Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

  1. #1

    Default [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Section 3, Article I of the Constitution states:

    Section III - Ostraka and Magistrates
    Article I. Ostraka
    If a citizen receives an infraction the Consul suspends their citizenship until the infraction has expired or is revoked. The suspended member losses the ability to display all rank, including both Citizen and Patrician badges and color.

    I suggest changing it to the following:

    Section III - Ostraka and The Tribunal
    Article I. Ostraka

    If a citizen receives an infraction the Consul suspends their citizenship until the infraction has expired or is revoked. The citizen may request that the suspension be reviewed by the Curia1. Suspended members lose 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.

    1If a Citizen requests a suspension review, the Consul contacts Moderation and requests details of the relevant infraction. The Consul then opens a suspension review thread, posting the details of the relevant infraction for discussion. After three days, the Consul opens a poll in the Curia vote forum, asking “Shall the Suspension be lifted?” with options “Yes”, “No” and “Abstain”. The suspension will be lifted by a simple majority of non-abstaining votes.
    Last edited by Cope; October 04, 2021 at 08:05 AM.



  2. #2
    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
    18,388
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Support

    Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, Gyrosmeister, and Geg






  3. #3
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Roma in aeternum
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,170
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Whats in footnote 1?



    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


  4. #4
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    17,482
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    That's a bit vague, isn't it?

    First, how does the Curia is meant to review the suspension?

    And what do you mean exactly by reviewing a suspension?
    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

  5. #5

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Baltar View Post
    Whats in footnote 1?
    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    That's a bit vague, isn't it?

    First, how does the Curia is meant to review the suspension?

    And what do you mean exactly by reviewing a suspension?
    1If a Citizen requests a suspension review, the Consul contacts Moderation and requests details of the relevant infraction. The Consul then opens a suspension review thread, posting the details of the relevant infraction for discussion. After three days, the Consul opens a poll in the Curia vote forum, asking “Shall the Suspension be lifted?” with options “Yes”, “No” and “Abstain”. The suspension will be lifted by a simple majority of non-abstaining votes.



  6. #6
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,266

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Wouldn't it be easier to just reinstate staff referrals?
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  7. #7
    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
    51,196
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    ^ What he said.

    This is basically conducting an appeal with peers as 'judges' and a hefty touch of the old staff referral procedure - and seeing how that worked and peer review in general in the curia that will get a fat Opposed from me.

    It's basically avoiding\circumventing the tribunal appeal to get relief on a penalty based on the buddy system.

    Why can't these section 3 amendments simply stick to the 72 hour grace period which takes care of delayed appeals and 'unjust' infractions? Does it always have to come with a highly controversial 'get out of jail free' part so it will not pass?
    Last edited by Gigantus; October 04, 2021 at 10:32 AM.




  8. #8
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Roma in aeternum
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,170
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Im not sure this belongs in Section III - perhaps better in Section I



    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


  9. #9
    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
    18,388
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    ^ What he said.

    This is basically conducting an appeal with peers as 'judges' and a hefty touch of the old staff referral procedure - and seeing how that worked and peer review in general in the curia that will get a fat Opposed from me.

    It's basically avoiding\circumventing the tribunal appeal to get relief on a penalty based on the buddy system.

    Why can't these section 3 amendments simply stick to the 72 hour grace period which takes care of delayed appeals and 'unjust' infractions? Does it always have to come with a highly controversial 'get out of jail free' part so it will not pass?
    I'd support that proposal too if you were to make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Baltar View Post
    Im not sure this belongs in Section III - perhaps better in Section I
    I see where you're coming from, but since the language being changed is currently located in S3 it seems better to keep it in that section for this amendment. It can always be moved to S1 with a separate amendment.

    Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Patron of Sara Temer, Cope, Gyrosmeister, and Geg






  10. #10
    Tango12345's Avatar Never mind the manoeuvres...
    Moderation Overseer Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    20,692

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    ^ What he said.

    This is basically conducting an appeal with peers as 'judges' and a hefty touch of the old staff referral procedure - and seeing how that worked and peer review in general in the curia that will get a fat Opposed from me.

    It's basically avoiding\circumventing the tribunal appeal to get relief on a penalty based on the buddy system.

    Why can't these section 3 amendments simply stick to the 72 hour grace period which takes care of delayed appeals and 'unjust' infractions? Does it always have to come with a highly controversial 'get out of jail free' part so it will not pass?
    This.

    Opposed.

