Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 136

Thread: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

  1. #81
    Flinn's Avatar The Dude Retires
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    17,040
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I respectfully disagree. Whether you never allow a certain behaviour or whether you allow it once is not an incremental change, but a categorical one.
    Well of course I see your point, but actually it's not really so.. as Abdul himself explained, you don't get an immediate infraction every time you break a rule: most often it's just an edit without even a PM because it's very minor, then if it's not minor there's a PM, then a note and finally an infraction. As you can see even now the system is quite lenient, and allow the Citizen to rethink their behavior before actually getting infracted. This proposal only further extends the leniency, so it's actually incremental, not categorical.

    I'm perfectly fine with people not wanting it to be "more lenient", everybody is entitled to have their opinion, that's why I've mentioned that it's just an amendment related to where the bar is, and not about getting rid of the mythological higher standards.

    As Abdulmecid pointed out, in terms of behaviour, this decision allows citizens to be below par relative to the entire membership.
    No it doesn't, you are not in any way penalized for just having one active infraction as a regular member, nor you are if you have two.. you actually need to pile up quite a good amount of infractions before you are actually suspended from a specific area/forum, lose the ability to rep, are put into probation, etc.

    Once more, for the last time: this does not change anything in terms of mechanism or logic of the system, it does only make it less strict.
    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

  2. #82

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Do we have any notable or recent cases in which someone has felt that suspension has been too harshly implemented? For too minor violations? After reading through this discussion and learning how hard it is to get an infraction in most cases, it has become unclear what is the problem we are trying to solve here.

    I am not a citizen, but sometimes it is good to have the fresh pair of eyes of someone from the outside to look at things. To me it definitely looks like getting citizenship suspended is made quite hard, and losing citizenship next to impossible, which makes laxing the standards from status quo a surprising direction. It also appears in contrast with how hard it is to get citizenship.

    Intuitively thinking, citizens should not need all that much immunity. If one active infraction is tolerated, we could theoretically have a citizen who makes sure always to have an active infraction.

  3. #83
    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
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    The fact that a quarter of infractions appealed are granted should tell you something about how often they're needlessly handed out.

    Intuitively thinking, citizens should not need all that much immunity. If one active infraction is tolerated, we could theoretically have a citizen who makes sure always to have an active infraction.
    How would they do that? And why? What's the logic here?

    To me it definitely looks like getting citizenship suspended is made quite hard
    All it takes is one infraction.

    and losing citizenship next to impossible,
    That's no one's fault but the Curia's

    which makes laxing the standards from status quo
    Are you aware that this has only been the "status quo" for a year? Before that there was no mandatory suspension and things worked just fine.

    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






  4. #84

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    The fact that a quarter of infractions appealed are granted should tell you something about how often they're needlessly handed out.
    Yes, I considered that but I was thinking that infractions per se would be rare among citizens. That is why I inquired if suspending citizens too eagerly is a real issue that we are trying to tackle here. Preventive measures are often more than justified; not trying to deny that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    How would they do that? And why? What's the logic here?
    Well, that is the very core of my confusion here, because the entire psychology of (grown-up) people abusing others online is foreign to me. If someone is frequently abusing others and getting infracted, I can only assume that that is what they want to do. And if they get to do more of, they will. It has not been said directly here, but I suppose that is what many of those members who oppose are thinking. If someone expresses concern over standards of behavior changing for the worse, there is an inherent expectation that someone will change their behavior for the worse.

    Granted, I could get angry and lash out for sure, but I understood from previous explanations that there are almost always more lenient measures first than getting an infraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    All it takes is one infraction.
    If it is common to get infractions without PMs and notes as warnings, I say that is a very real problem. I personally do not think that the silent removal of posts itself is an effective way to help people see the error of their ways, though, so I do not count those as measures. I would rather see the content removed with a moderator color text very briefly saying why the content was removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    That's no one's fault but the Curia's
    That is all true, but forum members, and particularly new ones, are not going to overlook people with citizen badges behaving badly because of Curia's shortcomings. Things are what they look like, essentially, and I can understand the concern of those members who do not want things to look worse than they do now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Are you aware that this has only been the "status quo" for a year? Before that there was no mandatory suspension and things worked just fine.
    No, I did not. And thank you for explaining things. I cannot help but wonder what prompted TWC to implement this measure if things were fine.

  5. #85
    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
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Well, that is the very core of my confusion here, because the entire psychology of (grown-up) people abusing others online is foreign to me. If someone is frequently abusing others and getting infracted, I can only assume that that is what they want to do
    People have emotional reactions to conversations both in real life and on the internet. I assume that the vast majority of infractions are issued for mistakes and emotional over reactions, rather than for calculated and level headed insults.

    If it is common to get infractions without PMs and notes as warnings, I say that is a very real problem. I personally do not think that the silent removal of posts itself is an effective way to help people see the error of their ways, though, so I do not count those as measures. I would rather see the content removed with a moderator color text very briefly saying why the content was removed.
    Yes, it is. I have enough notes and warnings from 8 years ago that I no longer get warnings or PM's before things are issued to my account. People with prior moderation history (however long ago) are often issued infractions immediately without warning. Removing messages without warning is a problem, I agree. People get in trouble for re-posting something that they rightfully think didn't get posted or was deleted in error. It makes zero sense to delete a post without telling the poster and expecting them to realize it was deleted because it broke a rule.

    You can see that a quarter of those issued are wrongly done, which means that suspending someone's citizenship for something that is misused a quarter of the time is a problem. If infractions are issued at a failure rate of a quarter, then there is no reason to believe that notes, warnings, and edited messages are also issued at that same rate of failure. I understand that Abdul insists that this is not the case, but the numbers are against his unsubstantiated insistences.

    That is all true, but forum members, and particularly new ones, are not going to overlook people with citizen badges behaving badly because of Curia's shortcomings. Things are what they look like, essentially, and I can understand the concern of those members who do not want things to look worse than they do now.
    I'm not asking for it to be overlooked, just stating that the solution to the problem is the Curia making use of the tools it already has.
    Last edited by Akar; September 24, 2021 at 11:12 AM.

    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. #86

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    People have emotional reactions to conversations both in real life and on the internet. I assume that the vast majority of infractions are issued for mistakes and emotional over reactions, rather than for calculated and level headed insults.
    I believe you are right. I was thinking too generally about the kind of behavior one sees online. As I rarely read the more inflammatory threads in Mudpit, I actually see very little bad behavior here. Some modding subfora have had problems though with members getting heated over their ideas not being implemented and the like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Yes, it is. I have enough notes and warnings from 8 years ago that I no longer get warnings or PM's before things are issued to my account. People with prior moderation history (however long ago) are often issued infractions immediately without warning.
    The age question is not inconsequential here. If I had been here in my early or middle teens, I probably would have gotten moderation attention galore. There are good reasons why most justice systems treat violations by minors differently from those by grown-ups. Of course, one would like senior citizens (no pun intended) to set a good example as there are no doubt very young people on this forum even today. I do not think much of your infractions in that volatile age, and I would not like you to be reminded of those now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    I'm not asking for it to be overlooked, just stating that the solution to the problem is the Curia making use of the tools it already has.
    I need to elaborate on this. Very often, when poor leaders in working life treating employees unfairly or something similar get confronted, they come up with explanations and rationales why they did not really do so in their own opinion. As if everyone treated poorly could read their mind somehow and then just be okay with it.

    But the fact is that things are perceived by how they look and feel. A new member in an online community seeing people with insignia of authority or seniority behaving badly is not going to start rationalizing about the curia and their tools, if they even know what those are. The prevailing culture is taken as it appears, so the best thing is to enforce a good culture.

  7. #87
    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
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    The prevailing culture is taken as it appears, so the best thing is to enforce a good culture.
    Right, exactly, and the Curia already has the tools to be doing that. The problem is, they've consciously chosen to not use the current tools at their disposal towards that end. The past two ostrakons are evidence of this lack of interest in enforcing a good culture. We already have the tools to enforce a good culture, it's just that a certain portion of the Curia is vehemently against doing so. The Curia's laziness and apathy are no reason to utilize a no-strike first time and you're out sort of system just because any other system would require a modicum of effort on their part. It's just easier to immediately boot out anyone who makes a mistake, no matter how small.

