Changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Offices due to pending Appeals

[Flinn]

If a citizen receives an infraction the Consul suspends their citizenship until the infraction has expired or is revoked.

I'll make this simple.

While I'm totally ok to the automatic suspension of citizenship and curial offices following a Moderation Infraction, people still have the chance to appeal that Infraction, so I'd say that an amendment to that rule is in order, to allow the infracted citizen a week or 10 days maximum to appeal that infraction before the suspension takes place. If they don't appeal in within this time the suspension takes places and in case they appeal it after they have to wait for the appeal result.

Let's make this even simpler

As of today, if one citizen gets an infraction, they have their citizenship suspended immediately and their curial offices removed. If they don't appeal the infraction, nothing happens, but if they do, this will possibly hinder the election for the Curial office they were holding (as it happened recently) until the appeal is resolved: if positively, they will gain their status and office back immediately, otherwise they have to wait for the infraction to expire to get the status back, while the office they hold has already passed by to someone else.

My concept: if one citizen gets an infraction, they have 1 week to appeal it; if they do, any disciplinary action is suspended until it's over, if they don't, they lose the status (and the office); if they don't appeal at all, then nothing particular happens, if they instead decide to appeal it let's say 15 days later, should they win they can get back their citizenship immediately, but not the office that was already gone

well it's more complex than what it looks, but the purpose is that to avoid having a curial office not covered like it happened last time; if they appeal within 1 week, then they can keep up with their duties unless their appeal is rejected, if they don't appeal within 1 week, the office will pass over to someone else (similarly, they cannot apply for any curial position, etc).

Not very likely to happen, still it happened

[General Brewster]

Moved.

[Cope]

I'll make this simple.

While I'm totally ok to the automatic suspension of citizenship and curial offices following a Moderation Infraction, people still have the chance to appeal that Infraction, so I'd say that an amendment to that rule is in order, to allow the infracted citizen a week or 10 days maximum to appeal that infraction before the suspension takes place. If they don't appeal in within this time the suspension takes places and in case they appeal it after they have to wait for the appeal result.

Let's make this even simpler

As of today, if one citizen gets an infraction, they have their citizenship suspended immediately and their curial offices removed. If they don't appeal the infraction, nothing happens, but if they do, this will possibly hinder the election for the Curial office they were holding (as it happened recently) until the appeal is resolved: if positively, they will gain their status and office back immediately, otherwise they have to wait for the infraction to expire to get the status back, while the office they hold has already passed by to someone else.

My concept: if one citizen gets an infraction, they have 1 week to appeal it; if they do, any disciplinary action is suspended until it's over, if they don't, they lose the status (and the office); if they don't appeal at all, then nothing particular happens, if they instead decide to appeal it let's say 15 days later, should they win they can get back their citizenship immediately, but not the office that was already gone

well it's more complex than what it looks, but the purpose is that to avoid having a curial office not covered like it happened last time; if they appeal within 1 week, then they can keep up with their duties unless their appeal is rejected, if they don't appeal within 1 week, the office will pass over to someone else (similarly, they cannot apply for any curial position, etc).

Not very likely to happen, still it happened

Just abolish the automatic revocation. This is an increasingly tiny community, we don't need mandatory punishments for Citizens or short-term office holders. It's hard enough finding people to apply for positions in the first place without kicking them out for minor transgressions. If there is a genuine problem with an office holder or Citizen, the administrators are at liberty to deal with it.

[King Athelstan]

I believe it being for infractions specifically would overshadow the "minor transgressions" bit Cope. Citizenship is about upholding a higher standard overall on the site, and should be responsible for its own Officers.

I like what Flinn is proposing here, setting a short time limit, such as a week for the appeal would help hinder entanglements and complications of an eventual new election.

[Cope]

I believe it being for infractions specifically would overshadow the "minor transgressions" bit Cope. Citizenship is about upholding a higher standard overall on the site, and should be responsible for its own Officers.

I like what Flinn is proposing here, setting a short time limit, such as a week for the appeal would help hinder entanglements and complications of an eventual new election.

A single infraction is a minor transgression. We don't need more convoluted procedures added to the Constitution (I thought we generally agreed that the document should be scaled back). Mandatory punishments for inconsequential ToS violations erase our ability to use discretion and add nothing of value to this place. At the very least, the threshold should be increased to say 3 or 6 moderation points.

[Flinn]

@ Cope; I get from where you are coming from, but if you want to change that rule please start another discussion, thanks

I like what Flinn is proposing here, setting a short time limit, such as a week for the appeal would help hinder entanglements and complications of an eventual new election.

that's precisely my point

[Sir Adrian]

We just got rid of refferals, and now we are bringing them back in a less open form.

[Flinn]

We just got rid of refferals, and now we are bringing them back in a less open form.

Ah that's a way of looking at it, I concur; actually I haven't considered if from that point of view

what if we specify that this in an option valid only for those citizens holding a curial office and meant exclusively to avoid having vacant curial office while waiting for the result of the appeal?

[Cope]

@ Cope; I get from where you are coming from, but if you want to change that rule please start another discussion, thanks

I want to abolish the rule posted in the OP; I don't think citizenship should be revoked for a single infraction. No need to open a new discussion on the same line of text.

[Gaius Baltar]

Just abolish the automatic revocation. This is an increasingly tiny community, we don't need mandatory punishments for Citizens or short-term office holders. It's hard enough finding people to apply for positions in the first place without kicking them out for minor transgressions. If there is a genuine problem with an office holder or Citizen, the administrators are at liberty to deal with it.

I agree with this idea. Its time to move on from the idea of the Curia as a moderator of "standards" of behavior.