  11. #11

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    I think I tried to ask this question in the previous Section III, Article I discussion and vote but did not receive an adequate answer. Possibly due to me not being a citizen.

    What is the problem that we as a community are trying to fix here? I have not seen citizens behaving in a manner that their citizenship should be suspended (apart from Ostrakon proceedings), and no one produced such a case for review in the last amendment process.

    I am all for leniency and the possibility to appeal, but I just haven't come across an instance in which I or someone else was abused by a TWC citizen. Do we have a problem with citizens getting infractions out of the blue and consequently getting suspended?

  12. #12
    PikeStance's Avatar Assume Good Intentions
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,648
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    ^ What he said.

    This is basically conducting an appeal with peers as 'judges' and a hefty touch of the old staff referral procedure - and seeing how that worked and peer review in general in the curia that will get a fat Opposed from me.

    It's basically avoiding\circumventing the tribunal appeal to get relief on a penalty based on the buddy system.

    Why can't these section 3 amendments simply stick to the 72 hour grace period which takes care of delayed appeals and 'unjust' infractions? Does it always have to come with a highly controversial 'get out of jail free' part so it will not pass?
    This

    Opposed
    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 - PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, Swiss Halberdier, and Frodo45127


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  13. #13

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    ^ What he said.

    This is basically conducting an appeal with peers as 'judges' and a hefty touch of the old staff referral procedure - and seeing how that worked and peer review in general in the curia that will get a fat Opposed from me.

    It's basically avoiding\circumventing the tribunal appeal to get relief on a penalty based on the buddy system.
    This is false representation of the proposal. The review process would have no power to rescind the infraction, only to lift the suspension. It would therefore not assume the role of the Tribunal. Nor does the proposal mirror staff referrals, since the review would take place at the request of the "offender".



  14. #14
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,266

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    I think I tried to ask this question in the previous Section III, Article I discussion and vote but did not receive an adequate answer. Possibly due to me not being a citizen.

    What is the problem that we as a community are trying to fix here? I have not seen citizens behaving in a manner that their citizenship should be suspended (apart from Ostrakon proceedings), and no one produced such a case for review in the last amendment process.

    I am all for leniency and the possibility to appeal, but I just haven't come across an instance in which I or someone else was abused by a TWC citizen. Do we have a problem with citizens getting infractions out of the blue and consequently getting suspended?
    The problem is getting automatically suspended from citizenship for x months for the dumbest of reasons. Hypothetical: you got a note for off-topic posting in 2015, notes never expire and therefore if you post off-topic in 2021 you get your citizenship suspended. It's unfair and gives moderation unearned power.


    A much better system would be automatic suspension after 2 points, no suspension for 1 point for the innocuous stuff like off topic or a censor bypass in the YLYL and things like this and a review by the 2 magistrates + tie break by the Curator for more egregious 1 point stuff like insulting others, illegal activities, etc.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  15. #15

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    The problem is getting automatically suspended from citizenship for x months for the dumbest of reasons. Hypothetical: you got a note for off-topic posting in 2015, notes never expire and therefore if you post off-topic in 2021 you get your citizenship suspended. It's unfair and gives moderation unearned power.

    A much better system would be automatic suspension after 2 points, no suspension for 1 point for the innocuous stuff like off topic or a censor bypass in the YLYL and things like this and a review by the 2 magistrates + tie break by the Curator for more egregious 1 point stuff like insulting others, illegal activities, etc.
    This proposal restores that "unearned power" to the Curia. A points based approach would not. Either would be preferable to the status quo.



  16. #16
    Aikanár's Avatar no vaseline
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sanctuary
    Posts
    12,516
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    ^ What he said.

    This is basically conducting an appeal with peers as 'judges' and a hefty touch of the old staff referral procedure - and seeing how that worked and peer review in general in the curia that will get a fat Opposed from me.

    It's basically avoiding\circumventing the tribunal appeal to get relief on a penalty based on the buddy system.

    Why can't these section 3 amendments simply stick to the 72 hour grace period which takes care of delayed appeals and 'unjust' infractions? Does it always have to come with a highly controversial 'get out of jail free' part so it will not pass?
    Exactly.

    Opposed.


    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. #17
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Roma in aeternum
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,170
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    The problem is getting automatically suspended from citizenship for x months for the dumbest of reasons. Hypothetical: you got a note for off-topic posting in 2015, notes never expire and therefore if you post off-topic in 2021 you get your citizenship suspended. It's unfair and gives moderation unearned power.


