[Discussion] Moderation Warnings Regarding Eligibility for Curial Offices

[Leonardo]

Yes,

The ToS makes a clear distinction

The Constitution is equally clear

Moderation Warning is what "Infraction" is now. There is, nor was there ever any ambiguity.
The Consul only needs to change the word from "Warning" to "infraction." There is no point of discussion unless there is a proposal to increase the requirement to include notes which I would be oppose to. Such a rule would place an unfair burden on understanding the nuance in which the ToS may be enforce that differs from other sites. We have considered members with less than 6 months of registering to the site.

What I bolded is exactly what I mean by saying...

I think using Moderation Infraction can be misunderstood after we had a similiar discussion about the difference between a note and infraction last year in the Townhall.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15934839

Also, read this.

How about using ToS violations (added ToS just to make it clearer what it means), just to use the same wording as Tango had in that thread?

Both a note and an infraction are the same thing, a ToS violation. Which means that changing "Warning" to "Infraction" in the constitution doesn't change anything, because it's all the same as it has been before.

However, the only difference there is between a note and an infraction is that a note doesn't have a penalty while an infraction has a penalty.

[PikeStance]

What I bolded is exactly what I mean by saying...

Both a note and an infraction are the same thing, a ToS violation. Which means that changing "Warning" to "Infraction" in the constitution doesn't change anything, because it's all the same as it has been before.

However, the only difference there is between a note and an infraction is that a note doesn't have a penalty while an infraction has a penalty.

Yes, and I quoted the relevant sections that differentiates the two. The Constitution explicitly states "warning" so there is no ambiguity. This was always pointed on numerous occasions. I noticed the Constitution actually changed the wording to "Infraction."

[Leonardo]

Did you? No. You did not, instead you said...

The Consul only needs to change the word from "Warning" to "infraction."

I think Gig's explaination is better than mine.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15934954

[Gaius Baltar]

This semantic argument is one reason I proposed we go by the point system already in place and used by the Moderation branch. While still working out the details, one idea would be

0 pts = good for everything

1pt = active - restrictions in place...

Perhaps there should also be a scale for expired points as well as an accumulation of moderation material appears to be an issue.

[PikeStance]

Did you? No. You did not, instead you said...

I think Gig's explaination is better than mine.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15934954

We had already gone over this before. The ToS makes a distinction between the two. The Constitution explicitly states "warning."

and in your link, Gig wrote this: Which means the information given by moderation\admins when asked about pending\active warnings will only include those (penalizing) warnings and not notes.
There is a reason for that; the Constitution only requires that you have not receive a warning in the past 6 months.

As I said in the last message, the wording has already been change, so it is a moot point.