Section III - Ostraka and Magistrates

Article I. Ostraka

If a citizen receives an infraction the Consul suspends their citizenship until the infraction has expired or is revoked. - remove this line.

If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon.^1,2

[mishkin]

I get the impression that some people talk about receiving an infraction as something normal, as if it is something that happens to most users when most of them have not received a single infraction in their life.

what if we specify that this in an option valid only for those citizens holding a curial office and meant exclusively to avoid having vacant curial office while waiting for the result of the appeal?

say no more (I mean Support)

[CommodusV]

As token support is pointless, I'll offer this instead.

I want to abolish the rule posted in the OP; I don't think citizenship should be revoked for a single infraction. No need to open a new discussion on the same line of text.

We're clearly pushing for procedure and the tide seems against this line of thought or split down the middle. Given the timeline of how the curia works, you'd probably be better off supporting and pushing this one through, then subsequently moving to abolish it in a clean discussion of its own. Efficient, not overall. In this case, practical? Probably. It's three supports and Flinn can have it moved, and the chances of it being denied would be so tiny I'd call it suspect if it's even split. At least, as long as pushing abolition now doesn't muddy it up and delay the possibility for either.

[Leonardo]

I'll make this simple.

While I'm totally ok to the automatic suspension of citizenship and curial offices following a Moderation Infraction, people still have the chance to appeal that Infraction, so I'd say that an amendment to that rule is in order, to allow the infracted citizen a week or 10 days maximum to appeal that infraction before the suspension takes place. If they don't appeal in within this time the suspension takes places and in case they appeal it after they have to wait for the appeal result.

Let's make this even simpler

As of today, if one citizen gets an infraction, they have their citizenship suspended immediately and their curial offices removed. If they don't appeal the infraction, nothing happens, but if they do, this will possibly hinder the election for the Curial office they were holding (as it happened recently) until the appeal is resolved: if positively, they will gain their status and office back immediately, otherwise they have to wait for the infraction to expire to get the status back, while the office they hold has already passed by to someone else.

My concept: if one citizen gets an infraction, they have 1 week to appeal it; if they do, any disciplinary action is suspended until it's over, if they don't, they lose the status (and the office); if they don't appeal at all, then nothing particular happens, if they instead decide to appeal it let's say 15 days later, should they win they can get back their citizenship immediately, but not the office that was already gone

I think that should only be for the citizenship and not the curial office, because if a citizen are elected for a curial office and the citizen in question gets infracted the curial office is automatically open for anyone else to apply for that position. While the outcome of the citizenship is the result of what the citizen decides to do.

[Flinn]

As token support is pointless, I'll offer this instead.



We're clearly pushing for procedure and the tide seems against this line of thought or split down the middle. Given the timeline of how the curia works, you'd probably be better off supporting and pushing this one through, then subsequently moving to abolish it in a clean discussion of its own. Efficient, not overall. In this case, practical? Probably. It's three supports and Flinn can have it moved, and the chances of it being denied would be so tiny I'd call it suspect if it's even split. At least, as long as pushing abolition now doesn't muddy it up and delay the possibility for either.

I'm not going to ask for anything to be moved anywhere. As I said in the CCT I just noticed an issue with this procedure and wanted to make the Curia aware, I haven't proposed any actual amendment and that's why I marked this thread as [DISCUSSION]. I consider my duty done, I'm sure that the next Consul will take care of putting up an amendment, if they'd like

[King Athelstan]

Moved back,


I guess the Discussion and Amendment words coming straight after each other may be a bit confusing for some

[Flinn]

I'm editing the OP's title into a less controversial [DISCUSSION] changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Officies due to pending Appeals

[Leonardo]

what if we specify that this in an option valid only for those citizens holding a curial office and meant exclusively to avoid having vacant curial office while waiting for the result of the appeal?

Exactly my point.

I think that should only be for the citizenship and not the curial office, because if a citizen are elected for a curial office and the citizen in question gets infracted the curial office is automatically open for anyone else to apply for that position. While the outcome of the citizenship is the result of what the citizen decides to do.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Quite incredible that the Curia still lives! We gave it birth, we fought a civil war over it (or 2 if you count 2004), and quite incredible that the OPIFEX/ARTIFEX system which I created still exists . I appreciate my citizenship is intact. Have you thought about forming labour committees of non-officers? Plebs are needed to do Curial work also. From their ranks they can work their way up to greatness

I even see proud bearers of my handywork: the loinshield still plugging this manual labour.

[Belisarius]

Quite incredible that the Curia still lives! We gave it birth, we fought a civil war over it (or 2 if you count 2004), and quite incredible that the OPIFEX/ARTIFEX system which I created still exists . I appreciate my citizenship is intact. Have you thought about forming labour committees of non-officers? Plebs are needed to do Curial work also. From their ranks they can work their way up to greatness

I even see proud bearers of my handywork: the loinshield still plugging this manual labour.

We should really get the gang together and misbehave a little in the Curia, maybe ostrakon tBP again? hehe

What is the level of activity in the Curia these days? Surely that would be the root to any issue with vacant offices? I mean logic would dictate that the sitting office holder would keep the office until an appeal is concluded, like a lame duck Curator?

[King Athelstan]

We should really get the gang together and misbehave a little in the Curia, maybe ostrakon tBP again? hehe

What is the level of activity in the Curia these days? Surely that would be the root to any issue with vacant offices? I mean logic would dictate that the sitting office holder would keep the office until an appeal is concluded, like a lame duck Curator?

All offices are currently filled good sir, though the amount of offices have varied over the years. If you want to catch up, the old Curial Information and Announcements thread is still kept up to date with the current officers and various Consul/Curator reports! If there's one thing that hasn't gone away it's the meticulous paperwork