Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 136 of 136

Thread: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

  1. #121
    Dismounted Feudal Knight's Avatar my horse for a unicode
    Content Director Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    there!
    Posts
    3,023
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    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.
    To try and address your question (though not as or on behalf of moderators), there is nothing in this proposal that requires a change in how moderators operate. If anything the only negative effect may be the impression of some staffers regarding the Curia and its own standards, but this is nothing new. This proposal simply shifts the bar for where and how citizenship is automatically revoked; management or consideration of one's citizenship status per the Curia's set standards was never part of a moderator's rulebook or the Terms of Service that I know of since it is the nature of moderators to consider people as regular users and act accordingly to their behavior on its own in all cases except when they're fellow mods or higher rank (ie, admin). Other consequences (revocation of citizenship per curial process, revocation of staff position should a staff hex/director feel a staffer's conduct is unsightly) are local responsibilities from there. If you're taking this from z3n's earlier comments referring to hex veto, that is not representative here.
    With great power, comes great chonky dragons to feed enemies of the state. --Targaryens?
    Spoiler for wait what dragons?



  2. #122
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,351

    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
    This has always been the case. I cannot believe you forgot the referral system. Up until less than 2 years ago you had to be a repeat offender, or your infraction be very egregious, for your citizenship to be suspended. And even then first suspension was 2 weeks - 1 month max. Getting suspended until your infraction expired meant you did something extremely stupid. If anything, from a historical point of view, the current system is comically harsh.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 29, 2021 at 12:02 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  3. #123
    Aikanár's Avatar no vaseline
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sanctuary
    Posts
    12,516
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Or the application of the referral system was comically lax, biased, unfair and toothless to some.

    If anything, the current system is the most fair system we ever had since everybody is treated absolutely the same. Which was one of the driving desires behind the current system: treat every citizen the same with regards to conduct.


    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.

  4. #124

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    This has always been the case. I cannot believe you forgot the referral system. Up until less than 2 years ago you had to be a repeat offender, or your infraction be very egregious, for your citizenship to be suspended. And even then first suspension was 2 weeks - 1 month max. Getting suspended until your infraction expired meant you did something extremely stupid. If anything, from a historical point of view, the current system is comically harsh.
    I would argue the reverse; it was comically lax.
    Violating a ToS, something we should never actually do, should be viewed harshly. However, the "higher standards" violations could be more lenient resulting in a less than harsh censure or less than 3 months suspension.
    If the previous system had any failings, that was one of them.

  5. #125

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Violating a ToS, something we should never actually do, should be viewed harshly.
    Should depend on which part of the ToS someone ends up violating and the motivations behind it, intentional or otherwise. Like OT post infraction should be mild.

  6. #126
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,292
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikanár View Post
    If anything, the current system is the most fair system we ever had since everybody is treated absolutely the same. Which was one of the driving desires behind the current system: treat every citizen the same with regards to conduct.
    It is; to complete the circle we should be removing Ostrakones and simply set a bar like "after X infractions your citizenship is going to be removed without any appeal"

    but this is for another discussion, of course

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    It seems like none of the moderators or moderatores emeriti support this apart from Flinn
    For what matters, the whole time I have been looking at this as a former admin, not moderator.
    Last edited by Flinn; September 29, 2021 at 03:24 AM.
    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

  7. #127

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    Should depend on which part of the ToS someone ends up violating and the motivations behind it, intentional or otherwise. Like OT post infraction should be mild.
    It has been stated above that this is not an one off thing. You'll get warnings ("Notes") and friendly reminders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    It is; to complete the circle we should be removing Ostrakones and simply set a bar like "after X infractions your citizenship is going to be removed without any appeal"
    I would never be in favor of an automatic removal basically because if we vote you in, we should vote you out. However, I would not ind an "automatic" process to initiated one when a certain threshold has been reached.
    When it comes to the "higher standards" issue. I would prefer a referral system for "Censure" only. A "censure" carries a probationary period. Any violation, it then becomes a "Curial warning" and a 3 months suspension. It would then be calculated for the "automatic" Ostrakon equal to a Moderation warning.

    I also think Ostrakon, as well as, applications, to be private affairs. But I am finding the tide on this one.

  8. #128
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,075

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    This has always been the case. I cannot believe you forgot the referral system. Up until less than 2 years ago you had to be a repeat offender, or your infraction be very egregious, for your citizenship to be suspended. And even then first suspension was 2 weeks - 1 month max. Getting suspended until your infraction expired meant you did something extremely stupid. If anything, from a historical point of view, the current system is comically harsh.
    I didn't forget. Probably never knew. I've not been a member of the Curia for 13 years. Only means things were even worse before this 'comically harsh' system was introduced. Personally I do not think it acceptable that in terms of behaviour the standard for becoming a citizen is higher than that for retaining it.
    Last edited by Muizer; September 29, 2021 at 04:13 AM.
    "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 -

  9. #129
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,351

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikanár View Post
    Or the application of the referral system was comically lax, biased, unfair and toothless to some.

