[Ostrakon] Pontifex Maximus v2

[Sir Adrian]

It's not right to invoke higher standards for one member while completely brushing it off for an other.

So what you are arguing is that everyone should be held to the lowest common denominator. Staff holds its members to much higher standards than even patricians. Large award winners are held to a higher standard then non-awardees (in their particular area). Citizens are held to a higher standard than non-citizens. If it's not right to invoke higher standards for one user (staff member) while completely brushing them off for another (peregrinus) than this entire system needs to disappear altogether.

Since Akar's entire argument here is focused in the direction of "Pontifex does not hold up to higher standards" then this ostrakon is not right either, because as you said it's not right to hold a member to a higher standard while brushing it off for another.


You have a decision to make. Is it right, and then this ostrakon can cling on to something or is it not right and then so is this ostrakon. Decisions, decisions.


PS: Pikestance' opinions are not law on this website, they're just his opinions and if you had bothered to look you would have seen that was just a hypothetical discussion.


PPS: Once again I have to remark the general dishonesty of your argument and how low you are willing to stoop just to snipe at someone.

[Akar]

Citizens have always been held to higher standards, and they always should be. People have had their citizenship removed or been censured numerous times in the past for behavior unbecoming of a citizen that is not strictly speaking against the TOS. The entire Ostrakon process and the previous referral process is predicated on the notion that Citizens should be held to that higher standard. If Citizens are not indeed held to a higher standard, why is the Curia empowered with the authority to revoke Citizenship for egregious offenses? If that were not the case, we would have no need for the Ostrakon or various iterations of the referral policies we've had in the past. Time and time again the Curia has expressed the need to have a means through which it can expel troublesome members of the body. The Curia is in charge of selecting and rejecting it's own membership, and what other purpose would one be expelled than unbecoming behaviour? TOS violations are dealt with by Moderation, not the Curia.

The fact is that some users desire to eat their cake and have it to. They desire the recognition of Citizenship without any of the responsibility (if you can even call it that) of acting like an adult. You can't have it both ways. You want to post and toe the line in the Mudpit? Fine, but doing so wont make you deserving of Citizenship.

Since Akar's entire argument here is focused in the direction of "Pontifex does not hold up to higher standards" then this ostrakon is not right either, because as you said it's not right to hold a member to a higher standard while brushing it off for another.

I believe that you have intentionally missed his point.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are referring to me. This was a discussion made between Halie and myself. Halie's argument is that the large award was given solely on merit with no understanding of a higher than normal standard of behavior. My argument was that a requirement for the large awards is to meet the requirements of citizenship. In a large award we recognized exceptional posting. It was logical that large award members should be held to a higher standard of attitude and behavior. There was very little support for my position. Elfdude, however, took my argument personally and acted on it on several occasions.

The problem here is hypocrisy. Why should I hold Ponti more accountable than those that stand against them when their behavior is no different.

Yup, but what you actually argued there is not what you're saying you argued there. You specifically divorced the large award bit from your expectation of higher standards when you talked about elfdude. Large award simply played in as a need for even higher standards as you explicitly pointed out in that Citizen Referral. Here, suddenly, higher standards become a trivial issue.

So what you are arguing is that everyone should be held to the lowest common denominator. Staff holds its members to much higher standards than even patricians. Large award winners are held to a higher standard then non-awardees (in their particular area). Citizens are held to a higher standard than non-citizens. If it's not right to invoke higher standards for one user (staff member) while completely brushing them off for another (peregrinus) than this entire system needs to disappear altogether.
Since Akar's entire argument here is focused in the direction of "Pontifex does not hold up to higher standards" then this ostrakon is not right either, because as you said it's not right to hold a member to a higher standard while brushing it off for another.
You have a decision to make. Is it right, and then this ostrakon can cling on to something or is it not right and then so is this ostrakon. Decisions, decisions.
PS: Pikestance' opinions are not law on this website, they're just his opinions and if you had bothered to look you would have seen that was just a hypothetical discussion.
PPS: Once again I have to remark the general dishonesty of your argument and how low you are willing to stoop just to snipe at someone.

Not sure how I'm saying that. I'm clearly defending having higher standards for Citizens. What ticked me off is seeing that such higher standards are invoked for some members but not for the others. Do you believe we should expect higher standards from Citizens? Would you also like to explain the dishonesty in my argument?

