Section 2 Footnote 3 revision (NB: The green text was previously voted on in the Curial Overhaul amendment as a footnote in section 1. I am proposing to move it to this footnote:
Existing Footnote 6: 6 All citizen initiated referrals processed as Ostrakons are public. All other referrals are private unless the member referred requests for them to be made public.
New footnote for ostraka #10:
10 A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to one of the Praefects. A majority vote of the prefects determines if an ostrakon has merit. If an ostrakon has merit:
the Primus Praefect notifies the defendant and requests a defense
After a defense is provided, or after one week if no defense is provided, the Primus Parefect posts the ostrakon accusation and defense within the Quaestiones Perpetuae
After three days of discussion a Praefect adds a poll lasting seven days to either Dismiss, Revoke Citizenship, or Abstain. A 2/3rds majority of non-abstaining votes is required for revocation.
Regarding the change in magistrate requirements, I'm open to leaving that at 6 months for both magistrates and the Primus Prefect and reducing the requirement for Consul to eliminate that discrepancy. Thoughts?
Last edited by StealthFox; March 10, 2019 at 04:57 PM.
I believe this fits perfectly with necessary clarifications and not complicating further anything else. The only thing I think worth maybe discussing is about appointment of Censors by the Consul; I suppose I intended/thought it would be a per Consul sort of thing, like choosing your cabinet at the beginning of your Consul term, and being able to replace Censors as needed if any could not continue actively in their office, but that each new Consul would pick new Censors and they wouldn't necessarily carry over between two different Consular terms. Thoughts?
Personally, I would like to have proposals ideas to be a nice tease for citizenship, but I supposed voting will have to do for now.
Any Citizen member can propose a resolution for discussion by posting a thread in the Prothalamos, except VonC which only citizens can propose.
The second issue is the problem of non-elected Censors judging referrals. Since it would always be a ToS violation anyway, I see no conflict with Magistrates and Consuls serving that role. The alternative is to restrict Censors to citizens who have been a citizen for three months or more.
The third issue; Keep Moderation Warning.
The fourth issue: 6 months is long enough. This is a Gaming site forum. let's keep that in perspective.
I actually edited in a line (probably while you were reading the original post) that I am open to keeping the magistrates and primus prefect at a 6 month requirement and reducing the other. I realize 12 months is a long time, maybe too long.
I almost removed VONC from being allowed by any member but kept it since the constitution allows VONC of staff in addition to Curial officers. I hope that this would almost never be used, but I think it is a good check to have in the constitution.
Regarding warning vs. infraction, I think infraction makes it clearer that it isn't referring to notes. It's also consistent with the previous line about Consuls.
Lastly, I'm not sure what to do about censors judging referrals. I hate to add any requirement to it as that's supposed to be an introductory position for getting involved with the Curia, or least it previously was as Curial Assistant.
@ Hader:
I think it's important to allow reappointments of censors as activity isn't so great these days and because new Consuls can see the activity of previous censors. That's why I asked Elfdude to stay on as a Curial assistant at the beginning of my term. I was impressed by how helpful and active he was and generally how he handled things in the Curia.
Last edited by StealthFox; March 08, 2019 at 09:58 PM.
@ Pike:
I actually edited in a line (probably while you were reading the original post) that I am open to keeping the magistrates and primus prefect at a 6 month requirement and reducing the other. I realize 12 months is a long time, maybe too long.
For me, it is the same philosophical approach with term limits. The goal is to make officials accessible. It is best the roles are spread around. A year or 6 months is a very long time to have to wait to serve the community.
Originally Posted by StealthFox
I almost removed VONC from being allowed by any member but kept it since the constitution allows VONC of staff in addition to Curial officers. I hope that this would almost never be used, but I think it is a good check to have in the constitution.
The biggest problem is the misuse of frivolous cases. it wasn't that long ago a VonC was initiated against a Staff member and it was unconstitutionally denied. The MCT and TCT are rife with unfounded rants and accusations against staff. I prefer that we do not allow such behavior to come here in an official proposal as opposed to mindless rants and endless suppositions and paranoia. Let's keep that garbage out of here.
Regarding warning vs. infraction, I think infraction makes it clearer that it isn't referring to notes. It's also consistent with the previous line about Consuls.
I guess you neglected to read your own thread???
ToS
Terms Violations Infractions of the terms of service are tracked using the infraction system, which allows moderators to record incidents in a reliable and centralized fashion. All such records of infractions are viewable in the user's profile to moderating staff and the user in question, but no one else.
Note
Notes are given when the actions of a member require staff to officially contact them. They are simply a record of that contact and do not contribute toward a member's warning level. They are recorded both to let other moderators know that the user has been informed of the particular rule, and to give the user a record of all contacts with moderators they have had.
Warning
Warnings are given when a member commits an offense (other than a very mild one) when the member should already know the rule in question, such as if a moderator has previously discussed that type of offense with them. Warnings expire after three months and contribute toward a member's warning level. How many levels an offense is worth can be found in the Member Conduct section in (parentheses). Whether to give the first or second number, if applicable, is up to moderator discretion.
Infractions are both Notes and Warnings and they are both viewable via the user's profiles. (aprt from the fact both are indicated as subsets of Infractions). Moderation warnings are just warnings.
Lastly, the Constitution has always stated "Moderation Warning" and it has never been understood to mean anything but a Moderation Warning. It is Crustal clear as is. Let's keep it that way.
Originally Posted by StealthFox
Lastly, I'm not sure what to do about censors judging referrals. I hate to add any requirement to it as that's supposed to be an introductory position for getting involved with the Curia, or least it previously was as Curial Assistant.
I am working on a new system (actually an old system, but modernized).
I agree with Pike () about the term's use of 'infraction'. Not everybody has the same interpretation of the meaning of 'infraction': does it include or not the Note? Can a note be worth enough to prevent an application? If not clarified, I think that 'moderation warning' remains better
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader
I agree with Lith and Pike on the infraction issue. Keep the 'moderation warning'. Apart from that I would support the proposal.
On a side note I agree with Pike that VonC's can get out of hand but as we citizens have shown we are ourselves very good in doing this so I think this is the wrong proposal to address this issue. We might should change something in the VonC procedure.
So I think all members shall initiate a VonC.
"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)
Support, whatever you do about the infraction/warning thing.
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
Thanks for all the feedback so far. I'm going to make some edits regarding warning vs. infraction and the requirements for all the offices including censors. I think I have a simple fix for helping address the fact they may judge referral cases. Look for the edits in the next day or so. I want to allow time for more feedback so I'm only making one set of revisions.
MCT and TCT are not moderated so it can't happen here. Gotcha!
they were usually moderated with a certain permissiveness, an attitude that seems to have changed; no tumult recently (in the las months) in the tribunal commentary thread, posts frequently deleted by Tango in the Moderation comentary thread. In any case, it is too much to ask to give a vote of confidence to te prothalamos and katsumoto?
I hope you will reconsider the vonc thing. It's absurd to have people without voting rights being able to initiate vonc's. Otherwise good proposal and good work Fox.
I hope you will reconsider the vonc thing. It's absurd to have people without voting rights being able to initiate vonc's. Otherwise good proposal and good work Fox.
And why is that so absurd?
I've stated that members now can post here, and thus have interactions with curial officers, so being able to VonC an officer of unbecoming behavior should be within their grasp just as much as any citizen.
I've yet to hear anything I feel is substantive on why it can be absurd they can do this. Lack of a vote in the end part of the VonC process is not really a reason at all.