    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. #88

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Right, exactly, and the Curia already has the tools to be doing that. The problem is, they've consciously chosen to not use the current tools at their disposal towards that end. The past two ostrakons are evidence of this lack of interest in enforcing a good culture. We already have the tools to enforce a good culture, it's just that a certain portion of the Curia is vehemently against doing so. The Curia's laziness and apathy are no reason to utilize a no-strike first time and you're out sort of system just because any other system would require a modicum of effort on their part. It's just easier to immediately boot out anyone who makes a mistake, no matter how small.
    I am not going to challenge you on that. Some of the reasonings people had in that discussion made me question whether everyone is up to the task they have in the Curia. Such as the logic that past contributions would justify a sort of get out of jail free card that essentially gives a citizen more leeway in terms of behavior than non-citizens. Also, what comes to the process, I find it odd that the worst offenses are not admissible in the Curia due to moderation action taken on them.

    I do not mean to hijack this for general Curia discussion, but just wanted to let you know that I see your point in this matter and I am glad that you took the trouble of elaborating on it.

  9. #89
    Emperor Commodus's Avatar citizen, allegedly
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    There
    Posts
    2,043
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I get your point, but there is another angle, which is that if Hex decides a change is such that the whole system of Citizenship is no longer of value to the site, it has the choice to veto the change or get rid of it altogether.

    As Abdulmecid pointed out, in terms of behaviour, this decision allows citizens to be below par relative to the entire membership. How can you then defend their status as respected and privileged members? Surely it must make members indifferent or quite possibly resentful.
    I don't see why this is the move that would result in ultimatum. Not to ignore the first half of your post, but the steps have been quite incremental. I'd like to know the last time the Curia was discussed even among its members as a thing not in decline, or hasn't lost its way with ever nebulous, declining and parodied standards, or hasn't been subject to ill fated ultimatums like the largely reverted Hex-driven Order 66 (one hex, but still), or in any meaningful way has been considered by the administration outside of its legacy powers of granting awards and electing a magistrate. I say 'considered' in the sense of the Curia as a meaningful esteemed entity, not in the sense of its janitorial tasks generously still upheld by the few interested Hex who stop in or the occasional members with a fair idea that wouldn't go as far if it was leveled in the Q&S and presented directly to staff instead.

    'Below par' is not the case, because the standard to be a citizen and what it actually means in gravitas and representation has been in hot dispute for a long time. If they're blocked off from the site, they're blocked off either way and their citizenship status would be immaterial. You say status quo, but I don't see this status quo, and frankly I didn't see it in 2017 either nor since. Just people getting a badge-based award and having another political aspect of the site to use, in my experience typically for the kangaroo entertainment. The indifference is already clearly widespread. It's far too late to camp on ill-specified prestige. In my mind if you remotely want to see that again (assuming there was a true form past idk, 2005, 2006 if we consider the cries of decline that started early...) then you'd only see it starting with a new institution where expectations are clearly defined from the start and membership is built and maintained on that. It raises the elitism question of course, but that's part of the cycle.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Citizen, dreamer, one-time Praefect and one-time Consul
    sucked in by Jadli & patronized by King Athelstan
    'of the Imperial House of Hader
    also, I like pineapple
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You clearly did something illegal to read this. Shame on you.


  10. #90
    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
    50,922
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    .
    .

    Opposed in it's current form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    The fact that a quarter of infractions appealed are granted should tell you something about how often they're needlessly handed out.
    The interpretation of 'a quarter' is rather misleading - given that only 50 out of 400 appeals actually got granted (1/8 = 12.5%). The 'resolved' category' has a fairly high percentage of cases where the appellant withdraws his appeal or doesn't respond any further and the case gets closed. The remainder are cases where moderation withdraws\reverts the infraction after an internal review, usually in the initial phase of the appeal.
    Never mind that it doesn't reflect the actual number of infractions issued (at least double to three times the appealed cases from my experience) and\or how many citizens were affected. Which would put issued vs granted (regardless of citizenship) below 5%. Most likely at 1-2% where citizens are concerned.

    As has been pointed out there are several steps before an actual infraction takes place, several more before a posting related penalty comes into play. And there is also the 'renewal' of a note if the last one has been issued a considerable time ago (more then 2-3 years?) serving as a official, penalty free reminder about a particular rule. So claiming that a penalty with points comes out of the blue is a tad over the top as reason for this to be amended as suggested.

