Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

  1. #1
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    .
    .

    DefinitionNon disclose as applied to TWC means that private information obtained by members through special user permissions (access to restricted forums, moderation permissions etc) are not to be released without the consent of the concerned member\department concerned.
    IntroductionUntil recently the above principle has worked as intended with department heads making their assigned staff aware of the ND obligations and assuring compliance and as such this amendment is theoretically just adding unnecessary paperwork.
    However, the incumbent consul has claimed that above non disclosure does not apply to him\his department as he isn't staff. As is witnessed in his ostrakon against AnthoniusII where he made public private information about AnthoniusII obtained in the line of his duty as consul.

    ND violation
    Quote Originally Posted by Ostrakon View Post
    Over the past few months of his regaining his Citizenship his posts have been moderated or referred to moderation more than any non-permanently suspended member I have ever seen in my years as a Consul/Censor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    "referring to moderation" means asking them to step in and take action because our warnings were being repeatedly ignored and our local moderation tools were exhausted.
    Various Justifications for non compliance
    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    The Consul is not "staff" and is not bound by SND. I have no idea why people keep claiming that we are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    There is no such obligation.
    The Consul's authority and power is defined, granted, and limited solely via the Constitution, not some archaic list of policies in a hidden subforum in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door reading "beware of the leopard".
    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    Below is the only text in the constitution related to non-disclosure agreements and it does not state that the Consul or his staff his bound by them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sec I, Regulations and Procedures
    4 Subject to the procedures in Section III. Comments which cannot be supported due to either 'Non-Disclosure Agreement,' or existing within restricted forums, are prohibited.
    As the consul states himself in the above quotes there is no binding instruction for him and the curia officers to observe non disclosure obligation like any other department does and as such I am proposing to add this amendment to bring the curia at par with the rest of the forum where ND is concerned.
    SummaryDue to challenges by the consul it is necessary to have a binding and clear instruction in the constitution with regards to curia officer's ND obligations.
    ProposalArticle II. The Consul and Curial Officers

    The Consul acts as a local moderator of the Curia and its related fora and is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks are accomplished. Two Censors, appointed by the Consul, assist with Curial tasks and review referrals from Curial infractions.11 Magistrates review Moderation actions in the Tribunal. 7 The consul and the censors are bound by non disclosure obligations.13

    13
    Non public information regarding a member or forum department obtained through special user permissions (access to restricted forums, moderation permissions etc) and from external sources (twitter, other forums etc) are not to be released without the consent of the concerned member\department.


    Last edited by Gigantus; April 11, 2022 at 11:17 PM. Reason: Added outside source part










  2. #2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    I'm confused. Is this an unnecessary paperwork as you suggest? Or is this a required clarification since there is no binding instruction as you also suggest?
    The Armenian Issue

  3. #3
    Dismounted Feudal Knight's Avatar my horse for a unicode
    Content Director Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    there!
    Posts
    3,050
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    The required clarification comes because something that was traditionally respected, no longer is. It was only unnecessary when past consulships abided by it anyway despite not being written explicitly. Anyway, I'm game for this.
    With great power, comes great chonky dragons to feed enemies of the state. --Targaryens?
    Spoiler for wait what dragons?



  4. #4
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I'm confused. Is this an unnecessary paperwork as you suggest? Or is this a required clarification since there is no binding instruction as you also suggest?
    As AFK points out as well: this has never been an issue in the curia before - but as you can see from the 'justification' quotes adding binding wording to the constitution has become a necessity as the consul rejects any ND obligations for the curia to the point of allowing release of private information (see 'violation' quotes) as nothing binding can be found in the constitution.

    Hence the 'until recently' introduction.
    Last edited by Gigantus; April 10, 2022 at 12:17 PM.










  5. #5

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Non disclose as applied to TWC means that private information obtained by members through special user permissions (access to restricted forums...
    Would also logically (and morally) apply to members with access to other restricted forums, e.g. awards committees, and mod dev forums. Whilst you're doing this could you clarify if you mean to include those in this ammendment too? If not, and as those aren't necessarily subject to the curia/constitution, should all restricted forums be subject to NDA within the ToS as a general principle?

  6. #6
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Support.

    The Consul is staff, just like local moderators are staff. If the Consul thinks he is not staff I think he got his memory scrambled by a staff of thinking debuff.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; April 10, 2022 at 04:08 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  7. #7
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    The Curia is not part of TWC Staff and thus this amendment is invalid and not applicable.

    Additionally, this is already covered in the Constitution.

    4 Subject to the procedures in Section III. Comments which cannot be supported due to either 'Non-Disclosure Agreement,' or existing within restricted forums, are prohibited.
    Or is this a required clarification since there is no binding instruction as you also suggest?
    As you can see above, there are already binding instructions - this essentially would accomplish nothing.

