It isn't the Consul violating the user's privacy, it's Moderation.
The point of a) is, that the Consul per being an elected official under threat of Hex veto is a quasi-staffer that can be expected to treat the shared information confidentially.
Originally Posted by Cope
The problem isn't the the details being leaked to the public, it's the Citizen having their status revoked due to privacy violations, as per Moderation's own claims. It's a shame to see how little proper procedure and consistency suddenly appears to matter
Citizens are having their status revoked due to their own ToS breaches. You're confounding cause and process.
"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.
It seems things have changed there. When I worked there it was made quite clear that what is posted in the Politia remains there.
"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.
The point of a) is, that the Consul per being an elected official under threat of Hex veto is a quasi-staffer that can be expected to treat the shared information confidentially.
As per Moderation's own claim, Consul has no right to the information in the first place. The act of disclosing the information to the Consul violates the Citizen's privacy.
Citizens are having their status revoked due to their own ToS breaches. You're confounding cause and process.
The Article requires that Consul suspend the Citizen. This can only happen if Moderation (again, according to Moderation) violates its own privacy policy to inform the Consul. So I repeat: it's a shame to see how little proper procedure and consistency suddenly appears to matter.
It seems things have changed there. When I worked there it was made quite clear that what is posted in the Politia remains there.
This was my understanding as well.
-----
It is constitutionally sound practice. A citizen can choose to not be a citizen if they feel they are having your privacy compromise.
Just reiterate. Initially, citizenship applications and all disciplinary proceedings took place in the privacy of the CdeC. It was only made public at the request of the applicant/ appellant. So if information is shared it was my their choice. No one is forcing you to be citizen. If you do not accept this fact, then you should resign your citizenship.
Having received a reasoning from administration for the pre-existing SND issues in this case and the amendment not changing the origin\cause of these pre-existing issues herewith now the hopefully last revision of the amendment. It incorporates Copes proposal to have the Consul contact the affected member to inform him that procedures have been initiated and make him aware of the appeals option, tribunal and praetorium, and the time limit (the provisions - may require coding although listed in amendment).
Seeing that the Consul is now involved right at the start of the process as opposed to only at the conclusion (previous amendment) I have reduced moderations further involvement to matters involving a praetorium appeal.
Also incorporated is a clarification regarding secondary appeals, eg a renewal of the 72 hour period after the primary appeal has concluded.
2. "... as the appeal is concluded" instead of "... as a verdict is returned", since appeals can end without a verdict (resolved, thrown out, invalidated)
5. is probably a copy paste mistake and identical to 2.
Addendum 7. If such cannot be verified because the citizen refuses to share the relevant information the Consul shall execute the suspension anyhow.
"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.
2. "... as the appeal is concluded" instead of "... as a verdict is returned", since appeals can end without a verdict (resolved, thrown out, invalidated)
5. is probably a copy paste mistake and identical to 2.
Good catch, changed.
Addendum 7. If such cannot be verified because the citizen refuses to share the relevant information the Consul shall execute the suspension anyhow.
I assumed verification would take place through the same method it does when the Consul verifies someone is eligible for office (has no infractions within blah blah) - by asking moderation or hex.
I see. The rest of the points was mainly about communication with the citizen, so I read 6 as such as well.
Why is 5 still identical to 2?
"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.
Addendum 7 - not required. Verification is envisaged to be direct (tribunal appeal) or by request to moderation (praetorium), the latter being covered as pre-exisiting issue where SND is concerned. (the old 'revoke' implication)
It would actually be essential in step 2 of Akar's draft: It is not specified what appeal comes first as either can be. Which means that at the end of the initial hold period, and no tribunal appeal started, the consul will need to confirm with moderation whether a praetorium appeal has been lodged. Hence the generic wording with respect to verification.
The same approach applies if a tribunal appeal has been lodged first and was concluded, regardless of outcome, before proceeding (blends into step 6). It's unlikely that a secondary appeal will be launched if the primary one is successful but I do recall one or two occasions where the appeals ran parallel. This approach accounts for it.
All the above is implied in my wording but seems to require coding\expanding, especially since the consul may not have moderation background and hence would not be familiar with the details\implications of the extended appeals process.
Step 4 - not required. This information should be part of the initial contact by the consul (the provisions), rather similar to the current advice provided in infraction messages.
Step 5 - this is the secondary appeal, needs to be specified
I appreciate the effort and will plagiarize whatever makes my latest amendment easier to understand and follow. Do continue, I will then post the ABFF version at roughly the same time of day again. Definitely gonna do the headline expansion.
Last edited by Gigantus; October 26, 2021 at 06:23 AM.
I assumed verification would take place through the same method it does when the Consul verifies someone is eligible for office (has no infractions within blah blah) - by asking moderation or hex.
Opposed. Moderation violates Citizen privacy by coordinating with the Consul on disciplinary matters.
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
I'm not sure I see where you're coming from regarding number 4 being unneeded. Number 4 is where your right to a secondary appeal is outlined as well as explaining what happens in the case of an unsuccessful appeal. Without number 4 that text would be absent from the amendment and it would be left open to interpretation what and inference what takes place after an unsuccessful appeal.
Opposed. Moderation violates Citizen privacy by coordinating with the Consul on disciplinary matters.
How is a citizen's privacy violated by moderation informing the Consul of the existence of an infraction?
Unneeded in the sense that the member should have received that explanation already in step 1. In other words: you are making yourself extra work.
'The provisions' of this amendment are dual appeal and 72 hours 'hold' before each of them. Implied in my inimitable style and in need of specification.
As to violation - I assume that was a rhetorical question in view of your modcomm post? Let me quote the response to it here so we can keep it 'in the family':
Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I
The moderation staff is simply following what the citizenship itself has voted. The privacy of each member's moderation record can be temporarily suspended*, depending on the circumstances. For example, when the offender appeals, brings up his infraction record as an argument in the moderation commentary and, in the case of citizens, receives an infraction. Again, this is the result of what the citizens themselves have decided on and is also accepted by anyone who agrees to join their ranks and follow the constitution. In any case, the repercussions are even more minor for the citizens than in the rest of the cases, as the information is limited to the Consul, who is himself restrained with exactly the same concept of privacy as the moderators. That being said, if the citizens believe that the clause is unfair or whatever, they free to vote for an amendment.
*The use of the verb "violates" was a mistake, as nothing is actually violated. On my defense, I wrote that in a private message in a quick reply to one of Gigantus' questions.
Last edited by Gigantus; October 26, 2021 at 02:48 PM.
How is a citizen's privacy violated by moderation informing the Consul of the existence of an infraction?
It's against Moderation's policy to share disciplinary history, even with the Consul. My impression was that Hex/Moderation prioritized their own policies above the Curia's legislation where a conflict existed (presumably they wouldn't allow the Curia to vote Citizens exempt from the ToS for instance). As it turns out, they just pick and choose.
The most obvious way of resolving the problem (other than revoking the Article) would be for the Consul to be included in Moderation or for the entire suspension procedure to be managed by the Administration.
Last edited by Cope; October 26, 2021 at 07:00 PM.