[Kilo11]

Seeing the latest back and forth, I am going to do something stupid, and potentially ruffle everyone's feathers...

Nearly everyone above is accusing the other side of being partisan or acting in bad faith, and from my vantage, it appears that this is correct. The majority of people who are weighing in here have a long history of activity in the same areas where Pontifex Maximus likes to hang, and that clearly is souring the discussion. And further, from looking closely at the above posts, I think that Gig, Narf, and myself are the only ones here talking who don't have a lot of history with Ponti in the mudpit or other areas of the site (which is where all this muck seems to be coming from). Given that, I think it may be beneficial if those with previous grievances or axes to grind do their best to leave those out of this ostrakon, and only post facts relevant to this case. What happened in other cases concerning individuals related to your camp is besides the point. The question is whether Pontifex Maximus has acted in a way that merits his being divested of citizenship. Whether other individuals ought to lose some ranks or privileges and didn't does not matter here. Or at least, it should not matter here. Maybe mistakes were made before. Maybe we could afford to be more lenient, or had to be more strict, due to different circumstances. But either way, there is a question before us now which should be weighed upon given the facts of now. Your pasts together should not factor into that in the least.

And again, I find it rather decisive that Ponti's defense is essentially "I don't even care about citizenship. Do what you will." If he cares so little about it, then that partly explains his lack of care when posting or addressing other members, and that also provides the grounds for loss of citizenship in my book. If he can't be bothered to be a good citizen, because he doesn't care about citizenship, then why should we fight about whether or not he keeps it? Let him go, and if he decides later that he would indeed like to come back, then that door is always open, and he can re-apply under a patron. I don't see any problem with that, and in the meantime, we can still talk to him, have conversations, and as per Adrian's comments, try to help him "work through the very obvious breakdown he's having". But I do not think his flagrant disregard for civility or the institutions here is reason for the rest of us to tear at each other's throats.

[Iskar]

Wiser words have rarely been spoken.

[Gigantus]

Just when I was loosing faith in the Curia for the umpteenth time. Thanks, just don't make me blush again.

[Akar]

I understand this is an emotional and divisive topic but I'd like to remind everyone to stay on topic, which is discussing the merits of the Ostrakon outlined in the OP. Off topic posts and personal attacks aren't allowed in the Curia.

And that goes for everyone, include myself.

[PikeStance]

Citizens have always been held to higher standards, and they always should be. People have had their citizenship removed or been censured numerous times in the past for behavior unbecoming of a citizen that is not strictly speaking against the TOS. The entire Ostrakon process and the previous referral process is predicated on the notion that Citizens should be held to that higher standard. If Citizens are not indeed held to a higher standard, why is the Curia empowered with the authority to revoke Citizenship for egregious offenses? If that were not the case, we would have no need for the Ostrakon or various iterations of the referral policies we've had in the past. Time and time again the Curia has expressed the need to have a means through which it can expel troublesome members of the body. The Curia is in charge of selecting and rejecting it's own membership, and what other purpose would one be expelled than unbecoming behaviour? TOS violations are dealt with by Moderation, not the Curia.
The fact is that some users desire to eat their cake and have it to. They desire the recognition of Citizenship without any of the responsibility (if you can even call it that) of acting like an adult. You can't have it both ways. You want to post and toe the line in the Mudpit? Fine, but doing so wont make you deserving of Citizenship.

The standard of behavior has never been "standardized." Moreover, the so called "higher standard" has been so inconsistently applied, it comes across as political rather than any upholding of any standard of any kind.
personally there is no difference in function and practice between the removed citizen referral and the Ostrakon, except the maybe the hypocrisy is more egregious.

Yup, but what you actually argued there is not what you're saying you argued there. You specifically divorced the large award bit from your expectation of higher standards when you talked about elfdude. Large award simply played in as a need for even higher standards as you explicitly pointed out in that Citizen Referral. Here, suddenly, higher standards become a trivial issue.

I would gladly "enforce" a higher standard when and if "we" can hold ourselves to those standards.
In other words, if we hold Ponti to the same standard we hold ourselves, then there isn't anything egregious about Ponti's behavior or attitude.

