.
.
Support
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
Support in principle, but too long-winded, includes unnecessary text and ignores Praetorium appeals. The wording needs some more thought.
Thanks, will add praetorium '...allow for a tribunal and\or praetorium appeal to...'
Tried to put all the essential points like delay period, appeal impact in as short as possible paragraph\wording, your suggestions to simplify (remove unnecessary text) while retaining the meaning\purpose are welcome.
The 'consecutive infractions' as well as the 'and forfeits' section should be logical conclusions but then this is the curia where 'if it ain't written down it's disputable (or, unintentionally, will not get enforced)'.
This sentence is entirely unnecessary, imo. If someone does not meet the requirements for office, they cannot hold office. You don't need to include this sentence since the citizenship requirement to hold office is listed elsewhere.and forfeits all offices that specifically require citizenship.
This is a confusing sentence that I don't feel like adds anything. I have no idea what was wrong with the language that included "until the infraction expires or is revoked" but it was way clearer and in line with how things are currently done.Consecutive infractions will add to the suspension period according to their validity period.
I think this language could use some heavy reworking as well. Way too long winded and unnecessary.Should an appeal be lodged in this timely manner then moderation will hold the consul's notification until a verdict is rendered that returns a penalty.
All in all a good idea but one that needs a good bit of reworking before I can support it.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Forfeits all office - I did mention that it is logical and also why I included it. If is is listed elsewhere then it can certainly go. Done.
Consecutive infraction - a second or even third\fourth infraction after the initial one while the preceding one is still 'current'. Should also be a logical conclusion that the suspension will be extended until the last infraction has expired, see my reasoning with regards to 'logical'
Shortened the 'appeal be lodged' section to : In case of such an appeal moderation will....
The rest will need to remain - someone is bond to question what will happen if the appeal is granted. But I am open to suggestions otherwise.
Guess the temptation of using legalese got the better of me...
It is listed in the requirements for office. If you do not meet the requirements, you are no longer eligible for the office.Forfeits all office - I did mention that it is logical and also why I included it. If is is listed elsewhere then it can certainly go. Done.
This is already policy and a logical result of an infraction equaling suspension. I'm not sure this language needs to be included here.Consecutive infraction - a second or even third\fourth infraction after the initial one while the preceding one is still 'current'. Should also be a logical conclusion that the suspension will be extended in that case, see my reasoning with regards to 'logical'
I'm also still confused about the change to "for 90 days" instead of "until the infraction expires"
I'd change this,
to something like this this,In case of such an appeal moderation will hold the consul's notification until a verdict is rendered that returns a penalty.
If an appeal is filed within 72 hours moderation will not notify the Consul unless the appellant is unsuccessful
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
90 days - the infraction period will run from the day it has been issued. In case of an unsuccessful appeal that means that the total period of suspension could be reduced by as much as two weeks or even three weeks (see my spoilered list in the OP). That's a bit much of a freebie, hence 90 days from implementation.
Appeal section - same effect, different approach. The 72 hours in connection with the appeal is already mentioned. But I think my 'hold until' is a bit too upscale, how about this:
"In case of such an appeal moderation will not notify the Consul unless the appellant is unsuccessful."
Consecutive infractions - just to make it clear for me before I remove, please confirm: the current policy is to amend the suspension time by the expiry date of the consecutive infraction? Example: a remaining suspension of 10 days would be extended by roughly 20 days (30 days default period minus remaining 10 days) when the consecutive infraction is received.
Okay, I think I understand your point and intention here (even if I disagree that it's too much of a freebie).90 days - the infraction period will run from the day it has been issued. In case of an unsuccessful appeal that means that the total period of suspension could be reduced by as much as two weeks or even three weeks (see my spoilered list in the OP). That's a bit much of a freebie, hence 90 days from implementation
So the way it currently works is as follows: If you have an infraction issued on 1/1/2021 and it expires on 4/1/2021 then you are eligible for citizenship again on 4/1/2021. But if you receive an additional infraction on say 3/1/2021 that expires on 6/1/2021 then your citizenship's suspension is extended until the expiration of that infraction (6/1/2021). As soon as all active infractions expire a user is once again eligible for citizenship.Consecutive infractions - just to make it clear for me before I remove, please confirm: the current policy is to amend the suspension time by the expiry date of the consecutive infraction? Example: a remaining suspension of 10 days would be extended by roughly 20 days (30 days default period minus remaining 10 days) when the consecutive infraction is received.
That language seems good to me, yeah."In case of such an appeal moderation will not notify the Consul unless the appellant is unsuccessful."
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Support.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Re-supporting
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
When you have the required support I will move it to vote .
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Setting aside the fact I am yet to receive an explanation for why Moderation sharing infraction history with the Consul doesn't breach non disclosure, there are still questions about language and process. In my view the procedure (if it should even be allowed at all) should be as follows:
1. Citizen receives infraction.
2. Moderation informs Consul that Citizen has received infraction.
3. Consul notifies the Citizen of the following:
(1) That as a consequence of his infraction his Citizenship will be suspended for 90 days.
(2) That the suspension will be stayed if an appeal is lodged within 72 hours and until the appeals process is complete.*
(3) That if the appeal(s) fail, the 90 day suspension will go into effect at the conclusion of the appeals process.
(4) That the suspension will be invalidated by a successful appeal or revocation of the infraction.
(5) That if the appellant wishes to file a secondary appeal he must do so within 72 of the conclusion of the first.
*Moderation informs the Consul of Citizen appeals filed in the Praetorium and whether the appeal is succesful.
Assuming this is agreeable, it would probably be easiest to include it as a footnote.
Please specify what you mean with 'yet to receive an explanation...' or what the relevance is for this case as this is the first time you raise the issue.
1 and 2 is already in place\practice.
3,1 this is basically the only change to the proposed amendment, eg consul informs about suspension and holds for three days instead of moderation
3,2 as is specified already
3,3 ditto
3,4 obvious and superfluous
3,5 Please specify what you mean with a secondary appeal, eg tribunal follow praetorium? If so then that's covered already by mentioning both appeal courts as you suggested yourself.
"*Moderation informs the Consul of Citizen appeals filed in the Praetorium and whether the appeal is succesful."
This would not be required if moderation holds the suspension as proposed at present nor do I think moderation will actually agree to it as it is a privacy matter, eg it would require consent by the appellant, where as the provision of the notification to the consul once all avenues have been exhausted would not constitute a breach of SND. I would need to get that confirmed, so hang tight.
Could I get a feed back from the consul if changing the procedure from moderation holding the notification for suspension to him receiving a immediate notification, holding the notification for three days and being obliged to inform the member about the suspension even though he received the infraction already?
All other points are already in practice (and do not require mentioning again as was established for similar points from the original proposal) or covered by the present wording. Foot notes should therefore not be necessary.
As aside: you realize that you split the onus of keeping track between moderation and consul instead of leaving it in one hand?
It appears you didn't want to reduce the wording as such but rather relegate it to foot notes - could have told so and saved us a lengthy debate on how to simplify the text that you deemed too long.
Support.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Support.
I think that you get the right amount of support now to move it to vote at your will Gig
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader
Support
Let's vote
Appreciate the support. While it would allow me to push the proposal as it is right now without further ado I would like to first receive a feed back from moderation with regards to the Praetorium info issue. This would need to be taken into account anyhow in case a procedural change, like proposed by Cope for this amendment, is desired at a later point.
Plus I hate loose ends.