Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 96

Thread: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

  1. #61
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Magistrate

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,370

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The same information as is provided publicly in the Tribunal (i.e. the details/reasoning of the infraction). The Consul would be able to request more context from Moderation if appropriate.
    .
    You know very well, that the level and detail provided privately for the judges is different from what is publicly visible, and for good reason. E.g. deleted posts from around the infracted post are often relevant but are not for public consumption. The only published Moderation interaction in a case is that of the appellant at their specific behest. You cannot just publish any context of an infracrtion without breaching SND. So the public process is always going to lack crucial information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Which could be put privately in the Politia, just like it was when Praefects were around.
    Prefects held a non-public discussion and vote, you want a public review and vote. That doesn't click.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
    "Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  2. #62

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    You know very well, that the level and detail provided privately for the judges is different from what is publicly visible, and for good reason. E.g. deleted posts from around the infracted post are often relevant but are not for public consumption. The only published Moderation interaction in a case is that of the appellant at their specific behest. You cannot just publish any context of an infracrtion without breaching SND. So the public process is always going to lack crucial information.
    The proposed Suspension Review occurs at the "specific behest" of the appellant. In the majority of cases (esp. the less egregious instances the proposed process intends to deal with) the surrounding context is publicly available. If Moderation refuses to provide surrounding context in certain instances, the review would simply proceed without it. Inadmissible evidence isn't unusual, nor is it alien to this site (see the Ostrakon process).



  3. #63
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,267

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Which requires even more of the moderation history of the subject which would not be publicly shown for us to look at.
    Not really no. It requires less.

    Source: I used to be a censor when censors judged suspension cases and actually did all these things.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  4. #64

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The proposed Suspension Review occurs at the "specific behest" of the appellant. In the majority of cases (esp. the less egregious instances the proposed process intends to deal with) the surrounding context is publicly available. If Moderation refuses to provide surrounding context in certain instances, the review would simply proceed without it. Inadmissible evidence isn't unusual, nor is it alien to this site (see the Ostrakon process).
    Moderation can not provide moderation history of the accused. They can't show us a collection of recently moderated posts of the accused. They can't even show posts of repeated offenses from the accused if they were not subject to Tribunal cases. These are not just inadmissible evidences. They are crucial evidences.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Not really no. It requires less.
    Source: I used to be a censor when censors judged suspension cases and actually did all these things.
    I wouldn't think so. An infraction is a more condensed issue with one type of offense in mind. The context and history required would be limited to that type of offense. With suspension, however, we'd want to take into account a larger scope. If what you say is true I'd question the effectiveness of the process you've been a part of.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  5. #65

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Moderation can not provide moderation history of the accused. They can't show us a collection of recently moderated posts of the accused. They can't even show posts of repeated offenses from the accused if they were not subject to Tribunal cases. These are not just inadmissible evidences. They are crucial evidences.
    The purpose of the review is to consider whether a specific infraction is worthy of a suspension, not whether a user's entire Moderation history is. This is because it is a specific infraction which has triggered the suspension not the user's disciplinary history. If a user is appealing a suspension, it is assumed that the infraction was correct.
    Last edited by Cope; October 17, 2021 at 08:00 AM.



  6. #66
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,267

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I wouldn't think so. An infraction is a more condensed issue with one type of offense in mind. The context and history required would be limited to that type of offense. With suspension, however, we'd want to take into account a larger scope. If what you say is true I'd question the effectiveness of the process you've been a part of.
    Then question it, but you'd be doing something inherently useless. It's the system we had until not long ago and it worked for several years.

    As censors we'd only get the current infraction and we also had the history of previous curial suspensions to look at by checking the Politia archives. You don't need anything more. You're evaluating if the RECENT behavior has been bad enough to warrant time-off. You do not need the full infraction history or even previous 6 months infraction history.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  7. #67

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Then question it, but you'd be doing something inherently useless. It's the system we had until not long ago and it worked for several years.