Seeing the latest back and forth, I am going to do something stupid, and potentially ruffle everyone's feathers...

Nearly everyone above is accusing the other side of being partisan or acting in bad faith, and from my vantage, it appears that this is correct. The majority of people who are weighing in here have a long history of activity in the same areas where Pontifex Maximus likes to hang, and that clearly is souring the discussion. And further, from looking closely at the above posts, I think that Gig, Narf, and myself are the only ones here talking who don't have a lot of history with Ponti in the mudpit or other areas of the site (which is where all this muck seems to be coming from). Given that, I think it may be beneficial if those with previous grievances or axes to grind do their best to leave those out of this ostrakon, and only post facts relevant to this case. What happened in other cases concerning individuals related to your camp is besides the point. The question is whether Pontifex Maximus has acted in a way that merits his being divested of citizenship. Whether other individuals ought to lose some ranks or privileges and didn't does not matter here. Or at least, it should not matter here. Maybe mistakes were made before. Maybe we could afford to be more lenient, or had to be more strict, due to different circumstances. But either way, there is a question before us now which should be weighed upon given the facts of now. Your pasts together should not factor into that in the least.

And again, I find it rather decisive that Ponti's defense is essentially "I don't even care about citizenship. Do what you will." If he cares so little about it, then that partly explains his lack of care when posting or addressing other members, and that also provides the grounds for loss of citizenship in my book. If he can't be bothered to be a good citizen, because he doesn't care about citizenship, then why should we fight about whether or not he keeps it? Let him go, and if he decides later that he would indeed like to come back, then that door is always open, and he can re-apply under a patron. I don't see any problem with that, and in the meantime, we can still talk to him, have conversations, and as per Adrian's comments, try to help him "work through the very obvious breakdown he's having". But I do not think his flagrant disregard for civility or the institutions here is reason for the rest of us to tear at each other's throats.

I don't have a history with Ponti. Gig knows him far better than most that you have listed. I have infrequently visit the "mudpit." When I do, I rarely last long in the abysmal and disingenuous debate that takes place there. I would rather read youtube, Facebook, and Twitter comments than diatribe that takes place there.

I also do not know if he doesn't care or he doesn't want to bother with a defense. He can self- revoke his own citizenship. We already have one member who has done that.

Your second paragraph makes a better case for suspending his citizenship than the OP does for an Ostrakon.

[PointOfViewGun]

I would gladly "enforce" a higher standard when and if "we" can hold ourselves to those standards.
In other words, if we hold Ponti to the same standard we hold ourselves, then there isn't anything egregious about Ponti's behavior or attitude.

We don't? I don't see other Citizens continuously jumping into most subjects with utmost incivility that results in bunch of their posts to be moderated with bunch of those receiving infractions. If there are other examples, they should be Ostrakoned too.

I also do not know if he doesn't care or he doesn't want to bother with a defense. He can self- revoke his own citizenship. We already have one member who has done that.

He literally, as in the most accurate definition of the word, states that he doesn't care.

Cancel culture at it's finest. Do what you will, I don't care any more. If a bunch of whiny citizens want to punish me by revoking something which hasn't held any value since they opened the Curia to non-citizens then so be it. I find it hilarious they're so butt hurt by opinions they don't agree with.

You didn't read his defense?

[Iskar]

The idea that you need an explicit higher standard to decide an Ostrakon is completely beside the point. If we had an explicit higher standard we would not need a public vote, just a an administrative procedure checking behaviour against the standard. We have the Ostrakon precisely because the judgement whether we tolerate a given behaviour has to be based on our individual views on a case by case basis.

I agree with Kilo's assessment and will vote in favour of the motion.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I don't see much point in bogging down at this time, but if there was ever a case where citizens/members should have any power to say 'we don't want this to represent us', I'd think this is it. As members and citizens we have enough problems holding ourselves or the wider site to any bar higher than a liberal interpretation of the ToS that is rife for abuse of its very slow acting and forever lawyered points. I support Kilo's statement against muddying the waters with useless partisanship that is only a smokescreen for the actual problem.

[Cookiegod]

Seeing the latest back and forth, I am going to do something stupid, and potentially ruffle everyone's feathers...

