A wondrous tale about labels

[Akar]

You can't. You can Ostrakon someone because "citizens should not repeatedly break the ToS / should not get suspended from the site" but you cannot Ostrakon someone for a specific ToS violation, that's what curia suspensions are for. On paper it looks like it's the same thing but it's not. If we go down the you can be ostrakoned for a ToS violation path we risk sliding into "he posted off-topic so imma gonna ostra him" territory in time.

You ignored me saying "if it's sufficiently egregious". Someone is welcome to file an Ostrakon for someone posting off topic just as we in the Curia are welcome to laugh them out of here for the frivolity of the Ostrakon. I don't think a single off topic post would be sufficiently egregious and unless it was accompanied by other evidence I can't see myself allowing that Ostrakon to go forward. But that's irrelevant to the fact that you absolutely can file an Ostrakon against someone for ToS violations.

The claim 'you can' is the sad part here and embodies what is currently happening in the curia - because technically it's correct: there is no definition of what is permitted in the constitution only that it has to be 'egregious'. And what defines the already subjective 'egregious' is solely dependent on the consul's definition of the equally subjective 'merit' the constitution makes mandatory to have the ostrakon proceed. I suppose seeking to punish someone again for the same offense (double jeopardy) is egregious enough to find merit? I mean the member was stripped of his citizenship once already for the ToS violation on top of the regular penalty - so why not strip him again? Hey, maybe do the same ostrakon again in six months and strip his citizenship a third time for the same offense? After all the consul just said that seeking multiple punishments for the same offense have merit and hence are permitted.

Under the "multiple sovereigns" principle someone can absolutely be charged for the same underlying offense in two different courts. The

...double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the multiple sovereignties doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. The federal and state governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in individual states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.

The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.

So as you can see, there's no issue here. These are sovereignties with different rules and you are bound to both of them (so long as you're a Citizen). If we followed your logic someone punished by the Curia for an action would be unable to be punished by the ToS for the same offense.

You are not "stripped of your Citizenship" for getting an infraction - your Citizenship is suspended until it expires.

You are ignoring that per the Constitution the Consul has to agree that the activity was sufficiently egregious to justify an Ostrakon. I can't see any future Consul allowing someone to file an Ostrakon against someone three times for the same activity. If they did I would probably consider that an abuse of power worthy of a VonC.

I got a response on the last bit, but the standard 'claim without backup' is not something I would even remotely call 'valid explanation'.

I'll say it once again for you,

1)The Constitution does not have jurisdiction outside of TWC, any amendment that tries to regulate off site activity is inherently invalid.

2)Similar but more extensive language is now already found in the ToS, which would make the proposed amendment redundant and invalid.

@Anthonius

First of all, I think you misunderstood Belisarius' responses to you.

Secondly, give this a read.

https://wiki.twcenter.net/index.php?...of_Information

[Belisarius]

Then TWC register policy must change. No info or email must be asked. If administrators can copy and use our info outside the TWC without asking any kind of consent then our info is in risk. There is no trust that our personal info will be safe by your prospective. TWC must make an announcement to all its members to DELETE ANY personal info of theis because TWC administration can use it like dictators do with people info (when they want , where they want). That was not known back then when TWC asked me to fill the form inorder to register.

Nope TWC is fine, you already agreed. According to the Privacy Statement -

TWC is a non-commercial site staffed by volunteers, and cannot provide a binding guarantee of privacy to its members (except as required by law). However, we try to protect our members' privacy as far as is reasonable.

Visiting any website will expose your IP address to that website. We may store members' IP addresses indefinitely for record-keeping purposes. We may also use services such as advertisements and analytics scripts to fund the operation of the site, let us run it more effectively, or for any other reason. Visitors' IP addresses may be exposed to the providers of those services to allow them to function, and we have no control over how this information is used.

The red highlighted refers to intentionally taking and selling the data.

If you look at the TOS -

TWC is a non-commercial site staffed by volunteers, and cannot provide a binding guarantee of privacy to its members (except as required by law). However, we try to protect our members' privacy as far as is reasonable.

Visiting any website will expose your IP address to that website. We may store members' IP addresses indefinitely for record-keeping purposes. We may also use services such as advertisements and analytics scripts to fund the operation of the site, let us run it more effectively, or for any other reason. Visitors' IP addresses may be exposed to the providers of those services to allow them to function, and we have no control over how this information is used.

Its copy pasted in both just to be sure.

TWCenter does not require you to use your real name or other identification that can be easily traced to you, and the e-mail address you provide will be kept private. In order to register on TWCenter, registrants must be 13 years of age or older. TWC does not knowingly collect any information from any users under 13 years, and if it is found that an underage user has fraudulently registered, their account will immediately be terminated.