    It is not within the Curia's purview to decide who is and isn't staff or covered under staff non-disclosure. Only the Hexagon council can define who is and isn't staff and therefore who is and isn't bound by SND.

    If not, and as those aren't necessarily subject to the curia/constitution,
    That would simply further invalidate the amendment. The Curia has no jurisdiction over anything that happens outside of the Curia.
    Last edited by Akar; April 10, 2022 at 05:15 PM.

    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







  8. #8
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    O rly?

    PS: If the Curia is not part of site staff, explain Magistrates
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #9
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    That's just a list of usergroups, I have no idea what you think that proves?

    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







  10. #10
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Quote Originally Posted by makanyane View Post
    Would also logically (and morally) apply to members with access to other restricted forums, e.g. awards committees, and mod dev forums. Whilst you're doing this could you clarify if you mean to include those in this ammendment too? If not, and as those aren't necessarily subject to the curia/constitution, should all restricted forums be subject to NDA within the ToS as a general principle?
    A valid thought - in principle the wording in the footnote covers any information gained within a forum with restricted access or as result of special user permissions in it's definition of ND. Which means this would apply to Local Managers (LMs) and development forums as well if established in the ToS.
    The reason why I hadn't touched on this is frankly because it was extremely rare during my tenure as moderation\modding staff head and was always addressed asap - not just by removing the relevant posts but by also addressing the underlying issue, in nearly all 'non staff' cases it was about disagreements between modders.

    Amending the ToS (adding it to off topic?) is a totally different procedure if memory recalls and once that would be added this amendment becomes obsolete as the ToS in this case would override the constitution - removing the obsolete part(s) could be included in the ToS amendment procedure unless it requires another constitution amendment procedure.
    Last edited by Gigantus; April 10, 2022 at 09:59 PM.










  11. #11
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    Additionally, this is already covered in the Constitution.
    4 Subject to the procedures in Section III. Comments which cannot be supported due to either 'Non-Disclosure Agreement,' or existing within restricted forums, are prohibited.
    As you can see above, there are already binding instructions - this essentially would accomplish nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    Below is the only text in the constitution related to non-disclosure agreements and it does not state that the Consul or his staff his bound by them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sec I, Regulations and Procedures
    4 Subject to the procedures in Section III. Comments which cannot be supported due to either 'Non-Disclosure Agreement,' or existing within restricted forums, are prohibited.
    Make up your mind, will you? Especially in light of allowing private information originating in the curia to be published in the curia - and confirming the origin of it plus claiming lack of ND obligation of curia officers when it got pointed out to you (see the 'ND violation' and 'justification' quotes). Never mind not taking any action at all to remedy the situation.

    If anything then the two quotes bring home that a clear ND obligation for the curia has to be entered in the constitution, given that the consul interprets ND obligations in whatever way he deems fit up to the point of actually requiring a constitutional mention to make something binding for him (see second quote in 'justifications')

    Quote Originally Posted by Consulr View Post
    The Curia has no jurisdiction over anything that happens outside of the Curia.
    Totally true and utterly irrelevant as nothing of the sort is being claimed or proposed by the amendment. See the blue part above of what is claimed, aka what the amendment aims to prevent in future. Unless you wish to claim that an ostrakon does not fall under your jurisdiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    Only the Hexagon council can define who is and isn't staff and therefore who is and isn't bound by SND.
    Still insisting that unless you be declared staff ND obligations aren't applicable to you because they are commonly as SND? You may wish to have a look at what is quoted twice from you: even the constitution calls it 'Non-Disclosure Agreement'. No staff mentioning there as far as I can see - and according to you it's the only mentioning of ND in the constitution.

    Spoiler for mildly off topic remark
    While the two posts are already two hours apart a narrow minded approach of the double post rule may still be applied here, totally ignoring that the posts are separate simply because of them addressing two totally different aspects of the discussion and their relative length.
    Last edited by Gigantus; April 10, 2022 at 11:27 PM. Reason: @#%# gremlins










  12. #12
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Make up your mind, will you?
    There is no incongruity there.

    The text of the Constitution says that comments that cannot be support due to SND are not permitted, but it does not say the Consul or Censors are considered staff nor bound by non-disclosure.

    The text is both binding and irrelevant to the Consular position.

    Especially in light of allowing private information originating in the curia to be published in the curia - and confirming the origin of it plus claiming lack of ND obligation of curia officers when it got pointed out to you (see the 'ND violation' and 'justification' quotes). Never mind not taking any action at all to remedy the situation.
    I can't make heads or tails of what this sentence means.

    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







  13. #13
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    This amendment clarifies the consul and censors responsabilities. I really can't see where the issue is.