    Suggestion: What would make sense to is to give that 72 hours grace period to appeal (the aspect of 'granted' rate being totally immaterial here) failing which citizenship will get removed. The removal should be on hold during a timely appeal.
    This should lay to rest the 'removal without recourse' argument that appears too be the predominant driver of this amendment. It certainly eliminates the need for amending the initial requirements even for the occasion that the rules were not correctly interpreted by a moderator as pointed out above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Section 3, Article I of the Constitution,
    If a citizen receives an infraction and fails to appeal the infraction within 72 hours the Consul suspends their citizenship until the infraction has expired or is revoked. The suspended member loosses the ability to display all rank, including both Citizen and Patrician badges and color.
    The removal of citizenship is suspended during a timely appeal until the verdict has been issued. Restoration of citizenship will be calculated from the date of appeal denial.
    Note: I did not remove the 'or is revoked' part as that will be applicable for a late, granted appeal. I also don't know why the Ostrakon line was included in this amendment so I skipped it in my quote.
    Last edited by Gigantus; September 25, 2021 at 04:23 AM. Reason: gremlins




  11. #91

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    .The interpretation of 'a quarter' is rather misleading - given that only 50 out of 400 appeals actually got granted (1/8 = 12.5%). The 'resolved' category' has a fairly high percentage of cases where the appellant withdraws his appeal or doesn't respond any further and the case gets closed. The remainder are cases where moderation withdraws\reverts the infraction after an internal review, usually in the initial phase of the appeal.
    The numbers show that a significant number of appealed cases (certainly not negligible) result in a reversal. Resolved/non-case appeals were subtracted due to ambiguity (they could only be fairly included if they were independently categorized). Moderation reversing an infraction after an appeal is issued is tantamount to the appeal being granted; withdrawn appeals could indicate any number of outcomes ranging from a private resolution, to a change of venue, to a simple unwillingness to continue.

    Never mind that it doesn't reflect the actual number of infractions issued (at least double to three times the appealed cases from my experience) and\or how many citizens were affected. Which would put issued vs granted (regardless of citizenship) below 5%. Most likely at 1-2% where citizens are concerned.
    Setting aside that the numbers cited here are speculative, they would only be relevant if properly contextualized. For instance, even if the 1-2% were true, it has no particular meaning without knowing the % of users who are Citizens and the % of infractions which were issued to Citizens. If I had to speculate myself, I would say that Citizens are less likely to be issued infractions than other users, more likely to appeal and more likely to be successful in those appeals.



  12. #92
    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
    50,922
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Setting aside that the numbers cited here are speculative, they would only be relevant if properly contextualized.
    Which is the point I was trying to make here, 'granted percentage' apparently being the reasoning behind increasing the threshold for 'removal qualification'. 'Speculative' being the operative word as you would need to have the actual figure for all infractions of citizens versus their granted appeals in the first place. Still not a valid reason where I am concerned to increase that threshold as the original proposal already includes a path of redress.

    It's rather simple where I am concerned: if you think that you have been incorrectly penalized then you have the way of appeal to address this situation. Simply extending the appeal period to the matter of citizenship removal is totally sufficient to address the apparent concerns, which unfortunately are not clear from the OP and have to be deduced from the author's comments later in the thread, eg that it is about the possibility of 'unjust' removal of citizenship combined plus an elevation of the threshold to a level that is significantly lower then the chance of an 'unjust' removal - a citizen with two current penalties versus an incorrect infraction. The reason for the latter is unclear as the initially suggested 72 hour grace period takes care of a perceived incorrect removal anyhow - so why increase the threshold?

    Hence my proposal derived from that.
    Last edited by Gigantus; September 25, 2021 at 10:06 AM.