Nearly everyone above is accusing the other side of being partisan or acting in bad faith, and from my vantage, it appears that this is correct. The majority of people who are weighing in here have a long history of activity in the same areas where Pontifex Maximus likes to hang, and that clearly is souring the discussion. And further, from looking closely at the above posts, I think that Gig, Narf, and myself are the only ones here talking who don't have a lot of history with Ponti in the mudpit or other areas of the site (which is where all this muck seems to be coming from). Given that, I think it may be beneficial if those with previous grievances or axes to grind do their best to leave those out of this ostrakon, and only post facts relevant to this case. What happened in other cases concerning individuals related to your camp is besides the point. The question is whether Pontifex Maximus has acted in a way that merits his being divested of citizenship. Whether other individuals ought to lose some ranks or privileges and didn't does not matter here. Or at least, it should not matter here. Maybe mistakes were made before. Maybe we could afford to be more lenient, or had to be more strict, due to different circumstances. But either way, there is a question before us now which should be weighed upon given the facts of now. Your pasts together should not factor into that in the least.

And again, I find it rather decisive that Ponti's defense is essentially "I don't even care about citizenship. Do what you will." If he cares so little about it, then that partly explains his lack of care when posting or addressing other members, and that also provides the grounds for loss of citizenship in my book. If he can't be bothered to be a good citizen, because he doesn't care about citizenship, then why should we fight about whether or not he keeps it? Let him go, and if he decides later that he would indeed like to come back, then that door is always open, and he can re-apply under a patron. I don't see any problem with that, and in the meantime, we can still talk to him, have conversations, and as per Adrian's comments, try to help him "work through the very obvious breakdown he's having". But I do not think his flagrant disregard for civility or the institutions here is reason for the rest of us to tear at each other's throats.

Really this.

I have absolutely no desire to become part of this fight between people who have a major part of their motivation from off-site/off-content. So because of this I'll tilt somewhere between no and abstain.

I'm still going to vote no on the ostrakhon on the simple grounds that the Armenian genocide is drawn into this. It's one thing where it's a false accusation. It's an entirely different thing where it's true. I do not think the ostrakhon-accuser can really use this as an ad hominem when this denial is so much part of his identity he made this "issue" front and center in his signature.

Other quotes whilst surely looking bad always depend on the context. Given that it's the mudpit, I expect a cesspool, so admittedly I'm not going to test it out.

If moderation has left it in, I suspect they didn't find an issue with it.

And finally the romantic notion of a higher standard is kinda just that. For me to vote on that ground the requirement is that most citizens in the mudpit indeed hold themselves to a higher standard. The quoted posts themselves would tilt me to abstain, given the overall standard there, but the reciprocity between accusers and accused I cannot ignore. So ultimately this time around no.

[TheDarkKnight]

For the record, Cookiegod, Ponti did not take his most recent appeal well and flamed the Tribunal and the Tribunal commentary thread after his appeal was thrown out for his behavior. The posts were rife with insults and personal attacks all around. I'm not sure if you saw those, as the offending posts have been deleted but you can see the remnants of that incident in their proper threads. Those alone are worthy of losing his citizenship.

The odd part is that people will probably defend him getting to that point as well, and point fingers at staff/others as the ones that drove him to "needing to do it". Not you, specifically, but other people that will never see anything wrong with how Ponti behaves.

Again, this all has some very uncomfortable real life parallels.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

His behavior over the past few years, culminating in his breakdown in the most recent Tribunal, is enough for me to say that Ponti no longer has the standards of a citizen of this site overall. And while that obviously does not matter to him anymore, I think its clear that stripping him of it is still a necessary step.

It's hard to believe he ever held such standing with the forum but it is clear that THAT Ponti is long gone. I hope one day we have that Ponti come back.

But if you look at the posts I linked from the past ostrakon, I highly doubt it.

[Akar]

If this sort of behavior doesn't warrant the revocation of Citizenship I'm truly curious what sort of behavior the Curia would consider Ostrakon worthy.

It's one thing where it's a false accusation. It's an entirely different thing where it's true.

I don't buy this line of reasoning. A phrase being insulting isn't depending on it's relationship with the truth. Calling an overweight person a "fat " is true, but it's also insulting. Calling someone born out of wedlock a bastard is true, but it's also insulting. Calling a gay person a faggot isn't untrue it's just insulting. Truth is irrelevant and not an affirmative defense for using a pejorative.

It's hard to believe he ever held such standing with the forum but it is clear that THAT Ponti is long gone. I hope one day we have that Ponti come back.

I hope that Ponti knows there will always be a place for him at TWC provided he is willing to respect the community and it's members.

[Axalon]

Forgive my ignorance here but who is the accuser? Is it Emperor Commodus or someone else? If the latter, then who?

- A

[Akar]

Ostrakons are anonymous, hence why the Consul posts them.

That being said I initiated this one.

[PikeStance]

We don't? I don't see other Citizens continuously jumping into most subjects with utmost incivility that results in bunch of their posts to be moderated with bunch of those receiving infractions. If there are other examples, they should be Ostrakoned too.
He literally, as in the most accurate definition of the word, states that he doesn't care.
You didn't read his defense?

Your standard of debate appears far lower than mine. If you want to change perception, it starts with you.

Here is his defense

Cancel culture at it's finest. Do what you will, I don't care any more. If a bunch of whiny citizens want to punish me by revoking something which hasn't held any value since they opened the Curia to non-citizens then so be it. I find it hilarious they're so butt hurt by opinions they don't agree with.

It comes across as sarcastic. If he really doesn't care he can resigned (like he has done in the past). It won't stop the proceeding and if Ostrakon, then so be it.

The idea that you need an explicit higher standard to decide an Ostrakon is completely beside the point. If we had an explicit higher standard we would not need a public vote, just a an administrative procedure checking behaviour against the standard. We have the Ostrakon precisely because the judgement whether we tolerate a given behaviour has to be based on our individual views on a case by case basis.

I agree with Kilo's assessment and will vote in favour of the motion.

I do not think anyone has explicitly stated a "need" for a higher standard. If we had one, we would still need to "debate" the removal (it would be a necessity). The problem isn't defining it in either explicit or implicit language, is that the standard is often not even adhered to by those that proposed such standards. The "case by case" standard is a convenient way to ignore standards you*, the citizen have created. Hypocrisy tolerated.

*You is not referring to Iskar, but referencing everyone.

Final question: if Ponti's behavior in the tribunal so objectionable, why is that not included in the OP's (proposal)? I would argue that would be of greater value than the pettiness mentioned in the OP.

[Kilo11]

The ostrakon is still a procedure which is anonymously brought forward. I think that is problematic for a variety of reasons, many of which Ponti rightly pointed out during his first run. However, I think I am correct in saying that Akar instigated this ostrakon, and I believe Akar has been open about that. So that is the accuser. And again, anyone correct me if I am wrong about that, and moderation, feel free to edit/delete this post if it is supposed to be the case that the accuser remains anonymous. As I think that procedure is a problem for a whole host of reasons, I refuse to help sustain it, and will always act to "out" the accuser so that the subsequent proceedings may be more clear, transparent, and fruitful.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm still going to vote no on the ostrakhon on the simple grounds that the Armenian genocide is drawn into this. It's one thing where it's a false accusation. It's an entirely different thing where it's true. I do not think the ostrakhon-accuser can really use this as an ad hominem when this denial is so much part of his identity he made this "issue" front and center in his signature.

Yet, I'm not the initiator of this Ostrakon. However, this "its not insulting if its true" line of slippery slope argumentation is equally problematic.

Your standard of debate appears far lower than mine. If you want to change perception, it starts with you.

This doesn't address my question.

Here is his defense
It comes across as sarcastic. If he really doesn't care he can resigned (like he has done in the past). It won't stop the proceeding and if Ostrakon, then so be it.

This merely makes up excuses for a factually false statement of yours.

[Akar]

Final question: if Ponti's behavior in the tribunal so objectionable, why is that not included in the OP's (proposal)? I would argue that would be of greater value than the pettiness mentioned in the OP.

It wasn't included in the OP for a variety of reasons, the foremost being that despite scientists best efforts we are unable to confound time's inherent linearity. Due to the events taking place chronologically later in the time line than when this Ostrakon was initiated it was impossible to preemptively include the requested information.

Secondly, it actually WAS included, later on. However it was removed when the Tribunal found Pontifex in contempt and removed his "defense"