Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 121

Thread: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

  1. #41
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    So your argument is that the consul can just do whatever he wants until directly challenged and a VoNC says he can't?
    Given the... levity with which people seem to be flinging around VoNCs that is not a particularly lenient restriction, wouldn't you say?
    "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.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  2. #42

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    I didn't muddy the waters, as my remark pertained exactly to this subject as well: The Consul can exert discretion in every matter of their office, including procedures under Section III, Article I, which is what Halie has been explaining for some posts now. The Consul is free to do anything on the scale "suspend citizenship" - "have a word with moderation" - "recommend the citizen to appeal it" - "refuse to suspend citizenship". Whether or not what they do is the "right" interpretation of the Constitution and their office is only determined by a VoNC or the absence thereof.
    The Consul has no power to refuse to suspend the Citizenship of a user who receives an infraction except if the infraction is under appeal (this having been established by precedent). The argument that the Consul could simply refuse to carry out his duties as per the Constitution and then hope not to be removed via a VoNC is sophistic nonsense.



  3. #43
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The argument that the Consul could simply refuse to carry out his duties as per the Constitution and then hope not to be removed via a VoNC is sophistic nonsense.
    If only there were steps the Consul could take between automation and refusing his duties.

  4. #44
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Given the... levity with which people seem to be flinging around VoNCs that is not a particularly lenient restriction, wouldn't you say?
    So your only response to my question is a flippant remark? Okay then.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  5. #45

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    What I said, was that he had oversight to report impropriety. If the infraction is valid I have no issue with the accused being suspended. You have muddied the waters by fixating on a sentence while consistently ignoring the word 'impropriety.'
    The Consul has no authority or ability to overturn infractions. Determining whether infractions are "valid" is the role of the Tribunal or the Praetorium. This being the case, the only "impropriety" the Consul could report would be a member of Moderation falsely claiming a Citizen had received an infraction when they had not. This seems to me to be so extraordinarily unlikely that it doesn't constitute meaningful oversight.



  6. #46
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The Consul has no authority or ability to overturn infractions.
    Thank you for the clarification of a point no one made.

    Determining whether infractions are "valid" is the role of the Tribunal or the Praetorium.
    If there is an appeal. Are all infractions appealed?. You wouldn't know. How could you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This being the case, the only "impropriety" the Consul could report would be a member of Moderation falsely claiming a Citizen had received an infraction when they had not. This seems to me to be so extraordinarily unlikely that it doesn't constitute meaningful oversight.
    I'm sure the imaginative could come up with other improprieties.

    For instance, If a citizen no longer has citizenship but doesn't seem to have resigned. If there is no appeal, maybe they felt they deserved an infraction. There must have been a 'referral' though for the Consul to remove their citizenship. Maybe they thought they could escape Ostrakon by keeping it between moderation and themselves but, the automatic suspension might raise questions.

    In that case I think the Consul should initiate an Ostrakon. Impropriety works both ways.

    However, If this is your assertion.

    This being the case, the only "impropriety" the Consul could report would be a member of Moderation falsely claiming a Citizen had received an infraction when they had not. This seems to me to be so extraordinarily unlikely that it doesn't constitute meaningful oversight.
    Why is this amendment needed. You're actually making a good argument to oppose.
    Last edited by Halie Satanus; February 07, 2021 at 10:32 AM.

  7. #47
    King Athelstan's Avatar The Wheel Weaves
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nidaros
    Posts
    6,771
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Halie Satanus View Post
    The Consul has oversight to check any impropriety. As do Hex.

    The Consul can't go into the AdminCP and view a Citizen's moderation record, they are dependant on being informed by Hex if a member receives an infraction. After which they can remove the member in question from the usergroup, and inform that they can reapply to the usergroup when the infraction expires.

    That being said, I'm opposed to this - I do not want a citizen's bad behaviour to unregulated. By wearing the badge one represents the citizenry. And as Abdul said: One cannot have had a moderation record for 6 months to become a citizen, so why should one be in the right to display a badge when with one?
    Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
    Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft
    and Peaman






  8. #48
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Opposed

    I very much share quite everything that Iskar said on regard to this amendment
    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. #49
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Opposed. The idea of removing citizens for 1 point infractions is just plain bad however leaving behaviour unregulated is worse.