    If anything, the current system is the most fair system we ever had since everybody is treated absolutely the same. Which was one of the driving desires behind the current system: treat every citizen the same with regards to conduct.
    There's nothing fair in suspending citizenship on the whims of staff, especially when Tribunal cases can sometimes take weeks, during which time you are still suspended, and even if it is granted nobody is giving you back that period you were suspended.

    The proposed solution was made to make the system fair. If you really can't behave then you get suspended while avoiding suspensions caused by misunderstandings or biased/poor moderation.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 29, 2021 at 06:40 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  10. #130

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    There's nothing fair in suspending citizenship on the whims of staff, especially when Tribunal cases can sometimes take weeks, during which time you are still suspended, and even if it is granted nobody is giving you back that period you were suspended.

    The proposed solution was made to make the system fair. If you really can't behave then you get suspended while avoiding suspensions caused by misunderstandings or biased/poor moderation.
    It would make more sense to suspend any action until the appeal has been completed.
    I did not vote in favor of removing the old system where they were direct oversight on citizen's behavior. That method was removed. We now have this method. If moderation is a problem, the solution is to change the system, not reduce even basic standards of conduct. This is especially true if such lowering means that it is harder to gain citizenship than it is to lose it.

    If repeatedly breaking the ToS is something you do, then maybe citizenship isn't for you.

  11. #131
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,640

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    There's nothing fair in suspending citizenship on the whims of staff, especially when Tribunal cases can sometimes take weeks, during which time you are still suspended, and even if it is granted nobody is giving you back that period you were suspended.

    The proposed solution was made to make the system fair. If you really can't behave then you get suspended while avoiding suspensions caused by misunderstandings or biased/poor moderation.
    So when a citizen ignored a PM or thread warning from a moderator, then a note (which is a different type of warning than an infraction), and finally received an infraction on top of the note (!) that's not fair? That's 2 or 3 different times where they crossed a line. The fact they received a note before the infraction is telling in itself; I'd think a suspension is still fair even if the Tribunal decides to reverse it; since the existence of the note indicates they crossed the line already.
    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)

  12. #132
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,075

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    I'd think a suspension is still fair even if the Tribunal decides to reverse it; since the existence of the note indicates they crossed the line already.
    But then you'd also have to suspend those who just got a note and no subsequent infraction. Otherwise you still lend weight to an infraction even if it gets overturned.
    "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. #133
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,351

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    So when a citizen ignored a PM or thread warning from a moderator, then a note (which is a different type of warning than an infraction), and finally received an infraction on top of the note (!) that's not fair? That's 2 or 3 different times where they crossed a line. The fact they received a note before the infraction is telling in itself; I'd think a suspension is still fair even if the Tribunal decides to reverse it; since the existence of the note indicates they crossed the line already.
    What PM, what warning. If you look at my infraction history all notes there were received without any PM or warning whatsoever, and two of them were within the ToS, while the third was borderline and would have been overturned if I had known that notes can be appealed (It was a moderator that told me they can't btw).

    It's good if you warn people beforehand but that is definetly NOT standard practice at all no matter what anyone says.


    It's very interesting to see how defensive moderation has gotten over this proposal, even non-citizen moderators.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 29, 2021 at 03:02 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  14. #134
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,640

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    There's a difference between a note and an infraction. Only an infraction causes a suspension of citizenship.
    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)

  15. #135
    Aikanár's Avatar no vaseline
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sanctuary
    Posts
    12,516
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    There's nothing fair in suspending citizenship on the whims of staff, especially when Tribunal cases can sometimes take weeks, during which time you are still suspended, and even if it is granted nobody is giving you back that period you were suspended.

    The proposed solution was made to make the system fair. If you really can't behave then you get suspended while avoiding suspensions caused by misunderstandings or biased/poor moderation.
    I have no issue with the 72 hour grace period for starting an Appeal. My issue is with lowering the threshold from none to more infractions.


    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.

  16. #136
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,068
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    There's nothing fair in suspending citizenship on the whims of staff, especially when Tribunal cases can sometimes take weeks, during which time you are still suspended, and even if it is granted nobody is giving you back that period you were suspended.
    That's taken care of by the 'grace period' introduced by this amendment against which no one has any objections. Vade retro, red herring!










Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •