Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 136

Thread: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

  1. #21
    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
    17,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    what did you then mean by saying this?
    Just as a general statement towards both your and (especially) Van Zandt's attitudes towards this discussion.

    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?
    I disagree. "Why would it?" is a perfectly valid response to the question of "why doesn't it?"

    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






  2. #22
    Cookiegod's Avatar Civus Divus Ex Clibane
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,258

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Baltar View Post
    I would like to suggest a further modification ...
    Extra stuff
    I was going to propose something similar after the Athelchan vote had passed, to allow for everyone to cool down a bit.

    There's one issue however with making it an automatic revocation: It takes the power away from the curia and hands it to the moderation. It absolutely matters zero to me, but my understanding was that the Curia and the moderation were supposed to be handled by independent institutions. The workaround I had had in mind, was that such a citizenship is simply suspended indefinitely until the citizen applies to be readmitted. And if he failed to get a majority vote, his citizenship would be revoked permanently.

    But yeah, yours works fine for me too.

    EDIT: Except for the lack of a time frame. Obviously. I'd say 18 months.
    Last edited by Cookiegod; September 21, 2021 at 01:22 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  3. #23
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,076

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikanár View Post
    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.
    Maybe you didn't see my edit, so I'll reiterate, the current system does not work. It punishes you exceedingly for a simple mistake and only leaves you bitter and with nothing to lose. It's all that certain temperaments need to go on to break the ToS on purpose out of spite. The system proposed here is identical in practice to the system used by moderation. You don't get infraction points after your first breach of the ToS for the exact same reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikanár View Post
    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?
    No, which is why I said a few steps. One of those problems is the lack of nuance. You are either an angel in perfect standing or you are the devil and get cast out, without any in-between. The proposed system does not directly create nuance but it allows sufficient wiggle room to achieve similar effects.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; September 21, 2021 at 01:25 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  4. #24
    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 Akar View Post
    Just as a general statement towards both your and (especially) Van Zandt's attitudes towards this discussion.



    I disagree. "Why would it?" is a perfectly valid response to the question of "why doesn't it?"
    Except, it is not. Lets leave simple courtesy which would expect an interlocutor to reply to a question with an answer aside. You seem to have forgotten, that you are the proposer here. Hence the onus of providing reason and answering questions is on you. And had you provided more than your piss poor lazy OP by laying out your reasoning in detail as you should, you would have way fewer questions to answer to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Maybe you didn't see my edit, so I'll reiterate, the current system does not work. It punishes you exceedingly for a simple mistake and only leaves you bitter and with nothing to lose. It's all that certain temperaments need to go on to break the ToS on purpose out of spite. The system proposed here is identical in practice to the system used by moderation. You don't get infraction points after your first breach of the ToS for the exact same reasons.



    No, which is why I said a few steps. One of those problems is the lack of nuance. You are either an angel in perfect standing or you are the devil and get cast out, without any in-between. The proposed system does not directly create nuance but it allows sufficient wiggle room to achieve similar effects.
    Alright, this is an approach to the subject at hand that I can understand. Thank-you for that. Still In have one question. The Status quo still gives you several chances before you are temporarily suspended for a maximum of three months because it is only triggered by infractions not by pms or notes. Since an infraction is basically nothing else than a follow up pm with a sanction tied to it, don't you think that a system that asks for nuances should bei more sophisticated than simply going from no warning level to repeat offender?


    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. #25

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    I was astonished to see that a single infraction is grounds for suspension of citizenship, and my first gut feeling was to support it. Then again, I do not know what kind of behavior leads to an infraction. Off-topic posting? What does that really mean? A single misplaced post without the intention of annoying others?

    I have only had one incident with the moderation and I am not sure if I was issued an infraction or just a friendly reminder from the moderation not to be an ass, so it is hard to know what kind of behavior should be tolerated twice before issuing a suspension.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Maybe you didn't see my edit, so I'll reiterate, the current system does not work. It punishes you exceedingly for a simple mistake and only leaves you bitter and with nothing to lose. It's all that certain temperaments need to go on to break the ToS on purpose out of spite.
    As for Sir Adrian's complaint, I do not get it. If a citizen gets one infraction or more, gets suspended temporarily with a chance to improve their behavior, and reacts by going all berserk out of spite, is that the kind of person whose citizenship should be protected? I may have understood wrong, though.
    Last edited by Septentrionalis; September 21, 2021 at 02:10 PM.

  6. #26
    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

    Akar, you have also as of yet avoided to answer this question
    Quote Originally Posted by Aikanár View Post

    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
    Would you be so kind as to provide an answer? Thank-you.


    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.