  13. #93
    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 Emperor Commodus View Post
    I don't see why this is the move that would result in ultimatum.
    My point was not that I expect Hex to intervene at this point. Right now I think there's too much inertia to expect any sweeping changes. My point was that HEX run the place and if they were to decide the Curia is a waste of assets, there would be no reason why they would need to change things through the Curia, according to Curial procedure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Commodus View Post
    'Below par' is not the case, because the standard to be a citizen and what it actually means in gravitas and representation has been in hot dispute for a long time. If they're blocked off from the site, they're blocked off either way and their citizenship status would be immaterial. You say status quo, but I don't see this status quo, and frankly I didn't see it in 2017 either nor since. Just people getting a badge-based award and having another political aspect of the site to use, in my experience typically for the kangaroo entertainment. The indifference is already clearly widespread. It's far too late to camp on ill-specified prestige. In my mind if you remotely want to see that again (assuming there was a true form past idk, 2005, 2006 if we consider the cries of decline that started early...) then you'd only see it starting with a new institution where expectations are clearly defined from the start and membership is built and maintained on that. It raises the elitism question of course, but that's part of the cycle.
    I don't recall using the phrase 'status quo'? I'm arguing that privileges of citizenship have always been tied to a status of some respectability. If repeated violations of the ToS become acceptable before a citizen loses his rank, while most members never fall foul of the ToS, how can one argue citizens are more respectable? And if your argument is that this is already water under the bridge, then rather than adjust disciplinary practice accordingly, it would make more sense to remove the privileges of rank, because in that case citizenship is no more and no different than a regular medal, which do not entitle you to anything but a few pixels below your name.

    As for the question of whether standards are truly slipping. I guess we will find out when this goes to the vote.
    "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 -

  14. #94
    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
    17,737
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Moved to vote at OP request.

    You may vote here.

    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. #95
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,384
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    OPPOSED

    If one was to follow the higher standard principle then violating the ToS is an impossibility. We expect all applicants to be clean of any violation of the ToS minimally for 6 months. That is "any" violation. It does not distinguish between point values. The message being sent is that we accept slippage; the message is that because to slipped up once, it will not disqualify you from citizenship.

    I have stated that I would be in favor of imposing higher standards, but it needs to be consistent. It seems, we are paradoxically going in the wrong direction. I hardly find any credence to the criticism of my earlier points. I will vote against and hope for the best, but if this passes, any since of "high ground" will be lost.
    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

  16. #96
    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 PikeStance View Post
    OPPOSED

    If one was to follow the higher standard principle then violating the ToS is an impossibility. We expect all applicants to be clean of any violation of the ToS minimally for 6 months. That is "any" violation. It does not distinguish between point values. The message being sent is that we accept slippage; the message is that because to slipped up once, it will not disqualify you from citizenship.

    I have stated that I would be in favor of imposing higher standards, but it needs to be consistent. It seems, we are paradoxically going in the wrong direction. I hardly find any credence to the criticism of my earlier points. I will vote against and hope for the best, but if this passes, any since of "high ground" will be lost.
    Last time we both agreed in a curial discussion has been for some time, hasn't it? Pike, you have put that good! I concur and I encourage everybody to vote against this.


    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.

  17. #97

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    I have voted in favor of this, but with one reservation. Many (if not most) of you know that I really do take it seriously that we talk honestly, openly, and civilly with one another, and as such, I think it is important to explain why I voted yes. To me, the biggest thing that is wrong with the current formulation of the article is that it provides no room for forgiveness, or indeed for explanation or exculpation. I think this is simply wrong. Citizenship is not a reward or badge of honor here. It is a position, and one which comes with both rights and responsibilities. As citizens, I do think we should hold the bar higher than where we would expect it to be for your average member posting whatever, or coming for mod downloads. But also, as citizens, we belong to a body together, and we owe it to one another to give (alleged) offenders the opportunity to explain themselves. Perhaps there is no defense for whatever it is that led to their infraction, but in that case, the infraction would stand, and the automatic revocation would go on. I think that is appropriate. But importantly, we ought to give citizens that chance to appeal the infraction, and explain themselves before they are cast out. For that reason, I think this amendment is very worthwhile.

