Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 96

Thread: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

  1. #21

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    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.
    The ranking officials in the Tribunal (the Tribunes) are unaccountable to anyone except Hex. They are not subject to elections; they are not subject to VONCs; and they are not subject to mandatory suspensions (since they are not required to be Citizens to hold the position).

    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?
    That having received a Note doesn't justify mandatory suspensions (since it is not evidence of persistent rule breaking).

    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.
    The existence of Moderation's escalating penalties structure rather disproves the point that all violations of the rules are equal or should be treated as such.

    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.
    This is a repetition of the insinuation that the citizenry are corrupted/nepotistic/biased/unreliable but the Tribunal/Moderation are not (despite the fact we're all part of the same community and the ranking officials of the Tribunal are less accountable than regular Citizens). It also again conflates the role of the Tribunal and the proposed Suspension Review.
    Last edited by Cope; October 05, 2021 at 04:04 AM.



  2. #22
    PikeStance's Avatar Assume Good Intentions
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,687
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Notes can be permanent.
    Notes have no bearing. Citizenship is not suspended for receiving a note.
    If you receive an infraction, you have an appeal if you feel it was frivolous or misapplication of the ToS.

  3. #23

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Notes have no bearing. Citizenship is not suspended for receiving a note.
    If you receive an infraction, you have an appeal if you feel it was frivolous or misapplication of the ToS.
    I don't disagree, though I'm not the one citing Notes as evidence that suspensions for infractions are deserved.



  4. #24
    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
    51,233
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I don't disagree, though I'm not the one citing Notes as evidence that suspensions for infractions are deserved.
    I am a great admirer of verbal gymnastics - that's a 8+ in my eyes. While no-one has said so in this thread notes were cited in the other amendment to point out that a non punitive warning precedes a warning with penalty points. In other words: an infraction is a penalty for a repeat offense. It was in response to a claim of 'undeserved' infractions, not suspensions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope
    The existence of Moderation's escalating penalties structure rather disproves the point that all violations of the rules are equal or should be treated as such.
    9 this time. Escalating penalties only happen if a rule break of the same kind happens within a short period of time: on which planet do repeat offenses get the same penalty as the first one? I'd like to go there, just in case I become a repeat offender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope
    This is a repetition of the insinuation that the citizenry are corrupted/nepotistic/biased/unreliable but the Tribunal/Moderation are not (despite the fact we're all part of the same community and the ranking officials of the Tribunal are less accountable than regular citizens). It also again conflates the role of the Tribunal and the proposed Suspension Review.
    And jackpot. Nice, and repeated, interpretation of what you thought I am saying, eg that being unaccountable is automatically "corrupted/nepotistic/biased/unreliable". While 'biased' is a undeniable but not necessarily negative part of any buddy system (which your suggested peer review essential is) the rest is grand conjecture. Further: even a tribune (singular) is accountable, never mind that he will not able to post a verdict without agreement of the magistrates (plural\majority). Who in turn are elected by the members. Checks and balances - which are totally missing from a non elected body of peers.
    Tribunal and Suspension Review do exactly the same thing - determine if the punitive measures based on a rule break was duly applied. So much for conflating.
    Last edited by Gigantus; October 05, 2021 at 05:02 AM.




  5. #25
    PikeStance's Avatar Assume Good Intentions
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,687
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I don't disagree, though I'm not the one citing Notes as evidence that suspensions for infractions are deserved.
    No one has said this. You should try to be less disingenuous in your responses.

    It was Adrian who first mentioned notes
    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..
    Gig Later responded with
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    .... 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.
    I cannot find in any response anyone who stated what you just claimed.

  6. #26

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    I am a great admirer of verbal gymnastics - that's a 8+ in my eyes. Notes are cited to point out that a non punitive warning precedes a warning with penalty points. In other words: an infraction is a penalty for a repeat offense.
    Hence, Notes are being cited as evidence that suspensions for infractions are deserved.

    9 this time. Escalating penalties only happen if a rule break of the same kind happens within a short period of time: on which planet do repeat offenses get the same penalty as the first one? I'd like to go there, just in case I become a repeat offender.
    This illustrates my point that Moderation's escalating penalties do not apply to mandatory suspensions, since Citizens are held to account for historic Notes. The previous proposal addressed this by suggesting that the threshold for mandatory suspension be raised marginally (thereby ensuring that suspensions would be reserved for concentrated/more serious rule breaking).