  7. #27
    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
    17,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikanar
    And had you provided more than your piss poor lazy OP by laying out your reasoning in detail as you should, you would have way fewer questions to answer to.
    If you're unwilling to have a non-hostile conversation then I don't see any purpose in us discussing anything any further here.

    I was astonished to see that a single infraction is grounds for suspension of citizenship, and my first gut feeling was to support it. Then again, I do not know what kind of behavior leads to an infraction. Off-topic posting? What does that really mean? A single misplaced post without the intention of annoying others?
    Yes, possibly. It's literally entirely up to moderator discretion. That's part of the issue. One of the best parts about this change is that no suspension is actually initiated until after appellate proceedings are complete. That gives the community and administration an opportunity to review the charge and see if it actually warrants suspension of citizenship or not.

    As for Sir Adrian's complaint, I do not get it. If a citizen gets one infraction or more, gets suspended temporarily with a chance to improve their behavior, and reacts by going all berserk out of spite, is that the kind of person whose citizenship should be protected? I may have understood wrong, though.
    Having your citizenship suspended for making an off topic post is highly disproportionate and incommensurate with the offense. It is understandable, though not acceptable, that such disproportionate and unilateral action by moderation would leave one feeling disillusioned and with nothing to lose, so to speak.

    And everyone's Citizenship should be protected right up until the point the Curia deems that no longer worthy of holding that title via the Ostrakon procedure.
    Last edited by Akar; September 21, 2021 at 02:24 PM.

    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. #28
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,076

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    As for Sir Adrian's complaint, I do not get it. If a citizen gets one infraction or more, gets suspended temporarily with a chance to improve their behavior, and reacts by going all berserk out of spite, is that the kind of person whose citizenship should be protected? I may have understood wrong, though.
    You post something you think is on topic. Moderator X, who has probably had a bad day or simply does not like you, infracts you for off-topic. As it is now you get suspended. You can appeal the infraction, but that takes weeks all the while you are still suspended. How would you react if you felt you were unjustly infracted for off-topic and got suspended because of it? Would you think you were to blame or would you feel annoyed and start disregarding the rules because "it doesn't matter anyway"?
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #29
    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 Akar View Post
    If you're unwilling to have a non-hostile conversation then fair enough.

    I didn't think such hostile and intentionally provocative language was fitting of moderators, but what do I know.
    I am posting here as a citizen. Also I've gone a long way to discuss with you, while you couldn't be arsed to post a reasoning for your proposal in the first place. Then you avoided answering questions and all you have as reason right now comes down to: I don't like it as it is, please change.

    In former times I would have ripped an OP like this appart. I have been polite because you are new in office. But don't come around here and expect more leeway when you fail in providing answers and when pointed at your shortcommings in discussion you resort to pulling out by crying foul. I sincerely suggest to you to abstain from such trumperesque way of discussion, it will lead you nowhere.
    Last edited by Aikanár; September 21, 2021 at 03:29 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.

  10. #30
    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
    17,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    You post something you think is on topic. Moderator X, who has probably had a bad day or simply does not like you, infracts you for off-topic. As it is now you get suspended. You can appeal the infraction, but that takes weeks all the while you are still suspended. How would you react if you felt you were unjustly infracted for off-topic and got suspended because of it? Would you think you were to blame or would you feel annoyed and start disregarding the rules because "it doesn't matter anyway"?
    Exactly. At the very least I think the latter addition to this amendment should be ratified. There's no reason someone's citizenship should be suspended until after they've had a chance to appeal.

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

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, and Gyrosmeister






  11. #31
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Roma in aeternum
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,076
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Agreed. The application requirements should be adjusted. Applicants with zero active moderation points should be eligible.
    Agree, prerequisites should be no active moderation points and max 6pts total (expired and current).

    So it sounds like removing referrals was a good thing then, right?
    Referrals were used almost entirely as part of personal feuds, with little substance to view as evidence. In one case, a series of superfluous referrals were made, then pointed to as evidence of bad behavior, when in fact there was never anything of substance to report. Using moderation reports and referrals removes this tendency towards personal bias.

    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.
    This ^

    I received a note for using to many emoticons once, but it was reversed. I felt bad at the time.

    Why does making an off topic post rise to the level of suspending citizenship?
    So Off-Topic posts are not part of your proposal? What other exceptions are there?

    Just as a general statement towards both your and (especially) Van Zandt's attitudes towards this discussion.
    What are you talking about?



