Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 136

Thread: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

  1. #41
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,239

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    I agree with Aik on pretty much every point he raised.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  2. #42
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,915

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    So what is generally problematic not just with the proposal, but with that which it tries to amend, is tying citizenship standards to moderation.

    A lot of people mention it's not fair having your citizenship suspended for a single off-topic post. However, the ToS nominally has the same sanction on things like disruptive posting, defying moderation and insulting others.

    It is for such violations primarily that automatic suspension of citizenship was introduced. Pay close attention now: the fact that it's automatic signified that remaining free from infractions was the absolute bottom line of behavioural standards. So much so, that no judgment by peers was considered necessary.

    This proposal changes that. If this passes, it will be left up to you, the Curia, to suspend people for insulting others. I can hear the protestations already "I think it's too harsh to suspend someone for a single insult". And so, indeed, the standards will slip.

    There may be a case for saying off topic posting isn't as bad a violation of citizen standards as insulting people, but relaxing the standards for both is obviously no solution for that. What that requires is setting different threshold for different ToS violations.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  3. #43
    Flinn's Avatar The Dude Retires
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    17,054
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Must oppose for how it is now, while I'm not against making it a bit less rigid than now (when we voted for this amendment we wanted it to be as strict as possible of course, but I at the least always interpreted this choice as a first step, meant to be reviewed later on). However, I believe that a more than 3 points is a too high threshold*

    I would prefer to have it set at 2 active infractions no matter the points or the specific kind for each (rather than 1 as today), much fairer to those who do a constant effort to behave well and still gives the citizen in trouble the opportunity to rethink their behavior or simply cool down on that specific argument, etc.
    Remember that Citizens are supposed to behave well and be exemplary (only of course if we still believe in this idea over which the Curia was founded long ago), so this amendment should be intended as for giving a fairer chance to Citizens in trouble, not giving them the opportunity to skirt around this a more than 3 points threshold*

    ** just to make it clear, getting 4 or more points it's quite a high threshold, for instance:
    - off topic, censor bypassing, hard to read posts: you could get a note, one infraction with 1 point, and then the subsequent one with 2 points, and you are still below the threshold
    - generally: you can have 3 notes and 3 one pointers from 3 different kind of infractions and still be below the threshold

    I commend the idea of making it less strict, but IMO the step from the actual system to the new proposed system is too wide
    Last edited by Flinn; September 22, 2021 at 06:42 AM. Reason: it's kind not kid, Flinn you moron
    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

  4. #44
    Aikanár's Avatar no vaseline
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sanctuary
    Posts
    12,515
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    So what is generally problematic not just with the proposal, but with that which it tries to amend, is tying citizenship standards to moderation.

    A lot of people mention it's not fair having your citizenship suspended for a single off-topic post. However, the ToS nominally has the same sanction on things like disruptive posting, defying moderation and insulting others.

    It is for such violations primarily that automatic suspension of citizenship was introduced. Pay close attention now: the fact that it's automatic signified that remaining free from infractions was the absolute bottom line of behavioural standards. So much so, that no judgment by peers was considered necessary.

    This proposal changes that. If this passes, it will be left up to you, the Curia, to suspend people for insulting others. I can hear the protestations already "I think it's too harsh to suspend someone for a single insult". And so, indeed, the standards will slip.

    There may be a case for saying off topic posting isn't as bad a violation of citizen standards as insulting people, but relaxing the standards for both is obviously no solution for that. What that requires is setting different threshold for different ToS violations.
    I agree with most of this, if not all of it.

    As an abendum with regards to off-topic posting. Liable to this paragraph of the ToS is also making off-topic personal references which must not necessarily be insulting but nevertheless were the cause for a lot of trouble in the past, especially when I think of the D&D and new game releases.

    I could be swayed to support a paragraph by paragraph of the ToS approach which would also make it very clear what is expected citizen conduct in less sweeping way (Muizer's statement with regards to the bottom line of expected citizen behavior).


    Son of Louis Lux, brother of MaxMazi, father of Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Iskar, Neadal, Sheridan, Bercor and HigoChumbo, house of Siblesz

    Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

  5. #45
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    17,745
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    A lot of people mention it's not fair having your citizenship suspended for a single off-topic post. However, the ToS nominally has the same sanction on things like disruptive posting, defying moderation and insulting others.
    And no one should lose their citizenship for a single count, or even multiple counts, without the informed consent of the Curia. The Curia giveth and the Curia taketh away. Moderation should play no role in this aside from that which they play as regular citizens.