    As censors we'd only get the current infraction and we also had the history of previous curial suspensions to look at by checking the Politia archives. You don't need anything more. You're evaluating if the RECENT behavior has been bad enough to warrant time-off. You do not need the full infraction history or even previous 6 months infraction history.
    You'd have no access to past 6 months of moderation history? If you are passing judgment on a user's recent behavior without looking at their recent moderation history that's just bad practice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The purpose of the review is to consider whether a specific infraction is worthy of a suspension, not whether a user's entire Moderation history is. This is because it is a specific infraction which has triggered the suspension not the user's disciplinary history. If a user is appealing a suspension, it is assumed that the infraction was correct.
    Does it not make a difference if the same or similar offense was recently repeated? It kinda does. We'd have no access to past offenses whether moderated through an infraction or post deletion/edition. These are crucial information that makes a lot of difference.
    Last edited by PointOfViewGun; October 17, 2021 at 08:47 AM.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  8. #68

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Does it not make a difference if the same or similar offense was recently repeated? It kinda does. We'd have no access to past offenses whether moderated through an infraction or post deletion/edition. These are crucial information that makes a lot of difference.
    Repeat offenses would only be relevant if they were significant enough to warrant infractions. If the Citizen chose to have them reviewed, the information would be in the public domain. If not, the Citizen would serve his suspension and it would not be necessary to consider them anyway.



  9. #69

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Repeat offenses would only be relevant if they were significant enough to warrant infractions. If the Citizen chose to have them reviewed, the information would be in the public domain. If not, the Citizen would serve his suspension and it would not be necessary to consider them anyway.
    It is quite necessary to consider repeating behavior of a person that's being tried for suspension due to such behavior. We would only have partial knowledge of individual offenses if the person chooses to appeal them in the Tribunal. Moreover, moderation can act with lenience, which we would not see in its entirety. We'd be basically voting blind if we are to follow your new proposal.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  10. #70

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    The review would be predicated on the infraction for which the user was suspended and that violation only (since it is that violation which triggers the mandatory suspension). So far as I know, a Citizen's entire Moderation history has never been used to determine whether a suspension or expulsion is justified, nor would such a system be possible or even desirable.

    In prior amendments, we attempted to address the problem of severity/repeat violations by suggesting that the Moderation points cap be raised marginally, but this was rejected out of hand.



  11. #71

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The review would be predicated on the infraction for which the user was suspended and that violation only (since it is that violation which triggers the mandatory suspension). So far as I know, a Citizen's entire Moderation history has never been used to determine whether a suspension or expulsion is justified, nor would such a system be possible or even desirable.

    In prior amendments, we attempted to address the problem of severity/repeat violations by suggesting that the Moderation points cap be raised marginally, but this was rejected out of hand.
    The issue is not disclosing the entire moderation history of a person but disclosing any moderation history which is not possible. Severity of a case is often based on past behavior of a person. Yet, you seem to want to judge a suspension case in a vacuum. That's not a good way to go. It's already a problem for the Ostrakon, as we are partially blinded if we don't pay close attention to a person's conduct. Even if you are not you still don't have access to all relevant information. Producing a yet an other level where its solidified is a bad move. One that does not add anything to the process. It merely enforces the public spectacle aspect of it.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #72

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    The issue is not disclosing the entire moderation history of a person but disclosing any moderation history which is not possible. Severity of a case is often based on past behavior of a person. Yet, you seem to want to judge a suspension case in a vacuum. That's not a good way to go.

    It's already a problem for the Ostrakon, as we are partially blinded if we don't pay close attention to a person's conduct. Even if you are not you still don't have access to all relevant information. Producing a yet an other level where its solidified is a bad move. One that does not add anything to the process. It merely enforces the public spectacle aspect of it.
    I don't want to judge suspension cases in a vacuum, but mandatory suspensions necessitate it (since they effectively treat cases in a vacuum). The idea of the review process is to appease those who support mandatory suspensions whilst providing some degree of oversight by the Citizenry.



  13. #73

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I don't want to judge suspension cases in a vacuum, but mandatory suspensions necessitate it (since they effectively treat cases in a vacuum). The idea of the review process is to appease those who support mandatory suspensions whilst providing some degree of oversight by the Citizenry.
    Mandatory suspensions do not really treat them in a vacuum. They simply don't treat them as there is no judgment. There is just procedure. You're introducing a judgment. One that you want to happen in a vacuum. Without the judges having proper information on the context.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  14. #74
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,267

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    You'd have no access to past 6 months of moderation history? If you are passing judgment on a user's recent behavior without looking at their recent moderation history that's just bad practice.
    And yet you had no problem with that practice when you brought up a bunch of referrals in the last ostrakon. Hmmm. What message do you think that sends?
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  15. #75

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    And yet you had no problem with that practice when you brought up a bunch of referrals in the last ostrakon. Hmmm. What message do you think that sends?
    How did I have no problem with it? What referrals are you referring to? Last of all, I assume you agree with the objections put forward as you are trying to turn it personal. If you are going down that path the least you could do is to be specific and thorough.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  16. #76
    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
    51,198
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Adrian just made the point for PoVG: rejecting an impersonation note out of hand while the elevated off topic appeal clearly (it's all about Anthonius' mod\modding contribution, also see moderator's comment) indicates that there is a contextual connection, eg a 'spree'. Never mind Anthonius' over the top behavior (same issue) in the recent Curia discussion (the consul had to call to order) which was the impetus in Adrian's thread about an awards procedure review.
    Last edited by Gigantus; October 18, 2021 at 12:14 AM.




