Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

  1. #61
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Not sure how having less severe measures would make people speak their mind that the conduct was OK. We had the opposite of that; peopling voicing opposition while condemning or acknowledging the conduct.
    That's certainly not what I meant. The current system incentivizes sweeping poor behaviour under the rug when voters feel it's bad, but not bad enough for the only available punishment. And so, in having only one, severe, punishment, the ostrakon actually achieves the opposite of what it's supposed to do: it compels citizens to come up with excuses not to condemn poor behaviour. I think it's reasonable to think that if we offer more granularity, this perverse incentive to lower standards of behaviour will disappear.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  2. #62

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    That's certainly not what I meant. The current system incentivizes sweeping poor behaviour under the rug when voters feel it's bad, but not bad enough for the only available punishment. And so, in having only one, severe, punishment, the ostrakon actually achieves the opposite of what it's supposed to do: it compels citizens to come up with excuses not to condemn poor behaviour. I think it's reasonable to think that if we offer more granularity, this perverse incentive to lower standards of behaviour will disappear.
    You say you didn't mean that but then you keep on saying the same thing. I don't see the logic in that. People are not compelled to make excuses just because they are presented with a single option. Just because one doesn't think the appropriate punishment is available it doesn't mean they have to sweep poor conduct under the rug. I don't see any logic in why people would lower standards because of lacking punishment options. This, however, seems to stem from the misguided insistence on thinking losing one's Citizenship as the nuclear option.

    Perhaps, we should discuss what was the appropriate punishment for AnthoniusII. He was displaying abysmal conduct for the past few years with multiple infractions along the way. Latest increase in hostility towards people trying to help him or people just doing their jobs was what triggered the Ostrakon. What would be the appropriate punishment for him from a Citizenship standpoint? What would that accomplish? Remember, we were dealing with a consistent poor conduct that was regularly moderated.
    Last edited by PointOfViewGun; April 20, 2022 at 01:59 AM.
    The Armenian Issue

  3. #63
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Not sure how having less severe measures would make people speak their mind that the conduct was OK.
    This is not what I am saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    You say you didn't mean that but then you keep on saying the same thing.
    I'm saying less severe measures would make people speak their mind that the conduct was not OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    People are not compelled to make excuses just because they are presented with a single option. Just because one doesn't think the appropriate punishment is available it doesn't mean they have to sweep poor conduct under the rug. I don't see any logic in why people would lower standards because of lacking punishment options. This, however, seems to stem from the misguided insistence on thinking losing one's Citizenship as the nuclear option.
    The need to justify one's own actions is certainly part of human nature.The question is not whether you or anyone else thinks it's logical. It's whether it happens.



    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Perhaps, we should discuss what was the appropriate punishment for AnthoniusII. He was displaying abysmal conduct for the past few years with multiple infractions along the way. Latest increase in hostility towards people trying to help him or people just doing their jobs was what triggered the Ostrakon. What would be the appropriate punishment for him from a Citizenship standpoint? What would that accomplish? Remember, we were dealing with a consistent poor conduct that was regularly moderated.
    I have a better idea. Why don't we organize a poll with the options: dismissal, a suspension of 1,3 or 6 months or revocation of the citizenship. We can discuss it all together and then vote.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  4. #64

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    This is not what I am saying.
    I'm saying less severe measures would make people speak their mind that the conduct was not OK.
    That was not an issue. People did speak their mind that the conduct was not OK. A reluctance to say that was not an issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    The need to justify one's own actions is certainly part of human nature.The question is not whether you or anyone else thinks it's logical. It's whether it happens.
    Then your reasoning for it happening was moot as that's what we were discussing. Yet, sweeping under the rug wasn't really the issue. Partisanship on some people's part did result in that but having punishment options doesn't cure that. Sir Adrian explicitly stated that he would vote in support for Pontifex Maximus' Ostrakon if it was not Akar that initiated. What would this proposal of his, which he cites that specific Ostrakon as well, contribute to that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I have a better idea. Why don't we organize a poll with the options: dismissal, a suspension of 1,3 or 6 months or revocation of the citizenship. We can discuss it all together and then vote.
    That gives the indication that you're unwilling to substantiate your support but sure.
    The Armenian Issue

  5. #65
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    That gives the indication that you're unwilling to substantiate your support but sure.
    Does that mean you support the amendment?
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  6. #66

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Does that mean you support the amendment?
    Not in its current state, no.
    The Armenian Issue

  7. #67

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Based on the OP its ok for me.
    Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
    - Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54

  8. #68
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Looks like there is no more discussion and I have my 3 supports, High Lord Consul of the Imperium Curialis please move this to vote.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #69
    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
    20,181
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Moved to vote.

