Anti-tattle tale Amendment

[PointOfViewGun]

Why does the accused has the right to confront the accuser though? That only makes sense for witnesses. We don't have that here as we are supposed to base our judgments on public record. There is absolutely no value in the accused confronting the accuser within the TWC as we never base anything on the testimony of the accuser.

[Sir Adrian]

Why the hell would it make sense to confront witnesses but not the accuser? This isn't the soviet union. We're not holding show trials here Seth.

Wee base a lot on the testimony of the accuser. A lot of people voted no in the latest ostrakon because the testimony of the accuser was an insult to human intelligence. had the accuser made a qualitative post I and many others would have probably voted yes.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why the hell would it make sense to confront witnesses but not the accuser? This isn't the soviet union. We're not holding show trials here Seth.

Wee base a lot on the testimony of the accuser. A lot of people voted no in the latest ostrakon because the testimony of the accuser was an insult to human intelligence. had the accuser made a qualitative post I and many others would have probably voted yes.

Passing judgment on a person's conduct purely based on the accuser's post in the Ostrakon is not the right thing to do, hence, not the right example here.

Confronting a witness is allowed to establish credibility of the witness. In court, witnesses are confronted to be allowed to be discredited. No such thing makes sense in an Ostrakon as we are not relying on the testimony of a person.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I have no stake in this, but I'd argue the difference doesn't matter. If you keep it anonymous, you risk vindictive behavior. If you make people stand up and own their accusation, you risk different vindictive behavior. The difference shifts by attitudes of the participants and the most recent situations in memory. I think people should be plain; if they raise it, they should own it and let the merits be their shield so both parties can work through the issue and resolve it amicably. But good faith isn't implied and there's been enough content around the curia lately to prove people will forever argue in circles while sidestepping the crux of the issue.

Amusing as it all is to read, I want to believe there's better things to go on about.

So we may as well tune up what we have and not bother 'solving' an issue that's going to be challenged when the other case has better optics. After all, the merits will be the shield, and that will be the point anyways - not who is accusing who.

[Lifthrasir]

(...)Lift ironically you actually provided the best counter argument for transparency in the system. Adrian stated that if the accuser is known then the process will not work because of popularity. But you stated the process does work because evidence of improper behavior would ultimately have to be presented (...)

And how this is a counter argument? An ostrakon is not supposed to be presented without material. A Citizen A can't contact the Consul and just tell him to start the process just because he finds Citizen B behaviour unworthy for Citizenship. The minimum is to present evidence illustrating the accusation like posts for instance. Hence my remark about the facts.
Knowing the accuser will only increase the bullying because the Curia is what it is.

[Sir Adrian]

But that is exactly what happened in Ponti's case. Ther opening statement had 0 evidence to it, only "I believe", "I feel", "he has been"

[PikeStance]

And how this is a counter argument? An ostrakon is not supposed to be presented without material. A Citizen A can't contact the Consul and just tell him to start the process just because he finds Citizen B behaviour unworthy for Citizenship. The minimum is to present evidence illustrating the accusation like posts for instance. Hence my remark about the facts.
Knowing the accuser will only increase the bullying because the Curia is what it is.

I specifically referring to example that I decided, not the entirety of your response.
In the last example, as Adran stated, ther wasn't any evidence presented. I am a little surprise that KA would bother to present an Ostrakon with simply an argument.

For what is worth...

Since I already openly told that I believe the Ostraka to be noneffective and only resolving around two (or more) different moral interpretations opposing without any real base to judge upon (with regards to standard, I mean), I can as well say that knowing who the accuser is, would be fine.

I mean, if that's just a popularity contest when it actually comes to its basic elements, then let's make this a full contest: "I'm the accuser, I believe that these are the standards we are called to uphold and I think that you, the Ostrakoned, haven't done so, so let's the Curia decide if I'm right, or if you are". It really boils down to this, opposing views.

If anything knowing who the accuser is will make the Ostrakon more likely to be voted in favor, and not the contrary. And will also make it less likely that an Ostrakon will be thrown in based on less than very solid accusations and evidences.. just like when someone bothers to write up an introduction letter and lurk for the contributions of a member to be sumbitted for citizenship, so they should be spending same amount of time and efforts when they want someone to get stripped of their citizenship.

Either you're sponsoring a member for citizenship or ostrakoning another one to have them stripped, put your face, your time and you efforts in such... if you don't want to do so, you'd better not to get mix with such at all.

Personally, I wouldn't care one bit who the accuser is. In the last case, it was to the accuser's benefit, because it was so poorly written they are best kept anonymous.

The green is why transparency should be our goal. As a citizen you have the right to express your dissatisfaction with another citizen's behavior. Moreover, a non- petitioning citizen who agrees has no anonymity while the accuser does. We are worry about the accuser being victimized by bringing it forward what about the citizens who supports the petition? Heck I opposed the last one and I had to ridiculously defend my decision as if I was one on trial. Of course, therein lies the problem. We talk higher standards, but we sometimes do not exhibit it.

[Flinn]

Just saying "I agree with you" would be faster, Pike

However.. I personally don't see the whole concept of "the accuser being victimized" as a thing at all.. what is going to happen, precisely? Are they going to be ostrakonized in return, on the base of what? That point is really moot, IMO.

