Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 136

Thread: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

  1. #101

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    "active infraction" = an infraction is 'active' for a period of three months

    Hence voting yes on this amendment means voting to increase the threshold of accountability to a point that has happened less then a handful of times over the last 4-5 years. Effectively giving a free pass to 95% of rule violations by citizens (where suspension of citizenship is concerned) - as long as a citizen does not violate the rules again within three months there simply is no consequence\accountability.
    Good. Mandatory suspensions should be that rare. If I had to guess, I would imagine there were even fewer citizen suspensions under the referral system.
    Last edited by Cope; September 28, 2021 at 12:52 AM.



  2. #102
    Gigantus's Avatar I don't get worked up over people anymore: they get a post-it with 'ridiculous' on their forehead and that's it.
    Patrician Citizen Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    50,865
    Blog Entries
    30

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    So a free pass (where citizenship suspension is concerned) if a citizen breaks the rules is fine as long as he doesn't do it within 3 months of each other? How often the prior accountability method was enforced is speculative and immaterial whataboutism I would think. But I'll take a wager it was more often then 4 times in 5 years.

    Might as well scrap section 3 in it's entirety based on that argument, seeing that ostrakons are decided on perceived motive and the voter's sentiment towards the defendant instead of merit rendering that accountability approach moot, and thus make citizens totally unaccountable for their posting habits.

    Three cheers for 'TWC Citizenship - Privilege without accountability'?
    Last edited by Gigantus; September 28, 2021 at 12:58 AM.




  3. #103
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,359
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    ...Three cheers for 'TWC Citizenship - Privilege without accountability'?
    The downfall was the abuse of the referral system.

    The old system was flawed as well, infractions were often given a slap on the wrist, while the so-called higher standards were used like a weapon to publicly (upon the inevitable appeal) harassed members. We are better off with an impersonal touch.

    The very least we can ask of a citizen is to be an exemplar of behavior and this includes not receiving any infractions. The suspension is simply nudge to remind a citizen of their responsibility. Why are we even debating this? The system is impersonal and apparently effective otherwise why bother with the proposal.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  4. #104
    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

    Also, infractions, as has been exhaustively eplained, are not the first interaction between moderation and a citizen. Receiving an infraction means, that a citizen already has broken the rule at least once before. And usually even more often, since a note is only issued to first time offenders in severe cases. Most of the times it is edits, that are done without even pming, then a pm, then a note, then an infraction...


    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. #105

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    So a free pass (where citizenship suspension is concerned) if a citizen breaks the rules is fine as long as he doesn't do it within 3 months of each other?
    Yes.

    How often the prior accountability method was enforced is speculative and immaterial whataboutism I would think. But I'll take a wager it was more often then 4 times in 5 years.
    How often Citizens receive infractions is also speculative. The current system inflating the number of suspensions is not an argument its favour.

    Might as well scrap section 3 in it's entirety based on that argument, seeing that ostrakons are decided on perceived motive and the voter's sentiment towards the defendant instead of merit rendering that accountability approach moot, and thus make citizens totally unaccountable for their posting habits.
    No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Three cheers for 'TWC Citizenship - Privilege without accountability'?
    This overbearing interest with "accountability" seems disproportionate to the privileges/responsibilities of Citizenship. Suspensions for minor deviations achieves very little other than satisfying certain egos and quixotic perceptions of Citizenship.



  6. #106
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,359
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This overbearing interest with "accountability" seems disproportionate to the privileges/responsibilities of Citizenship. Suspensions for minor deviations achieves very little other than satisfying certain egos and quixotic perceptions of Citizenship.
    The disproportionate nature of citizenship is of its own doing. However, the very existence of citizenship is accountability. You are recognized and honor with a badge as an exemplar for others. Citizen being suspended for violating the ToS satisfies no egos. It reminds the citizen the expectation of the badge they chose to wear.