  17. #77
    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

    The more discussion last, the more apparent the current system is fine. We do not need an "appeal" of suspension of citizenship. There exist ample avenues to address any wrongs of moderation. If an unjust infraction is given, then appeal. How many layers of appeals do we need. You can already appeal direct to moderation, and failing that, the Tribunal. Yet, there is a proposal for a third option.

    The requirement for citizenship is not to receive any infractions. The 6 months is only enough time that reasonable to demonstrate that you can post within the ToS. Moreover, there is hardly an infraction that would result in anymore than a temporary suspension. So, even now we give citizens a chance to prove the worthiness of the badge upon reinstatement of their badge.

    Ostakons have become a circus. The prior appeal system was also a circus. I cannot imagine what a circus this would bring to the so-called elites who beg that the consequences of receiving an infraction be forgiven.

    If this passes, GED and the admins wold be justified and abolishing citizenship altogether since it has no desire to "represent" the site through its postings and contribution.
    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

  18. #78
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Magistrate

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,370

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    ^ This.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
    "Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  19. #79

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    The more discussion last, the more apparent the current system is fine. We do not need an "appeal" of suspension of citizenship. There exist ample avenues to address any wrongs of moderation. If an unjust infraction is given, then appeal. How many layers of appeals do we need. You can already appeal direct to moderation, and failing that, the Tribunal. Yet, there is a proposal for a third option.
    The proposal is not about correcting Moderation or the Tribunal. It is about addressing mandatory suspensions.

    The requirement for citizenship is not to receive any infractions. The 6 months is only enough time that reasonable to demonstrate that you can post within the ToS. Moreover, there is hardly an infraction that would result in anymore than a temporary suspension. So, even now we give citizens a chance to prove the worthiness of the badge upon reinstatement of their badge.

    Ostakons have become a circus. The prior appeal system was also a circus. I cannot imagine what a circus this would bring to the so-called elites who beg that the consequences of receiving an infraction be forgiven.
    Quite bizarre to characterize those asking for more flexibility as "so-called elites", particularly given that the most reactionary opposition to these amendments seems to be coming from Moderators/Administrators/Tribunes (i.e. those in entrenched positions who benefit most from the removal of Citizen oversight).

    If this passes, GED and the admins wold be justified and abolishing citizenship altogether since it has no desire to "represent" the site through its postings and contribution.
    Odd that this view wasn't voiced during the many years that mandatory suspensions did not exist. The proposed review wouldn't even automatically rescind suspensions, just provide an appeals process.



  20. #80
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,267

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Adrian just made the point for PoVG: rejecting an impersonation note out of hand while the elevated off topic appeal clearly (it's all about Anthonius' mod\modding contribution, also see moderator's comment) indicates that there is a contextual connection, eg a 'spree'. Never mind Anthonius' over the top behavior (same issue) in the recent Curia discussion (the consul had to call to order) which was the impetus in Adrian's thread about an awards procedure review.
    Please do explain to me how pointing out a moderation mistake, which moderation agreed with btw given that the note was turned into hard to read, makes PovG's point. The entire point of this proposal is moderation makes mistakes, we cannot allow suspension based on a single person's interpretation.

    If you don't believe that it's better to first warn the person to change the font, before going straight to 1 point infractions for impersonation - which is what z3n's first instinct was - then the problem lies squarely with you.


    Feel free to point out the "spree" of Anthonius posting in moderator font. It's ok if you can't provide anything.


    PS: Notes can be appealed. No idea why you claimed they can't.


    PPS: I hope you did not think that my comment was vis-a-vis the hard to read note (He should have been infracted for that a long time a go considering his bad grammar is on purpose). If you did, you should learn to check the date and timestamp before jumping to conclusions.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; October 18, 2021 at 01:38 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 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
  •