[Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

[King Athelstan]

Support.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

Support.

[Elfdude]

Support

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

I'll echo Brew; it's a shame, as there is a lot of good in this proposal, but Item 4 remains an impasse and if this is the last iteration of the proposal, then I will reaffirm my opposition one final time too. I still respect your intentions and commitment though Hader.

[Flinn]

Support

[Noble Savage]

Support .

[StealthFox]

While the constitution doesn't require the latest version to be posted in the OP I'd suggest doing so just to make it clear and avoid any potential confusion. If you'd like to save the past version maybe put it in a spoiler.

As for the proposed changes, I'm generally inclined to give this a try. I'm pleased Hader has worked to make some compromises regarding the one year appointment of prefects and the review of Curial infractions by the Curator and censors. There may be further improvements to this process, but those can be fleshed out in later amendments. I'm also still a bit hesitant about opening the Prothalamos, as I know others are as well. But I'm willing to give it a try. If it ends up being disastrous it can be reversed at a later date.

Now, for some more detailed suggestions, I'd suggest limiting censors to two so that, along with the Curator, you'll always have three votes avoiding ties. If they are presiding over referrals from Curial infractions it may be necessary to give them some more legitimacy and have the Curia ratify their appointments. But then again that may be overcomplicating things and maybe it's not necessary. I'd also like to see better definitions regarding the prefects. For example, I don't see where it gives a number saying there is one Primus and two other prefects. I'd also like to see a line stating prefects must recuse themselves in cases of infractions they have issued if they are site moderators.

Anyways, here is some wording suggestion reflecting these changes and generally trying to simplify some of the verbiage:

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 and ratified by the Curia, assist with Curial tasks and review referrals from Curial infractions. 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.


Citizens are expected to behave in an exemplary manner and can be referred¹ to the Triumvirate Praefects for a review of their behavior and possible disciplinary action.
Such a Referral is initiated automatically by Moderation for infractions incurred or discretionally by Citizens² for behavior 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 It consists of:

• The Censors Praefects- Who discuss and vote on non-Curial referrals. 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 Curial infractions, where they act in place of the Praefects.
• Hexagon Council members - Who may choose to participate.

Members of the Triumvirate Praefects must recuse themselves in their own referrals or in cases in which they issued an infraction as a site moderator.⁸

[Leonardo]

There may be further improvements to this process, but those can be fleshed out in later amendments. I'm also still a bit hesitant about opening the Prothalamos, as I know others are as well. But I'm willing to give it a try. If it ends up being disastrous it can be reversed at a later date.

I support to open up the Prothalamos for non-citizens.

Now, for some more detailed suggestions, I'd suggest limiting censors to two so that, along with the Curator, you'll always have three votes avoiding ties.

I think three Censors would be better for a few reasons.

1. The Consul should only take an active role when one Censor of three is force to resign or is remove from the position as a Censor.
2. Three Censors has a 50 % chance to avoid a tie in which the Consul need to break due to Section I, Article II in the Constutition.
3. Should the Consul and one Censor or two Censors be inactive without a valid reason then the Consul or the remaining Censor, if the Consul is removed from office, is allowed to run an Election for a new Consul and after that another Censor(s) can be elected.

Why I mention this is about the VoNC against Hitai and the reasons above can possibly prevent a similar VoNC in the future.

[Hader]

While the constitution doesn't require the latest version to be posted in the OP I'd suggest doing so just to make it clear and avoid any potential confusion. If you'd like to save the past version maybe put it in a spoiler.

This is essentially what I have done already, just not with the OP, and post 3 instead. I can just swap the posts if need be?

Now, for some more detailed suggestions, I'd suggest limiting censors to two so that, along with the Curator, you'll always have three votes avoiding ties. If they are presiding over referrals from Curial infractions it may be necessary to give them some more legitimacy and have the Curia ratify their appointments. But then again that may be overcomplicating things and maybe it's not necessary. I'd also like to see better definitions regarding the prefects. For example, I don't see where it gives a number saying there is one Primus and two other prefects. I'd also like to see a line stating prefects must recuse themselves in cases of infractions they have issued if they are site moderators.

With the probable rarity of such occasions coming up, adding the ratification layer onto Censors when this intends to just more formalize the CA role with the Censor title may half defeat the purpose of that anyways. Assistants have always been drawn from citizens of course, and usually somewhat active ones wanting to just help out, so unless someone would come in with malicious intent from the get go I don't think any citizen here is going to present an issue if they're suddenly having to review a curial infraction case. And in the case of the number of Censors being potentially over two, I don't see a problem with the Curator appointing those that will actually vote on it, but to further help with fairness in it I suppose making it a requirement for the Curator to designate which Censors will rotate through any such case at the very start of their term and appointment would be good (much like how the tribunal rotates magistrates). Otherwise though I think adding ratification on top of this is definitely overcomplicating it.