    This proposal changes that. If this passes, it will be left up to you, the Curia, to suspend people for insulting others.
    GOOD.

    Moderation should play zero role in removing or suspending citizenship. That should, ideally, be the sole purview of the Curia. People's contributions to the site do not go away nor are they dampened by the contributor getting a note for off topic posting or for censor bypassing.

    There may be a case for saying off topic posting isn't as bad a violation of citizen standards as insulting people, but relaxing the standards for both is obviously no solution for that. What that requires is setting different threshold for different ToS violations.
    The criteria to receive an infraction isn't being changed, I'm not sure what this sentence is talking about.

    Must oppose for how it is now, while I'm not against making it a bit less rigid than now (when we voted for this amendment we wanted it to be as strict as possible of course, but I at the least always interpreted this choice as a first step, meant to be reviewed later on). However, I believe that a more than 3 points is a too high threshold*
    It's worth mentioning that this system was only added in the past year or two. For the majority of Curial history we existed just fine without mandatory suspensions.

    I would prefer to have it set at 2 active infractions no matter the points or the specific kind for each (rather than 1 as today), much fairer to those who do a constant effort to behave well and still gives the citizen in trouble the opportunity to rethink their behavior or simply cool down on that specific argument, etc.
    I would have no problem with changing it to that. How do the others feel about that change?

    Want to play TWC D&D? Click here | Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    If you'd like you see my graphics workshop click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, and Gyrosmeister






  6. #46
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,092

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    This proposal changes that. If this passes, it will be left up to you, the Curia, to suspend people for insulting others. I can hear the protestations already "I think it's too harsh to suspend someone for a single insult". And so, indeed, the standards will slip.
    The Curia decided suspension for 10+ years before the current system was introduced. I agree with you that wee need to decouple citizenship standards from moderation, but right now, as it is the curia is strongly tied to moderation staff and that needs to end before it causes even more damage.

    The problem here, and with the previous ostrakons and discussions on the topic, is that we have been incapable of deciding once and for all what citizenship is. Is it a reward, or is it a status? If it's a reward then there should be no standards to speak of beyond the ToS and no suspension. You don't lose a phalera because your posts are no longer as good as they were. If it's a status then site staff has absolutely no business in determining when someone's status gets suspended because site staff did not grant it in the first place.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 22, 2021 at 09:45 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  7. #47
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    17,745
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    I've changed the OP slightly to conform with Flinn's suggestion. If you support that change, please reaffirm your support.

    Want to play TWC D&D? Click here | Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    If you'd like you see my graphics workshop click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, and Gyrosmeister






  8. #48
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,092

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Having read and understood the changes made herein I, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration to restate my SUPPORT ofthis proposal forthwith.

    Signed while wearing poofy pants in the year of our Lord MMXXI

    EDIT: not /s just fancy.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 22, 2021 at 10:21 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #49
    Flinn's Avatar The Dude Retires
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    17,054
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    I'd specify "active" before infractions.. also I said 2 or more, not more than 2

    If a citizen accrues 2 or more active infractions, the Consul suspends their citizenship until their infractions expire or are removed. The suspended member losses the ability to display all rank, including both Citizen and Patrician badges and color. Infractions under appeal are exempt from further action if the appellant files an appeal within 72 hours.
    This I will support without hesitation, it's a due step IMO, which will keep the logic of the current system (which I like in general), but that will also give to any Citizens in trouble a further chance.
    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

  10. #50
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    17,745
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Shh, I just changed it. My illiteracy is showing .

    Want to play TWC D&D? Click here | Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    If you'd like you see my graphics workshop click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, and Gyrosmeister






  11. #51

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Support the update.



  12. #52
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,915

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    And no one should lose their citizenship for a single count, or even multiple counts, without the informed consent of the Curia. The Curia giveth and the Curia taketh away. Moderation should play no role in this aside from that which they play as regular citizens.
    In the wake of PM's failed Ostrakon, I find it hard to believe you sincerely expect the Curia to uphold standards on a par with, let alone higher than, the absolute bottom line that adhering to the ToS was introduced for.