    Beside, it says Non Disclosure not Staff Non Disclosure which means that it (the amendment) doesn't include the curial positions into the TWC staff.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

  14. #14
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Beside, it says Non Disclosure not Staff Non Disclosure which means that it (the amendment) doesn't include the curial positions into the TWC staff.
    It literally says "staff non disclosure" in the "definitions" part.

    Declaring who is and isn't staff is not within the remit of the Curia and any amendment trying to do as such would inherently be invalid.

    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







  15. #15
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    You're trying to move the discussion away. The point of this amendment is not to decide if the curial positions are part of the staff or not but just to decide if they're bound to the ND or not.
    The definition part is just a preamble. The important part you're obviousdly ignoring is this one:

    Article II. The Consul and Curial Officers

    The Consul acts as a local moderator of the Curia and its related fora and is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks are accomplished. Two Censors, appointed by the Consul, assist with Curial tasks and review referrals from Curial infractions.11 Magistrates review Moderation actions in the Tribunal. 7 The consul and the censors are bound by non disclosure obligations.13

    13
    Private information obtained through special user permissions (access to restricted forums, moderation permissions etc) are not to be released without the consent of the concerned member\department.
    As you can see, it doesn't say "staff" anywhrere. So the amendment remains valid IMO.
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; April 10, 2022 at 11:32 PM. Reason: typo
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

  16. #16
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    The intent of the amendment is made perfectly clear both in the preamble as well as later on - to redefine the Consular position as being "staff" and thus bound under "staff non disclosure"

    It is commonly referred to as the 'Staff Non Disclosure' or 'SND'
    bring the curia at par with the rest of the forum where ND is concerned.

    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







  17. #17
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    There is no incongruity there.

    The text of the Constitution says that comments that cannot be support due to SND are not permitted, but it does not say the Consul or Censors are considered staff nor bound by non-disclosure.

    The text is both binding and irrelevant to the Consular position.
    I take that as confirmation that this amendment is indeed sorely needed to stop curia officers claiming that they are not bound by ND that otherwise gets observed by any other department.
    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    I can't make heads or tails of what this sentence means.
    If you had a look at the quotes in the amendment it should be rather clear:
    ND violation Quote 1 = the private information from the ostrakon - inadmissible anywhere else in the forum due to ND violation
    ND violation Quote 2 = yourself confirming that the referrals mentioned are indeed a curia officer contacting moderation with requests for further action
    Your inaction after being made aware of that ND violation, in combination with yet another claim of ND not applying to curia officers ('violation' quote #2), is tantamount to ignoring to what amounts the only mention of ND in the curia that you are so eager to quote: "Comments which cannot be supported due to either 'Non-Disclosure Agreement,' or existing within restricted forums, are prohibited."

    Unless you wish to claim now that this doesn't apply either in the ostrakon. Or that 'validating and publishing' an ostrakon is not covered under 'prohibited'.
    On second thought: I am getting it now - you do not consider the release of the private information in the ostrakon a breach of ND as the information originated in the curia whose officers according to you are not bound by ND, hence it wasn't ND material to start with. Things is: the info also exists in the restricted forum of moderation who can't be too happy over it's release as THEY are bound by ND obligations.

    But all that are simply additional nails that aren't really needed. While it clearly shows that unless the constitution calls you by name it doesn't apply to you, your comment underneath is more then reason enough why this amendment exists and is sorely needed:

    Quote Originally Posted by Consul View Post
    The text of the Constitution .../... does not say the Consul or Censors are considered staff nor bound by non-disclosure.
    Still going on about being staff but nice to note that you are coming of the S prefix. Which is no improvement on the implication of that statement - that this amendment is sorely needed to stop the continued exploit of the absence of a clear mentioning of ND obligation of curia officers.
    Last edited by Gigantus; April 11, 2022 at 12:47 AM.










  18. #18
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    @ Akar, your interpretation of the preamble is mistaken. Nowhere it is written that the curial positions will be considered as staff one. The point here is to decide if the non disclosure principle applies or not to the curial positions. Nothing else.
    So, why not let the citizens decide?

    Edit: ninja-ed by Gig
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

  19. #19
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,182
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    I take that as confirmation that this amendment is indeed sorely needed to stop curia officers claiming that they are not bound by ND that otherwise gets observed by any other department.
    Here you go again with the misplaced insinuation that the Consul/Censors are staff. They are not. It is not within the Curia's remit to decide who is an isn't staff. Any bill attempting to do so would be inherently invalid.

    @Gigantus

    The rest of your post is still incoherent, sorry.

    So, why not let the citizens decide?
    Because it is not within the Curia's remit to decide that. Only Hex can decide what is and isn't considered "staff".

    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







  20. #20
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia

    ^^ Your claim about including the curial positions into staff is incoherent.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

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
  •