The constitutional syntax in the fieldset does not state 1 primus and 2 other praefects, but it is in the description before and footnotes mention the numbers too. Does it suffice to have that stated there or should it be reflected in the main passage instead?

The last bit was sorta in there already, albeit in a roundabout way, so I have made it more explicit in item 2.

Anyways, here is some wording suggestion reflecting these changes and generally trying to simplify some of the verbiage:

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 and ratified by the Curia, assist with Curial tasks and review referrals from Curial infractions. 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.


Citizens are expected to behave in an exemplary manner and can be referred¹ to the Triumvirate Praefects for a review of their behavior and possible disciplinary action.
Such a Referral is initiated automatically by Moderation for infractions incurred or discretionally by Citizens² for behavior 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 It consists of:

• The Censors Praefects- Who discuss and vote on non-Curial referrals. 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 Curial infractions, where they act in place of the Praefects.
• Hexagon Council members - Who may choose to participate.

Members of the Triumvirate Praefects must recuse themselves in their own referrals or in cases in which they issued an infraction as a site moderator.⁸

I've made some edits with your suggestions, with some verbiage maybe not changed as much, but in spirit about what you've said

[PikeStance]

With each rendition, this proposal is becoming more and more convoluted. We have a simple system. I do not see how complicating is going to resolve anything. If you want to rename assistants Sensors and Censors prefects, then I am good with that. Creating a more complex system will not resolve anything.

I am also not prepared to throw away citizenship by opening the Prothalomos. If you care for what this site has represented as a unique site then you would do this site a great service and opposing anything that devalues citizenship.

OPPOSED (not that it matters, the OP has not been updated as Constitutionally required).

[Leonardo]

I am also not prepared to throw away citizenship by opening the Prothalomos.

I am curious. What has throwing away citizenship to do with opening up the Prothalamos?

Do you have an example, argument of why citizenship would be thrown away as soon the Prothalamos is open to non-citizens?

[Hader]

I am also not prepared to throw away citizenship by opening the Prothalomos. If you care for what this site has represented as a unique site then you would do this site a great service and opposing anything that devalues citizenship.

I think I've established at least for me that I do not see it as devaluing citizenship. The value of citizenship is going to differ from person to person, as well as the perception of it objectively even, and posting rights in the proth I can see to a small extent being pretty objectively valuable, but is still pretty much up to the individual how far to take that value if at all. I definitely do not see it a valuable anymore.

[PikeStance]

I think I've established at least for me that I do not see it as devaluing citizenship. The value of citizenship is going to differ from person to person, as well as the perception of it objectively even, and posting rights in the proth I can see to a small extent being pretty objectively valuable, but is still pretty much up to the individual how far to take that value if at all. I definitely do not see it a valuable anymore.

You are referring to intrinsic value, I am pointing out extrinsic value.
The right of participation regardless if exercise is still a benefit given to citizens. It was the entire point in creating citizenship. Citizenship was created to promote activity and the carrot was participation in helping to determine the direction of the site. If you remove this benefit, then you remove the proverbial carrot for becoming a citizen. I cannot speculate why you cannot see that.

It is amazing that so many members do not understand what made this site popular and why it continues to lose favor.

Once upon a time, members became citizens cannot wait for the opportunity to patronize themselves. Now, it thanks to you sir,... and see ya!. Instead of looking for ways to restore that culture, we work to destroy it.


As far as the rest. I think I prefer the Consul to moderate the Curia. We don't need THREE and we already have Censors to vote on referrals. A far more simple process and one that will advert the endless editing as this convoluted proposal will instill.

[Iskar]

No, you're just asserting that your personal intrinsic value is actually extrinsic (whatever that may mean) while discarding everyone else's value as intrinsic and thus for some reason irrelevant.

There is, however, no objective, „extrinsic“ value, only intrinsic, subjective value. The majority opinion of what this value is is the closest we get to an objective value of citizenship.

[Iskar]

The Constitution does not require that, Pike.

[StealthFox]

I think I'm okay with the most recent edits. Although one thing, if we are requiring prefects to recuse themselves in certain instances we should probably extend that to the consul and censors.

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


And as for this:

The constitutional syntax in the fieldset does not state 1 primus and 2 other praefects, but it is in the description before and footnotes mention the numbers too. Does it suffice to have that stated there or should it be reflected in the main passage instead?