    A much better system would be automatic suspension after 2 points, no suspension for 1 point for the innocuous stuff like off topic or a censor bypass in the YLYL and things like this and a review by the 2 magistrates + tie break by the Curator for more egregious 1 point stuff like insulting others, illegal activities, etc.
    Are there any real world equivalents of this hypothetical example? Im not sure this legislation would apply to more than just a few members who chronically run afoul of the TOS. The solution to the problem you suggested is simple, dont break the TOS. That sounds like a better plan than the unwarranted change in procedure being suggested.



    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


  18. #18
    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
    51,196
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This is false representation of the proposal. The review process would have no power to rescind the infraction, only to lift the suspension. It would therefore not assume the role of the Tribunal. Nor does the proposal mirror staff referrals, since the review would take place at the request of the "offender".
    Then you misunderstood my comment: your proposal is about a peer review (how that works out has been amply demonstrated in the last number of ostrakons) of a 'staff referral' (moderator notifies consul), eg the suspension of citizenship based on an infraction. That suspension can be appealed already in the tribunal by appealing the infraction.

    In other words: instead of getting a unbiased review of the penalty in the tribunal to support a reinstatement of citizenship the member can now use the buddy system to overturn the suspension and totally avoid a tribunal appeal.

    And it still involves posting the infraction, making this essentially a rerun of the mod\tribunal commentaries, with a binding vote of peer sentiment at the end where citizenship suspension is concerned.

    Let me repeat: totally opposed because that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    The problem is getting automatically suspended from citizenship for x months for the dumbest of reasons. Hypothetical: you got a note for off-topic posting in 2015, notes never expire and therefore if you post off-topic in 2021 you get your citizenship suspended. It's unfair and gives moderation unearned power.
    I have highlighted the real underlying issue in your post - everything else is simply hyperbolic fluff: notes get renewed after 2-3 years as I mentioned in the previous amendment, a short enough time to remember what you did wrong the previous time. Disappointing that the simple solution (the 72hours grace period) has to once again be bundled with a controversial change, the reason why I am opposing this amendment.
    Last edited by Gigantus; October 04, 2021 at 10:46 PM.




  19. #19

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Then you misunderstood my comment: your proposal is about a peer review (how that works out has been amply demonstrated in the last number of ostrakons) of a 'staff referral' (moderator notifies consul), eg the suspension of citizenship based on an infraction. That suspension can be appealed already in the tribunal by appealing the infraction.

    In other words: instead of getting a unbiased review of the penalty in the tribunal to support a reinstatement of citizenship the member can now use the buddy system to overturn the suspension and totally avoid a tribunal appeal.
    The Tribunal is run by the same members who post here regularly and who vote on Ostrakons. It is functionally a form of "peer review". If there is a suggestion of nepotism/corruption/politicization among the citizenry, then it necessarily applies to the Tribunal and Moderation.

    Further, and as noted above, the Tribunal considers the validity of infractions or notes. The proposed Suspension Review would consider the validity of citizen suspensions. The point of this amendment (and its predecessors) is to address mandatory punishments, not to challenge the issuing of infractions.

    And it still involves posting the infraction, making this essentially a rerun of the mod\tribunal commentaries, with a binding vote of peer sentiment at the end where citizenship suspension is concerned.

    Let me repeat: totally opposed because that.
    It is peculiar to "totally oppose" a proposed review structure for mirroring a review structure which one endorses.

    I have highlighted the real underlying issue in your post - everything else is simply hyperbolic fluff: notes get renewed after 2-3 years as I mentioned in the previous amendment, a short enough time to remember what you did wrong the previous time. Disappointing that the simple solution (the 72hours grace period) has to once again be bundled with a controversial change, the reason why I am opposing this amendment.
    Notes can be permanent.



  20. #20
    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
    51,196
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    I support a review system by members that are appointed by, and accountable to, their peers. I totally oppose a review system by peers that are accountable to no-one. Don't see why that would be a conundrum.

    Notes are permanent, they also get renewed after a lengthy time period to refresh an erring member's memory according to what you underlined - what's your point?

    A citizen's suspension is deemed valid because he broke the rules. Either you do or you don't break the rules, no half measures here. If you have an issue with that then appeal in the tribunal instead of trying to talk yourself out of the resulting suspension in front of your buddies. We did have multiple flavors of 'breaking levels' in the referral system - and that totally didn't work out if you remember as it was based on perception and not on fact.
    Last edited by Gigantus; October 05, 2021 at 02:00 AM.




Page 1 of 5 12345 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
  •