    As to the point about repeat offenses, it isn't unusual for records to expire after a certain period. Points on a driving license are probably the most obvious real world example.

    And jackpot. Nice, and repeated, interpretation of what you thought I am saying, eg that being unaccountable is automatically "corrupted/nepotistic/biased/unreliable". While 'biased' is a undeniable but not necessarily negative part of any buddy system (which your suggested peer review essential is) the rest is grand conjecture.
    Referring to the proposed structure as a "buddy system" implies some degree of nepotism/corruption/unreliability, as does the accusation of bias. Otherwise it doesn't function as an argument against the proposal.

    Further: even a tribune (singular) is accountable, never mind that he will not able to post a verdict without agreement of the magistrates (plural\majority). Who in turn are elected by the members. Checks and balances - which are totally missing from a non elected body of peers.
    Only one Magistrate (singular) presides over each case. The two Tribunes (who, unlike Citizens, are functionally unaccountable to the Curia or Moderation) are always in the majority. Even so, if the agreement of the majority equates to accountability, then the Suspension Review proposal meets that standard on the basis that no suspension would be overturned without the agreement of the majority.

    Tribunal and Suspension Review do exactly the same thing - determine if the punitive measures based on a rule break was duly applied. So much for conflating.
    The point of the Suspension Review is not to determine if a rule was broken. It is to determine whether suspension is a justified/proportionate punishment. This is the inverse of the role of the Tribunal.



  7. #27

    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.
    Thank you Adrian for trying to explain this to me, but even that case is hypothetical. If moderators keep doling out infractions and thus causing the suspension of citizenship of unwary good-faith posters for "the dumbest of reasons", should we just have an open discussion about moderation policy instead of engaging in this tug-of-war in which citizens attempt to take away powers from moderation? I don't even like the implication that there should be some mutually antagonistic factions at work here.

    Still, to me it looks like there is no actual problem, which makes this Curial debate look like a form of entertainment rather than taking care of business. Has someone received an unexpected infraction recently?

  8. #28
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Patrician Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    5,936

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    The proposal looks like an attempt to circumvent the current system. If the infraction is not overturned in the Tribunal, on what grounds are the citizens supposed to grant the appeal? Besides a considerable waste of time, it can also turn the Curia into a second moderation commentary thread. Drama may be revitalising, but I think it's much more practical to accept the fact that if you consistently break the rules, your citizen rank might be temporarily suspended. Opposed.
    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.
    Since I have joined the moderation staff, nobody has received an infraction for a rule he violated six years ago, with the exception of obscene content. Also, no infraction has been issued for censor-bypassing in the jokes thread.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; October 07, 2021 at 05:12 AM. Reason: Bad English.

  9. #29
    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
    51,233
    Blog Entries
    31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Hence, Notes are being cited as evidence that suspensions for infractions are deserved.
    Cart before the horse:the infraction is deemed deserving by reason of being a repeat offense, the suspension is a follow up result of that offense.

    This illustrates my point that Moderation's escalating penalties do not apply to mandatory suspensions, since Citizens are held to account for historic Notes.
    That does not make sense at all. It's tossing apples with oranges: because notes are the base for escalation the escalation does not apply to suspension? A member is not held to account over non punitive notes - he is held to account for the repeat offense that he got a note for at the first offense. Definitely a 10.

    The point of the Suspension Review is not to determine if a rule was broken. It is to determine whether suspension is a justified/proportionate punishment. This is the inverse of the role of the Tribunal.
    I scratched the irrelevant adjective and I am still puzzled what's inverse here - part of the tribunal review is to make sure that the applied penalty isn't excessive, it's not unheard of that a penalty was reduced by way of reclassification. Well, get back the old referral system, that's how 'differentiation' was done then with all it's inherent flaws and so far no one has been mourning about it's demise, rather the opposite.

    Points on a driving license are probably the most obvious real world example.
    We were talking of escalating points, eg increased penalty for repeat infractions over a short period. Driving license is probably the example you should have avoided to make a case against it: what's the points\period threshold for getting the license revoked in your area? Temporarily and permanent, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    Thank you Adrian for trying to explain this to me, but even that case is hypothetical. If moderators keep doling out infractions and thus causing the suspension of citizenship of unwary good-faith posters for "the dumbest of reasons", should we just have an open discussion about moderation policy instead of engaging in this tug-of-war in which citizens attempt to take away powers from moderation? I don't even like the implication that there should be some mutually antagonistic factions at work here.