    Pillaging and Plundering since 2006

    Neither is this the dawn from the east, nor is a dragon flying above, nor are the gables of this hall aflame. Nay, mortal enemies approach in ready armour. Ravens are calling, wolves are howling, spear clashes and shield answers


  12. #32

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Having your citizenship suspended for making an off topic post is highly disproportionate and incommensurate with the offense. It is understandable, though not acceptable, that such disproportionate and unilateral action by moderation would leave one feeling disillusioned and with nothing to lose, so to speak.

    And everyone's Citizenship should be protected right up until the point the Curia deems that no longer worthy of holding that title via the Ostrakon procedure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    You post something you think is on topic. Moderator X, who has probably had a bad day or simply does not like you, infracts you for off-topic. As it is now you get suspended. You can appeal the infraction, but that takes weeks all the while you are still suspended. How would you react if you felt you were unjustly infracted for off-topic and got suspended because of it? Would you think you were to blame or would you feel annoyed and start disregarding the rules because "it doesn't matter anyway"?
    Thank you both for your clarification. I understand your points now and do not disagree. It seems completely out of balance how much community involvement it takes to make someone a citizen or to ostracize one while a single moderator can get a citizenship suspendd by a personal decision over possibly a single incident.

    Thank you Aikanár for letting me in on my record through private channels and making me understand that I can check it on my own from here on out, if ever in doubt. I was treated with leniency and never infracted, but the incident was handled in a manner that left me a bit baffled over the process itself. As I was never told what I did wrong.

  13. #33

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

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

  14. #34

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    When I analyzed over ten years of appeals from the Tribunal archive (dating back to June 15th 2011), I found that 27% of appeals (not including those which were resolved or deemed non-cases) resulted in success for the appellant. This suggests that wrongfully issued infractions are not a rarity.

    Raw data:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Cope; September 21, 2021 at 03:34 PM.



  15. #35
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,775
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    And so the standards keep slipping.
    There is a morbid fascination in the ways the current regulars can find to turn citizenship/curia/awards into a meaningless show.

  16. #36
    Emperor Commodus's Avatar citizen, allegedly
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    There
    Posts
    2,040
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    It's my impression that a single one-off accident off topic post and a moderator having a bad hair day about it typically doesn't result in an outright infraction. For that you need a relatively severe case and/or some history to go on if observing the usual runtime of this forum is any clue, and considering it is only the rare exception that seems to have any issue with this at all I don't see the necessity for amendment. The sole relevant exception that instigated this thread only failed to be removed because people decided to be sticklers on who was making the proposal (ironic now) and have next to no standards or good-faith willingness to discuss and institute a bar for behavior, a bar that this proposal somehow manages to make slip even lower.
    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.


  17. #37
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,076

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Afaik it does if you already have a note. Notes never expire.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  18. #38
    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
    17,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    It's my impression that a single one-off accident off topic post and a moderator having a bad hair day about it typically doesn't result in an outright infraction. For that you need a relatively severe case and/or some history to go on if observing the usual runtime of this forum is any clue, and considering it is only the rare exception that seems to have any issue with this at all I don't see the necessity for amendment. The sole relevant exception that instigated this thread only failed to be removed because people decided to be sticklers on who was making the proposal (ironic now) and have next to no standards or good-faith willingness to discuss and institute a bar for behavior, a bar that this proposal somehow manages to make slip even lower.
    As I mentioned to you privately, I strongly resent the insinuation that this amendment has anything to do with any specific user and especially the insinuation that this amendment is part of some personal vendetta - such allegations are trite and overplayed. This amendment has been in discussion between myself and others for over a year and has nothing to do with anyone in particular.

    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






  19. #39

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Afaik it does if you already have a note. Notes never expire.
    Correct.



  20. #40
    Emperor Commodus's Avatar citizen, allegedly
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    There
    Posts
    2,040
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section 3 - Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    As I mentioned to you privately, I strongly resent the insinuation that this amendment has anything to do with any specific user and especially the insinuation that this amendment is part of some personal vendetta - such allegations are trite and overplayed. This amendment has been in discussion between myself and others for over a year and has nothing to do with anyone in particular.
    I don't insinuate that it's a personal vendetta, but I more than insinuate that it's weak for apparently being a collaborative year+ work of effort. In fact I was referring to the only user who could be considered an example where this kind of amendment may apply. Otherwise there's a very even divide between the users who seem to get on just fine (pretty much the entire curia) and the rare exception who would be pushing the infractions at all. In plain English, this isn't proven to be an issue worth 'fixing' and is poorly timed when a recent issue is being able to get outright suspended or blocked off the site but still carrying token citizenship. This change pretty much draws it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    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.
    This more than anything was a cause for my shade, since the 'cases', at least the obvious case that people are more likely to remember, apply far deeper than anything this little change could fix.
    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.


Page 2 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
  •