    Vote here.

    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. #70

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Pikestance considers it's common sense to bring back the CdeC. The rest of the Curia disagrees.

    I consider it's common sense to allow for multiple options in an ostrakon. Both you and Pikestance disagree.
    LOL, I have never stated I wanted the CdeC back. Its removal was poorly thought out and has had a negative affect on a the Curia ever since. That is true. The constant tinkering is a waste of time, but without an active owner... how else to waste our time?
    I am not against multiple options either, but if it is a circus now, then it is going to be when this is implemented. if you want drama and false activity, then vote yes. If you want people to take you seriously, you would be wise to vote no. If my time here has taught me anything, it would be great fun if it passes and even more fun when people call for a change again.

    So, I am making popcorn

  11. #71
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Pike, we've talked for ages about 'citizen standards'. Theorizing has led to nothing. This is simply taking a different approach to establishing some norms: case by case, in practice.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  12. #72

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Pike, we've talked for ages about 'citizen standards'. Theorizing has led to nothing. This is simply taking a different approach to establishing some norms: case by case, in practice.
    I know what it is. It is exactly what we had before both with the CdeC and with the Triumvirate. The exception is that now it is done by the active members of the Curia rather than through elected members of the Curia. Ironically, people objected to citizen's referrals because it was misused and abused. The only thing this is going to do is bring a Neo-referral system back. Like I said, if you want a faux activity and drama, then this is your proposal. I sit back and enjoy the show you are so desperately want t provide for me.

    If you really want to enforce good behavior then continue with the zero-tolerance we have now. You get infracted, and you lose your badge. The only thing we need to determine, if you get "x" within a certain time period, then we discuss removal. If need a place to star the discussion, the threshold to becoming a citizen is no infractions within a 6 month period. Seriously, if you get infracted twice in a 6 month period, then citizenship may not be for you. Do we really need people making the site look bad by misbehaving with a badge?

  13. #73
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    "You get infracted, you lose your badge" is not going anywhere. This proposal is necessary because ever since we got rid of the Triumvirate, every single attempt of the Curia to police its ranks has failed spectacularly, and each and every time it was for precisely the same reason - some people did not think that permanent removal was warranted.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  14. #74
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    @Pike

    As the ToS is the standard of behaviour for everyone, it makes sense to use it as an absolute bottom line for citizen standards. It may need some work (as per Gigantus' example) and could be extended with longer sentences for repeat offenders, but at the end of the day it's only for those who fall foul of the ToS.

    This proposal deals with the other aspect of citizen discipline: the Ostrakon. I know intuitively it may sound strange, given the Ostrakon is associated with very severe misbehaviour, but it actually is the only tool to establish standards higher than merely staying on the right side of the ToS most of the time. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the suspension levels should be allowed to be quite low.

    You may expect more of addressing the former, but that's not really a good reason not to address the latter.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  15. #75

    Default Re: [Amendment] Increasing Ostrakon granularity

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    @Pike

    As the ToS is the standard of behaviour for everyone, it makes sense to use it as an absolute bottom line for citizen standards. It may need some work (as per Gigantus' example) and could be extended with longer sentences for repeat offenders, but at the end of the day it's only for those who fall foul of the ToS.

    This proposal deals with the other aspect of citizen discipline: the Ostrakon. I know intuitively it may sound strange, given the Ostrakon is associated with very severe misbehaviour, but it actually is the only tool to establish standards higher than merely staying on the right side of the ToS most of the time. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the suspension levels should be allowed to be quite low.

    You may expect more of addressing the former, but that's not really a good reason not to address the latter.
    I do not think it is beneficial to anyone to create a public "circus" over something trivial enough that warrants at most a few months' suspension. The triumvirate (and CdeC) discreetly dealt with such matters. This proposal will make everyone an unwilling "censor" of the Triumvirate. Why must I decide whether or not someone gets 3 months or 6 months suspension? I don't want to deal with such minutia. Either we come up with a system where such matters are handled discreetly or we bring back the Triumvirate. I only want to decide who warrants citizenship and who doesn't. This may pass anyway and we will see.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •