[Ostrakon] Pontifex Maximus v2

[Kilo11]

I did not know the ostrakon required a 2/3 majority. I would hazard to guess then that no one will ever be successfully ostrakoned, which begs the question why we even have the process at all. Especially so, given that this was a rather cut and dried case for ostrakon, and still that many people voted against, seemingly because they either liked Ponti's posting, or don't like the posting of those supporting the ostrakon (or a mix of both).

What I find most disappointing about this whole thing though is actually Gig's final comment:

Guess probation and eventually perma ban will have to do instead.

One of the strongest merits of ostrakon that I see is the ability to make a statement and condemnation about a user's posting without forcing out that user. I think that the people who defended Ponti on the grounds that "he's going through something" are correct; he does seem to be going through something. But that is why I would favor an ostrakon, as it allows us to show him (and the site at large) that we are not okay with such posting and behavior, while still keeping him around, talking to him, and otherwise being friends. I find it sad to think that we will just have to bitterly allow him to continue doing whatever he likes until he goes properly beyond the pale, and then we cast him out forever. No. I would have liked to have shown some "tough love", and tried to get him back to where he was a few years ago, being a rather adamant and sometimes unpleasant conversation partner, but one who nonetheless sticks to the arguments and can be interesting to talk to.

[PointOfViewGun]

My understanding is that Abstain votes are not to be counted, hence, they abstain from the process. What does the rules say about that? In a normal election or judgment in real life, abstained votes are not counted. Isn't that the whole purpose of abstaining?

Yup, this is the Constitution:

A 2/3rds majority of non-abstaining votes is required for revocation.

We have 15 votes against 8 votes. That's little over under 2/3rds of non-abstaining votes.

[Cope]

My understanding is that Abstain votes are not to be counted, hence, they abstain from the process. What does the rules say about that? In a normal election or judgment in real life, abstained votes are not counted. Isn't that the whole purpose of abstaining?

Yup, this is the Constitution:


We have 15 votes against 8 votes. That's little over 2/3rds of non-abstaining votes.

No it isn't.

15/23 = 65%

[PointOfViewGun]

No it isn't.
15/23 = 65%

Yup. That's little under 2/3rds of non-abstaining votes.

[TheDarkKnight]

I did not know the ostrakon required a 2/3 majority. I would hazard to guess then that no one will ever be successfully ostrakoned, which begs the question why we even have the process at all. Especially so, given that this was a rather cut and dried case for ostrakon, and still that many people voted against, seemingly because they either liked Ponti's posting, or don't like the posting of those supporting the ostrakon (or a mix of both).

What I find most disappointing about this whole thing though is actually Gig's final comment:


One of the strongest merits of ostrakon that I see is the ability to make a statement and condemnation about a user's posting without forcing out that user. I think that the people who defended Ponti on the grounds that "he's going through something" are correct; he does seem to be going through something. But that is why I would favor an ostrakon, as it allows us to show him (and the site at large) that we are not okay with such posting and behavior, while still keeping him around, talking to him, and otherwise being friends. I find it sad to think that we will just have to bitterly allow him to continue doing whatever he likes until he goes properly beyond the pale, and then we cast him out forever. No. I would have liked to have shown some "tough love", and tried to get him back to where he was a few years ago, being a rather adamant and sometimes unpleasant conversation partner, but one who nonetheless sticks to the arguments and can be interesting to talk to.

People have been successfully ostrakoned. Ferrets being one of them if I remember correctly, which is ironic considering the current offender. Feel free to scroll through the history of the Curia for that story. Hard to believe I would ever even compare the two users but here we are.

15 vs 10 (I'm counting the abstains as no here) tells me that 10 people either do not care what Ponti does as long as it riles up the site or they genuinely thinks Ponti did nothing wrong. Either is an unfortunate parallel to real life right now, and it's kind of uncomfortable to know this behavior, which would not have gone without consequences a decade ago, is now considered acceptable to the site.

Such low standards is beyond the pale, but I guess nowhere is safe from the spread of that particularly odious behavior anymore.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is also much less participation in this Ostrakon compared to his previous one, both for regular Citizens and Staff/Administration.

Shouldn't it be an obligation for Staff/Administration to take part in these votes in whole?

[Sir Adrian]

I'm curious now what it would take for someone to actually be successfully ostrakoned?

On my part I would have voted yes if

a. I did not know it was you
or
b. you did not have an active feud with him that I know of and made your decision to ostrakon him sound like you were just doing it to with him.

[Gigantus]

Glad to hear that questioning the motive totally outweighed the merit of the issue for you. Still wondering why I was going on about anonymity? And yes, Akar did no one, least the site, a favor in revealing his identity seeing that merit is so easily discarded.

[Sir Adrian]

An action undertaken for the wrong reasons has no merit as far as I'm concerned. There was nothing to weigh in the first place. I'm sad that you are willing to overlook abuses just to kick a guy who was rude.

And even if there was, the OP itself was exceptionally weak-sauce to begin with and I would have voted yes solely on the meltdown he had in the tribunal. If you really want him gone the key is to focus on that and his latest infractions instead of no evidence like the previous one and "this is bad because I disagree with it and it's slightly racy" like Akar did.


PS: it's funny how you keep bringing up merits when I'm the only one here who voted no for that reason. So much for my "influencing" people, as you called it.

[PikeStance]

People have been successfully ostrakoned. Ferrets being one of them if I remember correctly, which is ironic considering the current offender. Feel free to scroll through the history of the Curia for that story. Hard to believe I would ever even compare the two users but here we are.

15 vs 10 (I'm counting the abstains as no here) tells me that 10 people either do not care what Ponti does as long as it riles up the site or they genuinely thinks Ponti did nothing wrong. Either is an unfortunate parallel to real life right now, and it's kind of uncomfortable to know this behavior, which would not have gone without consequences a decade ago, is now considered acceptable to the site.

Such low standards is beyond the pale, but I guess nowhere is safe from the spread of that particularly odious behavior anymore.

I decided to vote no because
1. The argument made in the OP did not make a strong case that his posts are especially vile. In fact, they are atypical; sensibility only riled up if a persons political inclinations are "offensive" by the reader.
2. If there was a melt down, then that would have been useful information and probably more relevant for Ostrakon. I guess it isn't too late for version 3.

[Gigantus]

@Adrian - The reasoning that the character's circumstances invalidate his complaint is pretty much what has been wrong with this whole discussion. Who do you expect will lodge a complaint, someone not connected to the defendant? If that is the prevalent stance then you may as well be done with Ostrakons or the penalty system we got as a whole: it's akin to telling the moderators not to take action if the rule break is reported by the interlocutor, regardless of validity of the offense.

-----------

@Pike - The melt down was deleted (it attracted most likely a CoC and certainly was the reason why the appeal got thrown out**) and hence not permissible to copy into the discussion, same reason why Akar's screenshot of an equally egregious exchange in the the tribunal commentary was removed - trust me: I was itching to post it but was restricted to point out that in my 15 years at TWC I have never seen an unhinged personal attack like that.

I described it as much in posts #12 and #45 - guess you missed it?

** a first for the tribunal if memory serves

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Motion has failed, right to citizenship is retained (after staff referred suspension is served anyways). Thread is archived.