    My one bone of contention is that I do not think we need to lower the bar to allow for one standing infraction. That, however, is a debate about forgiveness and leniency, and I believe there are defensible positions on both sides. Personally, I would leave things so that a standing infraction does indeed cause citizenship revocation, but I can equally well see the points for allowing one mistake which can't be explained or appealed away. But whatever one's stance is on the number of infractions which get you booted from the body of citizens, I would hope that everyone agrees that alleged offenders ought to be given a chance to explain their actions before they are summarily dismissed.
    Last edited by Kilo11; September 27, 2021 at 02:37 PM. Reason: I did my math wrong, and therefore said something dumb... oops.
    | Community Creative Writing
    | My Library
    | My Mapping Resources
    | My Nabataean AAR for EBII
    | My Ongoing Creative Writing

  18. #98
    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 Kilo11 View Post
    I have voted in favor of this, but with one reservation. Many (if not most) of you know that I really do take it seriously that we talk honestly, openly, and civilly with one another, and as such, I think it is important to explain why I voted yes. To me, the biggest thing that is wrong with the current formulation of the article is that it provides no room for forgiveness, or indeed for explanation or exculpation. I think this is simply wrong. Citizenship is not a reward or badge of honor here. It is a position, and one which comes with both rights and responsibilities. As citizens, I do think we should hold the bar higher than where we would expect it to be for your average member posting whatever, or coming for mod downloads. But also, as citizens, we belong to a body together, and we owe it to one another to give (alleged) offenders the opportunity to explain themselves. Perhaps there is no defense for whatever it is that led to their infraction, but in that case, the infraction would stand, and the automatic revocation would go on. I think that is appropriate. But importantly, we ought to give citizens that chance to appeal the infraction, and explain themselves before they are cast out. For that reason, I think this amendment is very worthwhile.

    My one bone of contention is that I do not think we need to lower the bar to allow for one standing infraction. That, however, is a debate about forgiveness and leniency, and I believe there are defensible positions on both sides. Personally, I would leave things so that a standing infraction does indeed cause citizenship revocation, but I can equally well see the points for allowing one mistake which can't be explained or appealed away. But whatever one's stance is on the number of infractions which get you booted from the body of citizens, I would hope that everyone agrees that alleged offenders ought to be given a chance to explain their actions before they are summarily dismissed.
    Cheers for providing us with your reasoning and vote. Even though I don't agree with, you and voted against this proposal, I do respect your opinion.

    Just one little thing I like to add, citizenship is not revoked at all, it is simply suspended for the duration of the infraction being active. Nothing is taken away forever.
    Last edited by Aikanár; September 27, 2021 at 03:26 PM.


    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. #99
    PikeStance's Avatar Live to Inspire
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,384
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo11 View Post
    I have voted in favor of this, but with one reservation. Many (if not most) of you know that I really do take it seriously that we talk honestly, openly, and civilly with one another, and as such, I think it is important to explain why I voted yes. To me, the biggest thing that is wrong with the current formulation of the article is that it provides no room for forgiveness, or indeed for explanation or exculpation. I think this is simply wrong. Citizenship is not a reward or badge of honor here. It is a position, and one which comes with both rights and responsibilities. As citizens, I do think we should hold the bar higher than where we would expect it to be for your average member posting whatever, or coming for mod downloads. But also, as citizens, we belong to a body together, and we owe it to one another to give (alleged) offenders the opportunity to explain themselves. Perhaps there is no defense for whatever it is that led to their infraction, but in that case, the infraction would stand, and the automatic revocation would go on. I think that is appropriate. But importantly, we ought to give citizens that chance to appeal the infraction, and explain themselves before they are cast out. For that reason, I think this amendment is very worthwhile.

    My one bone of contention is that I do not think we need to lower the bar to allow for one standing infraction. That, however, is a debate about forgiveness and leniency, and I believe there are defensible positions on both sides. Personally, I would leave things so that a standing infraction does indeed cause citizenship revocation, but I can equally well see the points for allowing one mistake which can't be explained or appealed away. But whatever one's stance is on the number of infractions which get you booted from the body of citizens, I would hope that everyone agrees that alleged offenders ought to be given a chance to explain their actions before they are summarily dismissed.
    If we do our job right, citizens do not make mistake. Citizens represent the site. They do not have the luxury of making a mistake. When you choose to become a citizen, you do so with the expectations that you will be an ideal poster.
    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

  20. #100
    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
    50,922
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    "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.
    Last edited by Gigantus; September 27, 2021 at 10:45 PM.




Page 5 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
  •