    Still, to me it looks like there is no actual problem, which makes this Curial debate look like a form of entertainment rather than taking care of business. Has someone received an unexpected infraction recently?
    Adrian's example was rather over the top: in a case like his a fresh note would have been issued given the length of time that had expired.

    The only real issue here is the lack of redress once a suspension has been enacted - it happens nearly immediately after the infraction has been issue and thus denies timely redress. that would get solved by the 72hrs grace period which absolutely no-one has an issue with. Unfortunately time and again that gets bundled with controversial amendments: the previous one wanted to increase the suspension threshold to a level that had maybe achieved twice in the last five years, the present one wishes to introduce a review by unelected, unaccountable peers - like the ostrakon procedure.
    Last edited by Gigantus; October 05, 2021 at 05:50 AM.




  10. #30

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Cart before the horse:the infraction is deemed deserving by reason of being a repeat offense, the suspension is a follow up result of that offense.
    Infractions being a product of "repeat offending" (as evidenced by Notes) forms part of the justification for mandatory suspensions.

    That does not make sense at all. It's tossing apples with oranges: because notes are the base for escalation the escalation does not apply to suspension? A member is not held to account over non punitive notes - he is held to account for the repeat offense that he got a note for at the first offense. Definitely a 10.
    A Note is not a functional penalty, since it comes with no further consequences. My comment about escalating penalties referred to the Moderation points system.

    I scratched the irrelevant adjective and I am still puzzled what's inverse here - part of the tribunal review is to make sure that the applied penalty isn't excessive, it's not unheard of that a penalty was reduced by way of reclassification. Well, get back the old referral system, that's how 'differentiation' was done then with all it's inherent flaws and so far no one has been mourning about it's demise, rather the opposite.
    The point of the Suspension Review would not be to determine if a rule was broken; it would be to determine whether a Citizen's suspension is justified. The point of the Tribunal is to determine whether a rule was broken; it is not to determine whether a Citizen's suspension is justified.

    Adrian's example was rather over the top: in a case like his a fresh note would have been issued given the length of time that had expired.

    The only real issue here is the lack of redress once a suspension has been enacted - it happens nearly immediately after the infraction has been issue and thus denies timely redress. that would get solved by the 72hrs grace period which absolutely no-one has an issue with. Unfortunately time and again that gets bundled with controversial amendments: the previous one wanted to increase the suspension threshold to a level that had maybe achieved twice in the last five years, the present one wishes to introduce a review by unelected, unaccountable peers - like the ostrakon procedure.
    The speculative frequency with which the threshold would be reached is not a rational argument against it. One might as well suggest that Citizens be suspended for any ToS break on the basis that too few Citizens are receiving infractions.
    Last edited by Cope; October 05, 2021 at 06:34 AM.



  11. #31

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    The proposal looks like an attempt to circumvent the current system.
    It is an attempt to amend the current system (which is rather the purpose of constitutional amendments).

    If the infraction is not overturned in the Tribunal, on what grounds are the citizens supposed to grant the appeal? Besides a considerable waste of time, it can also turn the Curia into a second moderation commentary thread. Drama may be revitalising, but I think it's much more practical to accept the fact that if you consistently break the rules, your citizen rank might be temporarily suspended. Opposed.
    I would be happy to discuss a potential framework for granting an appeal, though as per the second half of the paragraph, I'm sceptical that it would be received in good faith. Consistent rule breaking could only seriously be judged by analyzing rule breaks per post and/or time between violations (hence the purpose of expiring Moderation points). Indefinite Notes are not an adequate marker of consistent violations.
    Last edited by Cope; October 05, 2021 at 06:12 AM.



  12. #32
    PikeStance's Avatar Assume Good Intentions
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,687
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The point of the Suspension Review would not to determine if a rule was broken; it would be to determine whether a Citizen's suspension is justified. The point of the Tribunal is to determine whether a rule was broken; it is not to determine whether a Citizen's suspension is justified. .
    If you violated the ToS, it is justified.

  13. #33

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    If you violated the ToS, it is justified.
    Self-evidently, I disagree that this is necessarily the case.