I personally don't like the very idea of Ostrakons for many reasons, not going to open that can again, but one of them is really because the anonymity of the accuser is a none-sense, so if Ponti is gonna put up an amendment for this I will certainly support it.

[PikeStance]

Just saying "I agree with you" would be faster, Pike

However.. I personally don't see the whole concept of "the accuser being victimized" as a thing at all.. what is going to happen, precisely? Are they going to be ostrakonized in return, on the base of what? That point is really moot, IMO.

I personally don't like the very idea of Ostrakons for many reasons, not going to open that can again, but one of them is really because the anonymity of the accuser is a none-sense, so if Ponti is gonna put up an amendment for this I will certainly support it.

I actually agree with you. The only reasons to know the accuser is to point out hypocrisy (which would be irrelevant) or to do as you suggest, tit for tat behavior.
As a citizen you should be responsible to bring inappropriate behavior to the Curia of a fellow citizen. if this cannot be done, then there is a serious problem.

Personally, an "Ostrakon" should only be initiated by a moderation infraction or a Curial warning. I don't think behavior beyond the ToS should initiated it, but it could compliment it.

My problem with the last Ostrakon is the behavior was observed for months, and we as a group, have done absolutely nothing about it. It is a little unfair to remove someone's rank for behavior that is "typical" discourse even among those most critical. For me, the best a citizen should bring forward is a censure. Let's put the citizen on notice and then see what that person does next.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Why does the accused has the right to confront the accuser though?

I don't know, maybe try to intellectually interact with the millennia old issue?

That only makes sense for witnesses.

The "prosecution" bringing forth the "charges" in an ostrakon is not the government. It is by the very definition of the word a witness of alleged bad behavior. Even by your own disingenuous parsing of definitions, whoever brought my ostrakon is definitionally a witness by his own admission.

We don't have that here as we are supposed to base our judgments on public record.

Or in the case of my ostrakon, also by my private record.

There is absolutely no value in the accused confronting the accuser within the TWC as we never base anything on the testimony of the accuser.

You sure didn't. You were ready to base your decision on an evidenceless accusation and had zero curiosity about why the accuser lacked any actual evidence other than slander.

Passing judgment on a person's conduct purely based on the accuser's post in the Ostrakon is not the right thing to do, hence, not the right example here.

You did that. Why do you insist on arguing something totally contradictory and hypocritical every other time you post?

Confronting a witness is allowed to establish credibility of the witness. In court, witnesses are confronted to be allowed to be discredited. No such thing makes sense in an Ostrakon as we are not relying on the testimony of a person.

If you read this slow enough, it makes no sense whatsoever. "the credibility of a witness is unnecessary"

If I ostrakoned you alleging that you PMed me saying that you are a white supremacist hell bend on the genocide of the xyz people, absent any evidence, absent any knowledge of who accused you, I think you'd think differently.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't know, maybe try to intellectually interact with the millennia old issue?
The "prosecution" bringing forth the "charges" in an ostrakon is not the government. It is by the very definition of the word a witness of alleged bad behavior. Even by your own disingenuous parsing of definitions, whoever brought my ostrakon is definitionally a witness by his own admission.
Or in the case of my ostrakon, also by my private record.
You sure didn't. You were ready to base your decision on an evidenceless accusation and had zero curiosity about why the accuser lacked any actual evidence other than slander.
You did that. Why do you insist on arguing something totally contradictory and hypocritical every other time you post?
If you read this slow enough, it makes no sense whatsoever. "the credibility of a witness is unnecessary"
If I ostrakoned you alleging that you PMed me saying that you are a white supremacist hell bend on the genocide of the xyz people, absent any evidence, absent any knowledge of who accused you, I think you'd think differently.

We didn't simply judge you based on someone saying that they have seen you being disruptive. That's not how an Ostrakon work. Various people pitched in and pointed at similar points. Some, like I have done, presented tangible evidence; moderated posts and a bunch of other posts that showed uncivil behavior. You can lie about what I have posted all you want. What I love about what you're writing here is that you were sure, despite my statements, that I have initiated the Ostrakon. Now, with the same sense of confidence, you're telling me that I had zero curiosity about the accuser's conduct. Amazing irony there.

The accuser in an Ostrakon is not a witness. In fact, there is no concept of a witness on TWC. You are legally given the right to confront a witness in court because the judge or the jury are supposed take the witness' words as a sort of circumstantial evidence. Hence, We don't have that here. Nobody in the Ostrakon has to rely on the accuser. If you initiated an Ostrakon about an alleged PM, I would simply called you out on it to produce it and the staff can help correct the record. I wouldn't need to know your identity if I never PMed anyone to accuse them of being a white supremacist.

[Belisarius]

I do not really know how Ostrakons work today, what I do know is where they originated from - and I have experience with them. In 2005 (I think) I launched "My Case and Petition Against Crandar" and in later years I served as Prosecution in the Ostrakon of the Black Prince, both of which are on public record. In all past cases - when I was relevant - the accuser and all persons involved were named and all evidence was tabled. From what I remember, an Ostrakon was legislative power given to the Curia to eject a citizen and was separate from the actions carried out by Staff. This was not always the case and the original proceedings were initiated by the Hexagon and sentence was then carried out by the Hexagon. (Boris vs TBC 2003)

Also, every Ostrakon in that time was absolutely done for political reasons, Crandars was done to eject him from the site for conspiring with others to take over and The Black Prince to .. well might leave that one for the Hex forums