12,949

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

    The third post has been updated with some changes and additions, so as that is the most current and at the moment I believe not likely to change before moving to vote, please do re-read through what you need (the new stuff mostly of course) and reaffirm your support should you wish.

    Here are the new changes:

    • Off topic posting and personal references in the Curia will be tolerated, to a reasonable extent, given the nature of the Curia and its proceedings.
    • This wasn't changed really, but perhaps more clarification is needed on it? I refer to Item 5, clarifying what it means to be a local mod. This isn't necessarily a new rule about being a local mod, but I think it best still to outline it specifically to avoid any future confusion. I have been on the fence about even including this item in the entirety of this proposal, because I haven't felt it is something that necessarily needs to be voted on, but to keep everyone on the same page I will still keep it in. If anything, it seems some people may have issues with the Curator/Consul being defined as a local mod in the first place? I am not quite sure how the votes go here. So if you have issues with this, is it with the actual clarification of what it means to be a local mod, or the definition of the Curator/Consul as a local mod in the first place? Should it be the latter, I would argue now that this distinction is now more important simply due to the addition of Praefects alongside the Curator/Consul now, so having the clearly defined roles is more important.
    • I have considered some changes to the Liaison bit, but unfortunately I don't see anything big worth changing just yet, and would like more discussion on it to make more changes. I would prefer this whole proposal go to vote sooner rather than later just because of it though, and since some of staff is trying to figure ways to really potentially implement this, it is probably best to allow this in with the framework it provides and evolve it afterwards as time goes on. So nothing has changed here, but please don't let that be a reason for ideas relating to it to not come to fruition here or down the road.
    • The single biggest change is the addition of Item 7, Forum Reshuffling. This aims to cleanup the forums a bit by removing some unused/barely used ones, and more appropriately categorizing the 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.






    And some extra clarifications on some changes and why some may not have been made:

    • Primus Praefect being an indefinite term I know doesn't sit well or have any precedent with any curial office, however we feel this is best to ensure some consistency in a position that requires knowledge of the ToS, especially considering that the pool for potential applicants for a position with such requirements may not always be big enough to have good overlap with those actually interested in it.
    • Praefects will also continue to oversee both moderation of the Curia and referrals of citizens, staff and otherwise. Other than the Primus Praefect being a current global moderator (meaning they are technically capable to issue infractions), there is no overlap in the process of infracting and the referral process. Even should the Primus Praefect, as a global moderator, issue an infraction in the Curia that eventually comes to their desk again as a staff referral, the processes are separate and still going to be reviewed as such (moderation as a whole will always be able to review the infraction and initiate the staff referral likewise).
    • My last clarification on Praefects is this; please remember it is meant to do many things, with the goal of course being positively doing them. It is not meant as solely a moderator of the curia position. They are there for more than that, and while I don't expect it to be an explosion of new moderator recruits stemming from it by any means, it is still just one possible avenue for one to become familiar with moderation while still fulfilling some Curial duties at the same time. In the future the position may easily be expanded in ways if we are pragmatic about it.
    • Curator is not changed to Consul yet in any of my syntax, sorry I forgot by the time I hit submit




    And before I sign off, my hopefully final appeal to seriously consider actually allowing Item 4 to pass (opening the Proth). Just do it.


    Well, I wish it were so easy to argue for it that way. But I also feel like I am beating a dead horse either way still. I know there are many differing views on the Curia, what it means, what it should mean, and what citizenship should mean. I am however of the belief that citizenship is near meaningless now, at best, and we are currently doing nothing that would really make it meaningful again. And if we cannot make it meaningful beyond a shiny new badge and nothing more, then I'd just about be more ready to support getting rid of it altogether now. But don't let my extreme saltiness on the matter cloud things too much; opening the proth won't fix everything at once, but I still feel it is the best way to begin getting that new blood and new ideas potentially flowing towards the Curia, and in concordance with the rest of the changes in this proposal it should help facilitate that. This is really why I want this whole proposal to pass together, because much of it does better together than separately. In any case though, perhaps just opening the Proth, while not the end all solution to our problems, is just the shake up we need to collectively get on a better track.

  6. #46
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,338

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

    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.
    Last edited by Elfdude; December 21, 2018 at 05:51 PM.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  7. #47
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,715

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    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.




  8. #48
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,338

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

    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.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  9. #49
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    The third post has been updated with some changes and additions, so as that is the most current and at the moment I believe not likely to change before moving to vote, please do re-read through what you need (the new stuff mostly of course) and reaffirm your support should you wish.

    And before I sign off, my hopefully final appeal to seriously consider actually allowing Item 4 to pass (opening the Proth). Just do it.

    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.

    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.
    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

  10. #50
    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 Pike
    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.
    "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.

  11. #51
    Van Zandt's Avatar pulvis et umbra
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West of the Trinity
    Posts
    6,145
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    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.

  12. #52
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    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.
    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

  13. #53
    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

    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.
    "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.

  14. #54
    Van Zandt's Avatar pulvis et umbra
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West of the Trinity
    Posts
    6,145
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    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.
    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

  16. #56
    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 PikeStance View Post
    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.
    "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.

  17. #57
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,338

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

    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.
    Last edited by Elfdude; December 22, 2018 at 02:03 PM.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  18. #58
    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
    12,949

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    [/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".

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    [/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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Zandt View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    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?

  19. #59
    Leonardo's Avatar Reborn Old Timer
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southern Sweden
    Posts
    3,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    If you want my support (for what it is worth)
    - Have prefect, but have them enforce our code of conduct. Have the Censors serve as a "triumvirate." for citizens to appeal. prefects actions and to deal with staff referrals.
    - Move the Curia back to the admin forums; signal to the site that admin supports and values citizenship and stop diminishing the importance of citizenship as well through words and actions.
    - Do keep a separate user group for CAs, but choose a different name.
    - Develop the liaisons position (though I hoped it would have when I first suggested it).

    Do this and the Curia and the site would be set to recover. (IMHO, LOL, though I am not coming across so humble. )
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonardo View Post
    - Move the Curia back to the admin forums; signal to the site that admin supports and values citizenship
    This is what I think is the best route to go and that's to let the Curia be a place for Hex to use as a pool of people with some experience in the various of areas of the site.

    I suggest that the The Capital forum category in the main index is changed from a forum category to a forum in the Adminstration forum category and inside in The Capital forum restore the old, now archived, Rostra forum as part of the old Forum Magnum forum (I barely remember the old Forum Magnum forum).

    Then move the Curial Commentary Thread in the Q & S forum into the Rostra forum or in the Forum Magnum forum.



    That's actually for the Curia to improve and emphasize the importance of citizenship on TWC by not creating unnecessary drama.
    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    There is no point suggesting the forum change here, it is already done here.
    Hader made a correct observation as we both briefly discussed moving the Curia down to the Administration fora in the second thread page.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    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.
    You're indeed correct, Sir. See above what I bolded in blue and in black.
    Under patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader.

  20. #60
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,715

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

    Apparently I need to reaffirm my vows. Oh Captain, my Captain! I support your proposal in perpetuity so that it may go to the vote, and stand as a monument for our children to behold.




Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 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
  •