    Citizenship was always a recognition of good posting and contribution, it was always meant to be inclusive. The only perk was the Curia; of course even that has been deluded (though self-imposed).
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  7. #107
    Gigantus's Avatar I don't get worked up over people anymore: they get a post-it with 'ridiculous' on their forehead and that's it.
    Patrician Citizen Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    50,865
    Blog Entries
    30

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This overbearing interest with "accountability" seems disproportionate to the privileges/responsibilities of Citizenship. Suspensions for minor deviations achieves very little other than satisfying certain egos and quixotic perceptions of Citizenship.
    Seriously? Receiving an infraction after having been warned already is a minor deviation? Shouldn't take long now for it to become the acceptable norm for citizens I guess?
    As to being disproportionate: whatever privileges are there seem to be worth protecting from any form of accountability.




  8. #108
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,778
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    The downfall was ............
    ................ trusting the citizenship to review an Ostrakon objectively and on the evidence of the accused posts.

    This proposal offers self governence at a level below newb.

  9. #109

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    If there are really no cases of moderator errors or overzealousness to infract citizens to showcase as evidence of citizens needing additional protection against moderation decision (not just the overall number of decision overturned), this starts to look like a licence to get a little crazy. As a practical consequence; not insinuating that being Akar's motivation.

    Is there anyone who could put up their hand and say that they feel they were dealt with unfairly?

  10. #110
    Narf's Avatar Reach for the stars
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Rigsfællesskabet
    Posts
    11,158

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Irrelevant to the proposal, should someone feel they've been treated unfairly, I'd hope that should there be such cases, folks would feel good about coming with such to either tribunes or magistrates.

  11. #111
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,359
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    If there are really no cases of moderator errors or overzealousness to infract citizens to showcase as evidence of citizens needing additional protection against moderation decision (not just the overall number of decision overturned), this starts to look like a licence to get a little crazy. As a practical consequence; not insinuating that being Akar's motivation.

    Is there anyone who could put up their hand and say that they feel they were dealt with unfairly?
    All members have recoure if they feel that the infraction was unwarranted.
    You can appeal in the Moderation Commentary Thread
    You can appeal in the Praetorium
    You can appeal to the Tribunal

    I supposed you can even appeal to the moderator himself to reconsider.

    Once upon a time, back when we had "censors" I proposed that any infraction should carry a minimal of a suspension. The only debate should be on the "higher standard" cases where the ToS is not violated.
    Anyway, if all of the options listed above are exhausted, then your suspension is justified.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  12. #112
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,089

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    What can you appeal in the moderation commentary thread friend Pikestance?
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  13. #113
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,237

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    All this talk about stats and such has me very skeptical; it doesn't take into consideration whether the appeal was based on an infraction or a note and ignores the fact that we already have official stats about the discussed years, including rather in depth write-ups on the subject by the likes of Garb, GED, Hader and Genius of Restoration. One important point in particular is worth highlighting by Garb.

    1) The new Judge in this period is Trax; he is more lenient than the other two (Garbarsardar and gigagaia) and this is probably reflected in the slight rise in G+PG cases. Remember that the cases have more than doubled.

    2) The total cases are increased from 21 to 49 since the previous period (similar in length). This is probably due to an increased moderating activity since the replacement of Tac who was inactive.

    3) There is a sharp rise in the number of cases that are resolved; probably a direct appeal to the CoM would be preferable in some instances.
    4) Two cases appear in the index as "reclassified". Both were denied actually while the Tribunal called for a higher penalty.
    As per above it appears that reclassification is a missing section of the aforementioned unofficial stats, but is included in the official stats. According to the official stats at the time the amount of granted appeals (for both notes and infractions) was about 20% which is roughly in line with most historical conviction rates within western countries (also considering the fact that certain cases are only prosecuted now), without counting the reclassified ones which became higher penalties. I understand the effort undertaken was not meant to be exhaustive and was cursory in nature so I'll digress.

    Remarking on the subject about edits, notes and infractions I will note that moderators to me from a citizens perspective seem much more likely to be in a great mood and not punish deserving miscreants than anything else. The den as we all know reviews every single moderation action together, so it's not like people randomly get infractions which stick with no den consensus. Plus to get one is a feat in itself, truly it's quite difficult to manage except for the people who constantly take olympic level leaps over the lines clearly drawn in the sand.


    My personal opinion is that this community is absurdly lenient with people who'd get insta banned for some of the comments they make on a site like reddit or discord. Instead all that comes of it is probably a simple edit instead of even a note. It's great we have so many avenues for leniency but I do question whether the people who consistently need this leniency should not have their privileges revoked in some way, for a short (again lenient) period of time.

    Keeping the pre-existing clear guidelines with an already overly lenient bar can only benefit citizenship. I like the fact that this community doesn't insta ban anybody and force them to make a new smurf account or overly punish people but it's also important to remember that citizens and their posts do reflect on the site itself; people walking around with a badge are often more noticeable than those without to a newcomer.
    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)

  14. #114

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    It seems like none of the moderators or moderatores emeriti support this apart from Flinn. How will it affect the motivation of the moderators to carry out their duties if they feel that they cannot keep the hypothetical, odd citizen in check? Will they stop caring or start issuing infractions more easily? Are we fixing anything here, if either of those scenarios become a reality? I don't like how this is potentially becoming a tug of war in between moderation and other citizens.

  15. #115

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    Will they stop caring or start issuing infractions more easily?
    To elaborate, the present question is about moderators potentially issuing infractions to citizens too eagerly. Of which no case has been presented (that is specific to citizens). The criteria for infractions, on the other hand, are not clearly defined and are subjectively decided upon by the moderating team on a case to case basis.

    If there is a belief that the moderation is somehow out of hand, it should be dealt with by some other means than setting new thresholds for those abstract infraction points that are still decided on by the moderation. If moderators feel that some citizen is holding them and the citizenship institution in contempt, they can just issue a greater number of infraction points.

    This seems like a thing that should be arbitrated in cooperation with moderation rather than popular support on what number of abstract points is the threshold for temporary suspension of citizenship.
    Last edited by Septentrionalis; September 28, 2021 at 03:46 PM.

  16. #116
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,237

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    What exactly are you asking? Try the moderation commentary thread for anything relating to moderation policy but far as I know people in any position of responsibility including citizens themselves have never treated non-citizens and citizens differently. Maybe Gaming Staff is different?



    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...mentary-Thread
    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)

  17. #117

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    What exactly are you asking? Try the moderation commentary thread for anything relating to moderation policy but far as I know people in any position of responsibility including citizens themselves have never treated non-citizens and citizens differently. Maybe Gaming Staff is different?
    What an unexpected reaction. Have you read the entire thread and do you understand what this vote is about? This initiative is about not trusting that moderation can reliably make correct decisions about issuing infractions and thus suspending citizens, and I am pointing out problems with this approach. I can not understand how I am in contempt of moderation.

  18. #118

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Seriously? Receiving an infraction after having been warned already is a minor deviation?
    Often, yes. Having received a warning (potentially thousands of posts/years earlier) is no indication of the severity of the violation. That would be shown by the number of Moderation points accrued (hence the initial attempt to tie suspension to points).

    Shouldn't take long now for it to become the acceptable norm for citizens I guess?
    There is no indication that adjusting the suspension threshold will encourage a deluge of bad behaviour. The suggestion strikes me as an attempt to ferment a moral panic.

    As to being disproportionate: whatever privileges are there seem to be worth protecting from any form of accountability.
    The amendment does not remove "any accountability". Of course by tying suspensions to the ToS, the Curia has given free reign to bad-faith actors, agitators, provocateurs, disruptors, aggressors etc. who are typically most deserving of suspension, but have learned to operate within the bounds of the ToS.



  19. #119
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,909

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    @Cope, what do you make of the fact that this amendment means the standard for becoming a citizen will become more strict than the ones for retaining citizenship? And please, take the perspective of the non-citizens on this board into account. This is about what's right for TWC after all, and not just about the interests of citizens.
    "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 -

  20. #120

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    @Cope, what do you make of the fact that this amendment means the standard for becoming a citizen will become more strict than the ones for retaining citizenship? And please, take the perspective of the non-citizens on this board into account. This is about what's right for TWC after all, and not just about the interests of citizens.
    The standard is - and always has been - more strict for becoming a Citizen than retaining Citizenship. This amendment doesn't change that. As mentioned above, I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the threshold for applications. Either way its not something to lose sleep over: the standards required to attain status/privilege in real life are typically more arduous than those required to retain it (including national citizenship).



Page 6 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
  •