  14. #34

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Section 3, Article I of the Constitution states:

    I suggest changing it to the following:
    Support. The Curia and Curial membership standards are independent of the Tribunal/Moderation. It makes sense to have an appeals process for Curial punishments.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; October 05, 2021 at 11:19 AM.
    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

  15. #35
    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
    18,496
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Since I have joined the moderation staff, nobody has received an infraction for a rule he violated six years ago, with the exception of porn. Also, no infraction has been issued for censor-bypassing in the jokes thread.
    Two infractions for the same thing, 7 years apart, no note for either one.


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

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






  16. #36
    PikeStance's Avatar Assume Good Intentions
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,687
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Two infractions for the same thing, 7 years apart, no note for either one.

    I do not think this a good example for a bill that is advocating for leniency. Three months doesn't seem long enough.

  17. #37
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,269

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Mispost before I was finished ---- phone.

    ________


    Regarding the example, I do not believe that tells the full story. 1 pointers are only issued in extreme circumstances where we expect the ToS to be intimately familiar to the person infracted due to previous history. If someone had a significant number (exceptional amounts even) of other infractions before its expected they would be familiar enough with the rules for a minor 1 point infraction, which definitely is not that extreme compared to a 3 pointer or 5, 9 pointer etc.

    I would expect this situation wouldnt normally apply to citizens unless they were crossing the line pretty often in the past and at present as well. Would we want those people as citizens??? Surely they can behave themselves especially after reading the rules so many times in the past. Other sites would simply ban the person for a single infraction btw, rather than let them become a prominent member. So I think this is a pretty fair and lenient approach. Heck I've been banned before from some subreddits.
    Last edited by z3n; October 05, 2021 at 03:20 PM.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  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
    18,496
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    The fact that other sites operate differently is not an argument. TWC is not other sites.

    Heck I've been banned before from some subreddits.
    That's completely irrelevant.

    People ask for an example and when one is provided their first reaction is to immediately look for reasons to denounce the example and the person who provided it. Typical. Moderation would do literally anything to avoid giving up an iota of internet power.

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

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






  19. #39
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,269

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Stating policy in a thread where an example which is the exception and not the norm isn't denouncing the example or person. I quite like the work you've been doing as our respectable consul. It's just that a personal anecdote can be a misrepresentation of what truly happens. I'd rather clarify than let confusion reign.

    Typical. Moderation would do literally anything to avoid giving up an iota of internet power.
    I really don't mind TWCs moderation or various avenues of leniency in the slightest. The Praetorium often grants reversals simply because the appealant asked respectfully and honestly, recognizing they made a mistake according to site rules. I've never seen a site like this and I take exception to the idea it's draconian and harsh, I'd say it's the complete opposite. Maybe even too gentle but hey, we have had a Crandar. If you had posted in the Praetorium explaining the situation for that infraction I'm certain it would have been reversed at that point. We're not really evil and dont exist in a vacuum without knowing how other sites work. That's one of the reasons I even applied to become a moderator after a significant amount of time as a citizen.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  20. #40

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    Stating policy in a thread where an example which is the exception and not the norm isn't denouncing the example or person. I quite like the work you've been doing as our respectable consul. It's just that a personal anecdote can be a misrepresentation of what truly happens. I'd rather clarify than let confusion reign.
    The purpose of the amendment is to address the exceptions and offer some flexibility. It is not to accuse Moderation of inconsistency or under performance.

    I really don't mind TWCs moderation or various avenues of leniency in the slightest. The Praetorium often grants reversals simply because the appealant asked respectfully and honestly, recognizing they made a mistake according to site rules. I've never seen a site like this and I take exception to the idea it's draconian and harsh, I'd say it's the complete opposite. Maybe even too gentle but hey, we have had a Crandar. If you had posted in the Praetorium explaining the situation for that infraction I'm certain it would have been reversed at that point. We're not really evil and dont exist in a vacuum without knowing how other sites work. That's one of the reasons I even applied to become a moderator after a significant amount of time as a citizen.
    The Suspension Review would operate on a similar basis to the Praetorium. It would it would empower the Citizenry to grant clemency on the matter of Citizen suspensions. If one can recognize the value of the Praetorium, one can appreciate the intention of this amendment.



Page 2 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
  •