Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: [DISCUSSION] changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Offices due to pending Appeals

  1. #1
    Flinn's Avatar Dude of Steel
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    16,311
    Blog Entries
    34

    Default [DISCUSSION] changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Offices due to pending Appeals

    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
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  2. #2
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,926
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Moved.

  3. #3
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,923

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    King Athelstan's Avatar The Wheel Weaves
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nidaros
    Posts
    6,498
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    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.
    Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
    Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft
    and Peaman






  5. #5
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,923

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by King Athelstan View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Flinn's Avatar Dude of Steel
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    16,311
    Blog Entries
    34

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by King Athelstan
    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
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  7. #7
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    15,556

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    We just got rid of refferals, and now we are bringing them back in a less open form.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  8. #8
    Flinn's Avatar Dude of Steel
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    16,311
    Blog Entries
    34

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    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?
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  9. #9
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,923

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    @ 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.

  10. #10
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Roma in aeternum
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Temple of Jupiter
    Posts
    6,851
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    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
    Last edited by Gaius Baltar; January 05, 2021 at 09:35 AM. Reason: Add Information


    Pillaging and Plundering since 2006

    Neither is this the dawn from the east, nor is a dragon flying above, nor are the gables of this hall aflame. Nay, mortal enemies approach in ready armour. Ravens are calling, wolves are howling, spear clashes and shield answers


  11. #11
    Suspended by Request
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,851

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    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)
    Last edited by makawa; January 05, 2021 at 11:31 AM. Reason: clarification

  12. #12

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Leonardo's Avatar Reborn Old Timer
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southern Sweden
    Posts
    5,141

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    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.
    Under patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader.





    How to make Morrowind less buggy for new players - Of course every player may find it useful.

  14. #14
    Flinn's Avatar Dude of Steel
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    16,311
    Blog Entries
    34

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusV View Post
    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
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  15. #15
    King Athelstan's Avatar The Wheel Weaves
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nidaros
    Posts
    6,498
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Moved back,


    I guess the Discussion and Amendment words coming straight after each other may be a bit confusing for some
    Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
    Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft
    and Peaman






  16. #16
    Flinn's Avatar Dude of Steel
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    16,311
    Blog Entries
    34

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    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
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  17. #17
    Leonardo's Avatar Reborn Old Timer
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southern Sweden
    Posts
    5,141

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] amendment to section 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonardo View Post
    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.
    Under patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader.





    How to make Morrowind less buggy for new players - Of course every player may find it useful.

  18. #18
    Obi Wan Asterix's Avatar IN MEDIO STAT VIRTUS
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in a lost valley in the Italian Alps
    Posts
    7,668

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Offices due to pending Appeals

    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.
    All are welcome to relax at Asterix's Campagnian Villa with its Vineyard and Scotchbarrel
    Prefer to stay at home? Try Asterix's Megamamoth FM2010 Update
    Progeny of the retired Great Acutulus (If you know who he is you have been at TWC too long) and wooer of fine wombs to spawn 21 curial whining snotslingers and be an absentee daddy to them

    Longest Serving Staff Member of TWC under 3 Imperators** 1st Speaker of the House ** Original RTR Team Member (until 3.2) ** Knight of Saint John ** RNJ, Successors, & Punic Total War Team Member

    TROM 3 Team - Founder of Ken no Jikan **** Back with a modding vengeance! Yes I will again promise to take on the work of 5 mods and dissapear!

  19. #19
    Belisarius's Avatar Like so Divine!
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    18,947

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Offices due to pending Appeals

    Quote Originally Posted by Obi Wan Asterix View Post
    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?

  20. #20
    King Athelstan's Avatar The Wheel Weaves
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nidaros
    Posts
    6,498
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [DISCUSSION] changes to Section 3 to avoid vacancy of Curial Offices due to pending Appeals

    Quote Originally Posted by Belisarius View Post
    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
    Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
    Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft
    and Peaman






Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •