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.
If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon.1
Spoiler for previous version:
If a citizen accrues more than 3 moderation points the Consul suspends their citizenship until their moderation points expire or are removed. The suspended member losses the ability to display all rank, including both Citizen and Patrician badges and color. Points under appeal are exempt from further action if the appellant files an appeal within 72 hours.
If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon.1
Last edited by Akar; September 22, 2021 at 10:27 AM.
I think that suspending citizenship for a single infraction is too harsh. I'm strongly opposed to mandatory punishments and this amendment is a solid compromise given the removal of referrals
I would like to suggest a further modification ...
Section III - Ostraka and The Tribunal Article I. Ostraka
If a citizen accrues more than 3 moderation points the Consul suspends their citizenship until their moderation points expire or are removed. If the citizen accrues 6 moderation points in total, including both expired and current, his citizenship is revoked. A suspended member losses the ability to display all rank, including both Citizen and Patrician badges and color.
If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon.1
Last edited by Gaius Baltar; September 21, 2021 at 10:22 AM.
Reason: Add Information - frame the debate
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
I think that suspending citizenship for a single infraction is too harsh. I'm strongly opposed to mandatory punishments and this amendment is a solid compromise given the removal of referrals
To qualify for citizenship one has to have gone through 6 months without an infraction. Why should one has to abide by the rules for 6 months to qualify, but when qualified and awarded, one would be free to incur 3 warning levels before he only temporariliy is suspended until his warning levels decrease beneath 3?
Also, except for very harsh and few instances, you do not incur a 3-pointer out of the blue.
So usually that would mean that a citizen could repeadietly break several rules multiple times before he is suspended.
Why do you think this would be a) what should be okay for citizens to consuct themselves like and b) if that would be okay, why not apply the same leniency to citizen applicants?
Last edited by Aikanár; September 21, 2021 at 10:27 AM.
I would like to suggest a further modification ...
Not opposed to the idea of having a moderation threshold for revocation, but it should not be six points. I would also prefer it to be part of a different amendment which deals with the Ostrakon process.
To qualify for citizenship one has to have gone through 6 months without an infraction. Why should one has to abide by the rules for 6 months to qualify, but when qualified and awarded, one would be free to incur 3 warning levels before he only temporariliy is suspended until his warning levels decrease beneath 3?
I don't have an issue with someone who has an active infraction being nominated for citizenship, personally, but that's not the topic at hand right now. If someone has made extensive contributions to TWC and is therefor rewarded for it, are their contributions devalued because they made an off topic post?
Also, except for very harsh and few instances, you do not incur a 3-pointer out of the blue.
And those are the instances where a suspension of citizenship are warranted. A 1 point infraction for off topic posting does not rise to the level of warranting suspension of citizenship.
why not apply the same leniency to citizen applicants?
That's fine with me, sure.
If anything, we need to be figuring out more ways to get new citizens, not looking for ways to cull the already depleted herd.
I would like to suggest a further modification ...
Ridiculous.
I have a significant number of infraction points from 2010-2012 (I was 12-14 at the time, not an excuse but an explanation). In the almost 10 years since then I've made significant contributions to numerous areas of the site. Do you think I and others in similar situations are undeserving of rewards because of mistakes made almost a decade ago? If people are unable to be recognized for improved behavior because of past mistakes, what incentive are we levying for people to improve whatsoever?
Last edited by Akar; September 21, 2021 at 10:39 AM.
I don't have an issue with someone who has an active infraction being nominated for citizenship, personally, but that's not the topic at hand right now. If someone has made extensive contributions to TWC and is therefor rewarded for it, are their contributions devalued because they made an off topic post?
It is part of that very topic because both, the qualification for citizenship and keeping ones moderation history free of infraction aim at the same goal: citizen conduct. If you make a rule that in effect applies different measurements to conduct, you end up with a bias in the system, a bias for those already part of it and against those who want to be a part of it.
Conduct as a value should be the same for all, applicants and incumbents alike.
Originally Posted by Akar
And those are the instances where a suspension of citizenship are warranted. A 1 point infraction for off topic posting does not rise to the level of warranting suspension of citizenship.
Why?
Originally Posted by Akar
That's fine with me, sure.
If anything, we need to be figuring out more ways to get new citizens, not looking for ways to cull the already depleted herd.
So why not simply propose more applicants? Is moderation history the reason why there are not that many applications?
Originally Posted by Akar
Ridiculous.
I have a significant number of infraction points from 2010-2012 (I was 12-14 at the time, not an excuse but an explanation). In the almost 10 years since then I've made significant contributions to numerous areas of the site. Do you think I and others in similar situations are undeserving of rewards because of mistakes made almost a decade ago? If people are unable to be recognized for improved behavior because of past mistakes, what incentive are we levying for people to improve whatsoever?
If you ask a straight question, you will get straight answers, even by people you have not asked. Yes according to my opinion, given what you post about your moderation history, in the time you describe, I would have deemed you not up for citizenship. And if you would have such a reccord in a more contemporary fashion, I would think so still.
And so the standards keep slipping. Been on the site for over 15 years. Never received a single note. It's not that hard to avoid.
"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 -
And so the standards keep slipping. Been on the site for over 15 years. Never received a single note. It's not that hard to avoid.
Mandatory suspensions were not introduced until the back end of last year. Citizenship survived (indeed thrived more considerably) for years without them.
Mandatory suspensions were not introduced until the back end of last year. Citizenship survived (indeed thrived more considerably) for years without them.
That is only half the story. Before that there were referrals. Which was a way more biased system.
Muizer is absolutely correct with his factual true statement.
So it sounds like removing referrals was a good thing then, right?
Only because of the inherrent bias of the system in as much as that there was no objectivity with regards to councilor discretion concerning penalties.
However your proposal would soften up the objectivity of the current system thus lowering the standards.
Aside from that you still have to answer the question how Moderation history prevents more citizen applications right now. And the other question "why?" as Well, if you would be so kind.
Last edited by Aikanár; September 21, 2021 at 12:06 PM.
That is only half the story. Before that there were referrals. Which was a way more biased system.
Muizer is absolutely correct with his factual true statement.
And with the referral system you could get 3 infraction points and not receive more than 2 weeks suspension. This new system is still miles better than what we had, while taking a few steps to alleviate the problems exposed by the previous 2 failed ostrakons. It's pretty evident that the current system DOES NOT WORK. Of the 2 cases of suspended citizens that I remember, both incurred further infractions while suspended because they had nothing to lose.
Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 21, 2021 at 12:09 PM.
And with the referral system you could get 3 infraction points and not receive more than 2 weeks suspension. This new system is still miles better than what we had, while taking a few steps to alleviate the problems exposed by the previous 2 failed ostrakons.
I don't argue in favor of referrals, in the contrary. And using, like you do, an already overcome system for comparisson to the OP is dishonest, since you have to compare the Status Quo with the proposition, not the flawed system that was replaced with the Status Quo.
Edit: Do you honestly think that the OP will solve the problem you ascribe to the two recent ostraka? If so, how exactly does lowering the standards help to better the Ostrakon procedure and furthermore would you explain what is wrong with ostraka in the first place?
Last edited by Aikanár; September 21, 2021 at 12:45 PM.
Reason: Edit to answer the edit
If anything, we need to be figuring out more ways to get new citizens, not looking for ways to cull the already depleted herd.
what did you then mean by saying this?
Originally Posted by Akar
I'll answer your question with one of my own. Why does making an off topic post rise to the level of suspending citizenship?
Replying to a question with a question is not answering the original question but evading it. Are you interested in having an honest discussion of your OP or are you not?