    I don't like the mechanism of abrogating responsibility to moderation either, but I also look at the reality at the moment, which is that this Curia isn't going to take that responsibility upon itself. It will continue as it does now to turn a blind eye and just let the standards sink to this new bottom line, which will once again be the completely automatic consequence of moderation. The end product is inevitably lowering standards.

    What do I care about lower standards? Am I such an elitist? In fact, the opposite is the case. There is nothing more elitist than privilege without merit. Unlike medals, privileges need to be earned every day.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  13. #53
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Roma in aeternum
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,088
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    The proposed language would fit better under Section I - Article I, rather than in the section on Ostraka, which it has nothing do to with.



    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


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

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    17,745
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    The proposed language would fit better under Section I - Article I, rather than in the section on Ostraka, which it has nothing do to with.
    I think the current language would fit better there too. I actually thought about that when I was making this proposal and I considered moving that paragraph to section 1 as part of the proposal, but I figured it would be better to separate the ideas into two separate amendments as this change is a bit more controversial than just re-arranging the structure.

    I plan on making an amendment to move the paragraph in question to S1-A1 after we get this amendment sorted out.

    Want to play TWC D&D? Click here | Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    If you'd like you see my graphics workshop click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, and Gyrosmeister






  15. #55

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Support the update.
    Ditto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  16. #56
    Flinn's Avatar The Dude Retires
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    17,054
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    obvious support is support
    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. #57
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Magistrate

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,290

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    And another step towards mediocrity and self-indulgence...
    "We all make mistakes." is a convenient myth, nothing more. It is not hard to stay on the good side of the ToS and it is sad to see that the citizenry is not even willing to maintain this bare minimum of behaviour.
    "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.

  18. #58
    Aikanár's Avatar no vaseline
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sanctuary
    Posts
    12,515
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    I oppose the current OP, because of reasons already stated.


    Son of Louis Lux, brother of MaxMazi, father of Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Iskar, Neadal, Sheridan, Bercor and HigoChumbo, house of Siblesz

    Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

  19. #59
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ˇAy Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    5,877

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Opposed, because I believe the Curia should be held at the minimum standards the absolute majority of the forum's membership is actually capable of maintaining. Rewards and medals are revoked in both the real and the digital world, on a not very infrequent basis, so I don't understand how our perception of the citizenship is relevant to the debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    Thank you both for your clarification. I understand your points now and do not disagree. It seems completely out of balance how much community involvement it takes to make someone a citizen or to ostracize one while a single moderator can get a citizenship suspended by a personal decision over possibly a single incident.
    Just a clarification, but Sir Adrian's argument is wrong, because it is contradicted by the moderation guidelines and the Constitution. Infractions are not given on a personal whim, but they are issued after collective deliberation. Mistakes have happened, but the warnings are instantly reversed without an appeal to the Tribunal being necessary. Also, it is impossible for any user to be warned with an infraction for a single mistake. Only if the offender had already violated the same rule in the past, he's issued any infraction points. Otherwise, he's just given either a private message asking him to be more careful or a note, which however carries zero infraction points. Because the citizenship is suspended only as a result of infractions and not of notes, the affected citizens necessarily have a history of rule-breaking, so nobody is in danger of temporarily losing his privileges for a single mistake.

    In regards to the off-topic rule, it is enforced in cases of derogatory personal references and repeated and intentional attempts to hijack a thread's discussion.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; September 23, 2021 at 04:53 AM. Reason: Corrections.

  20. #60

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Just a clarification, but Sir Adrian's argument is wrong, because it is contradicted by the moderation guidelines and the Constitution. Infractions are not given on a personal whim, but they are issued after collective deliberation. Mistakes have happened, but the warnings are instantly reversed without an appeal to the Tribunal being necessary. Also, it is impossible for any user to be warned with an infraction for a single mistake. Only if the offender had already violated the same rule in the past, he's issued any infraction points. Otherwise, he's just given either a private message asking him to be more careful or a note, which however carries zero infraction points. Because the citizenship is suspended only as a result of infractions and not of notes, the affected citizens necessarily have a history of rule-breaking, so nobody is in danger of temporarily losing his privileges for a single mistake.

    In regards to the off-topic rule, it is enforced in cases of derogatory personal references and repeated and intentional attempts to hijack a thread's discussion.
    Thank you for your trouble explaining it. I try to keep this post in mind for future reference if any new members have the same question or confusion as I just did.

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
  •