I'm not sure about voting on the intent of the amendment vs the express proposed wording changes to the Constitution. I'd like to hear what others think about this.

[Hader]

I think I'm okay with the most recent edits. Although one thing, if we are requiring prefects to recuse themselves in certain instances we should probably extend that to the consul and censors.

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

Fair enough, I have changed it to this.

I'm not sure about voting on the intent of the amendment vs the express proposed wording changes to the Constitution. I'd like to hear what others think about this.

Does having that information in the footnotes not suffice then? I tried to keep most stuff within the main body syntax as short and sweet as possible (at least as much so for someone who rambles on like myself...) in the spirit of the condensed version of the constitution and having many footnotes to help expand ideas further. I've been explicit in some details for footnotes, and left some of it up to editor discretion for wording and which footnotes may actually require amending from it, though I think I hit all the important ones that would need changes even so.


Post 1 and 3 are swapped btw.

[Iskar]

Footnotes and main text are equally binding. Stating specifications in the footnotes is completely sufficient and precisely what they are meant for.

[Caillagh de Bodemloze]

I'm not sure about voting on the intent of the amendment vs the express proposed wording changes to the Constitution. I'd like to hear what others think about this.

Does having that information in the footnotes not suffice then? I tried to keep most stuff within the main body syntax as short and sweet as possible (at least as much so for someone who rambles on like myself...) in the spirit of the condensed version of the constitution and having many footnotes to help expand ideas further. I've been explicit in some details for footnotes, and left some of it up to editor discretion for wording and which footnotes may actually require amending from it, though I think I hit all the important ones that would need changes even so.

Putting it in the main text is not necessary, but I think for this particular piece of information I'd put it in the main text anyway. If this goes into the main text, that will mean the number of Praefects is being treated the same way as the number of Censors, and it seems logical to do both things the same way. It also doesn't hurt to make it easy to find (and regardless of the fact that the footnotes are as binding as the main text, my experience is that people frequently don't bother reading footnotes).

If you do add it to the main text, you could just add a bit to Article II in item 1, so that the second paragraph says "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 The Primus Praefect and the two Praefects are the full moderators of the Curia and its related forums.⁷"

(I've just added the words "The Primus Praefect and the two" to what was already there in the last sentence of that.)


Just in passing, presumably the heading of Section III should be changed to something that doesn't include Censors?


It occurred to me that there was a small problem with this part of the wording (I've taken out the edit formatting to make it easier to read):

If a referral has merit, the Praefects requests a defence³ from the referred and decides⁴ whether⁵ and which⁶ disciplinary action is to be taken.⁷ It consists of:

There's nothing for the 'It' in the last sentence to refer to. (In the current version of the Constitution, that 'It' refers to the Triumvirate.) Since the group in question doesn't consist only of Praefects (the Curator/Consul, Censors and Hex are also listed as part of the group), we need the group to be called something, or we need to word things differently. I've done a new version that goes back to using the word 'Triumvirate' for the whole group of people who can be involved in the discussion of referrals. Obviously a new title could be used instead, or this could be reworded a different way - really this is just to try and show what I thought the problem was. (I've marked just the bits I've changed from the current draft, to make it obvious which bits I've changed.)

Section III - Censors and Magistrates

Article I. The Triumvirate and Referrals

Citizens are expected to behave in an exemplary manner and can be referred¹ to the 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. If a referral has merit, the Praefects requests request a defence³ from the referred and pass the referral and defence to the Triumvirate, which decides⁴ whether⁵ and which⁶ disciplinary action is to be taken.⁷ It The Triumvirate consists of:

• The Praefects - Who discuss and vote on every Referral except in the case of infractions issued on Citizens for a Curial post, where the Curator and Censors will act in place of the Praefects. Primus Praefect holds the tiebreaking vote if necessary.
• The Curator and Censors - Who may discuss Referrals, but hold no vote, except in the case of infractions issued on citizens in a Curial post, where they will act in place of Praefects. as set out above.
• Hexagon Council members - Who may choose to participate.

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.

If I've got it right, the version in the contentbox below is the wording above, but showing the difference between that wording and the current Constitution rather than the difference between the wording above and Hader's current draft.

Constitutional Syntax Changes

Section III - Censors and Magistrates Article I. The Triumvirate and Referrals Citizens 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 requests request a defence3 from the referred and pass the referral and defence to the Triumvirate, which decides4 whether5 and which6 disciplinary action is to be taken.7 It The Triumvirate consists of: The Censors Praefects - Who discuss and vote on every Referral except in the case of infractions issued on Citizens for a Curial post, where the Curator and Censors will act in place of the Praefects. 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, as set out above. 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.

[Aexodus]

Support