    I would support this if Akar came up with something else as a replacement.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  10. #50
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    If I could share some history, I got infracted in March, June and July 2018. I appealed all three (so it's already public of course) successfully, because I had to, in order to obtain citizenship in September. Since then I've had no transgressions, save a note in August 2018 for a censor bypass (me posting memes in TD lol).

    I think suspension upon getting infracted is good enough. So opposed from me.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  11. #51
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Opposed. The idea of removing citizens for 1 point infractions is just plain bad however leaving behaviour unregulated is worse.

    I would support this if Akar came up with something else as a replacement.
    In my opinion the most important first step is removal of this ridiculous system. Then we can decide how best to implement a replacement (be that the old referral system or something else).

    I understand the desire to not repeal without having something to replace it with, but this isn't the ACA. Very few people are going to die of preventable causes in the time it takes us to come up with a new system.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  12. #52
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    The only ridiculous (maybe even ridonculous) thing here is that some people find the blatantly easy-to-follow guideline "don't get infracted" too harsh for the precious citizenry.
    "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.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  13. #53
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    The only ridiculous (maybe even ridonculous) thing here is that some people find the blatantly easy-to-follow guideline "don't get infracted" too harsh for the precious citizenry.
    God bless the Rhinelander
    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

  14. #54
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    The only ridiculous (maybe even ridonculous) thing here is that some people find the blatantly easy-to-follow guideline "don't get infracted" too harsh for the precious citizenry.
    The only ridiculous (maybe even ridonculous) thing here is that some people still don't understand that we got rid of the higher standards for a reason. Either we're subject to them or we aren't.

    Spoiler: we aren't, the Curia already decided.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  15. #55
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Your reading is getting selective. I have explained several times that not getting infracted is not a higher standard, but what is expected of every forum user.
    "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.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  16. #56
    King Athelstan's Avatar The Wheel Weaves
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nidaros
    Posts
    6,771
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    I really don't have anything else to add than what Iskar already has said (Which I feel I've said a lot lately)
    Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
    Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft
    and Peaman






  17. #57
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13,192
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    Maybe I can be the first one to say I don't agree with what Iskar said...because I haven't read the post in question? (I started reading this thread backwards for some reason, I still don't know why)

    But I've just now read OP and will just reply to the idea at hand here - this feels like it is implying, even unintentionally, that when one becomes a citizen, they are no longer part of the general userbase anymore, and that they are now the Curia's problem instead of Moderation's (though I'm sure moderation might like that smaller workload because let's face it, all of us here are problem children!).

    And I do believe we tried a sort of detachment of moderation from the curia, to some degree, with the praefects. It wasn't a 1 for 1 trade off of course, but we also got rid of that entirely and didn't adjust it in a way that what is implied here may be more suited for. But even regardless of that fact, citizens are not just relegated to the Curia only when they gain citizenship, they still all interact with the board at large. That is still moderation's territory. They are, in effect, a problem child for both the Curia and Moderation now. It's like spreading a disease when you think about it...

    Overall I don't understand what this is trying to even accomplish. It isn't as if moderation is coming in here to revoke citizenship because of infractions, they give infractions for bad behavior on other parts of the forum and that's about it. The fact that the curia imposes on its own a punishment of revoking citizenship for infractions is not a problem with moderation, and arguably not even a problem at all, but regardless of how you view it, it is entirely the doing of the Curia.

    So no, I don't see the point of this if I understand correctly, or else I am misunderstanding and this really should have more clarification beyond the fairly short OP.

  18. #58

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    I quite find Hader's argument to be sage and tempered. Having been so persuaded, I must oppose. The original argument swallows itself.

  19. #59

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    I OPPOSED

    I would consider the following alteration

    If a citizen receives an infraction the Consul may either issue a censure, suspends their citizenship until the infraction has expired or is revoked or initiate an ostrakon.
    Footnote: A consul announces a Censure by creating a thread in the QP stating the reason for the action. The thread will be close but citizens and non-citizens are free to comment.
    Something like this,... but removing any oversight for citizens' behavior is not a good idea.

  20. #60
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: (Amendment) Section III, Article I

    How is that different from the referral process that was already removed by the Curia?

    Well I guess it's actually far worse, since it's entirely up to the Consul's discretion.

    but removing any oversight for citizens' behavior is not a good idea.
    There is still over sight via the ostrakon.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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
  •