The RED is enough to cover the side because it advised you not to share this information because it does not require it to join.

The Green is a reference to what could be a legally binding requirement, depends where.

1)The Constitution does not have jurisdiction outside of TWC, any amendment that tries to regulate off site activity is inherently invalid.

Not exactly when it comes to Civitates Conduct because the entry requirement of Civitates is posting in the rest of TWC so there is an intrinsic link. You are judged on your conduct towards the wider community to avoid someone becoming a Citizen and being nice to other Citizens and nice in the Curia but being an absolute arse in the rest of the community. The Curia has no jurisdiction over non Citizens.

And lets be absolutely real for a second, if a Civitates ever was convicted of something heinous like child abuse and offsite proof was obtained through something like a conviction, you bet I would ostrakon him.

2)Similar but more extensive language is now already found in the ToS, which would make the proposed amendment redundant and invalid.

It was not so clearly defined when the proposal was started, the proposal inserted the ocnditional that he would abandon the proposal if it was resolved, it was resolved so therefore it should be listed as such. Its a matter of procedure, when you archive a procedure you need to give an accurate context.

[AnthoniusII]

All those you write are fine. But keeping IP adresses in an issue and ussing members private info is another. By copying info in non TWC places like messeger , Twiter or Discord Channels that are far from TWC rules of privacy is a clear violation of the law. Now if that law is underminded by an adninistrator what kind of TRUST can we have that our personal data are safe? If

The Constitution does not have jurisdiction outside of TWC, any amendment that tries to regulate off site activity is inherently invalid.

then copying TWC members info even for discusion outside of TWC is a crime and the member that commited that crime must be expelled. Intentions may be good but the result is what it counts. If an administrator (in our case a Concul) broke the privacy of TWC members info by copying their info/data in a Discord Channel that TWC has no jurisdiction can be still remain unpunished? If yes we shoulod inite Tony83 back to TWC...gravity of the actions are different but they both brike the same law .
And laws aply for all of us....unless there are casts in TWC that laws aply differently to each cast.

[Akar]

It was not so clearly defined when the proposal was started, the proposal inserted the ocnditional that he would abandon the proposal if it was resolved, it was resolved so therefore it should be listed as such. Its a matter of procedure, when you archive a procedure you need to give an accurate context.

Fair enough, I'll change it.

But keeping IP adresses in an issue

That's how cookies and websites work...

By copying info in non TWC places like messeger , Twiter or Discord Channels that are far from TWC rules of privacy is a clear violation of the law.

It absolutely isn't.

then copying TWC members info even for discusion outside of TWC is a crime and the member that commited that crime must be expelled. I

That's literally the opposite of what it means, actually.

If an administrator (in our case a Concul) broke the privacy of TWC members info by copying their info/data in a Discord Channel that TWC has no jurisdiction can be still remain unpunished?

What exactly do you think is happening on Discord? You're talking about an interaction between two people who already had access to that information discussing said information. No one is leaking usernames or IP addresses or whatever you're suggesting.

[Muizer]

Not exactly when it comes to Civitates Conduct because the entry requirement of Civitates is posting in the rest of TWC so there is an intrinsic link. You are judged on your conduct towards the wider community to avoid someone becoming a Citizen and being nice to other Citizens and nice in the Curia but being an absolute arse in the rest of the community. The Curia has no jurisdiction over non Citizens.
And lets be absolutely real for a second, if a Civitates ever was convicted of something heinous like child abuse and offsite proof was obtained through something like a conviction, you bet I would ostrakon him.

Well, Akar is of course right to the extent that an ability to enforce rules is integral to the concept of jurisdiction. Evidently we cannot ban members of TWC on other platforms based on what they did on TWC. But you're right that the reverse is a different matter. There's no reason why TWC could not take measures against a member on TWC for what they did on other platforms. That is quite relevant to the discussion about the recently proposed change in the ToS about sharing private information. Basically anything shared on TWC should never leave the platform. Not in chats, calls or emails etc.. And that's not just a matter of ensuring privacy. In a sense the opposite. The sharing of this data should be auditable.


In any case, getting back to the original topic, it seems to me that declaring a proposal 'invalid' is essentially the same thing as pronouncing a veto. And while it is proper for the Consul to preempt a veto by consulting with the administration in case of doubt about jurisdictions, he does not have the power to veto himself. So essentially, what I'd be looking for as a justification for declaring a proposal invalid by the Consul is whether it is based on such a consultation. If not, it should not have been labeled 'invalid'.

[Akar]

That's not what the invalid label is for. There is a specific label used when something is vetoed.

Basically anything shared on TWC should never leave the platform. Not in chats, calls or emails etc..

That's just ridiculous.

No hyperlinking to mods or photos? No linking people to threads? I can't talk about a conversation I had on TWC with a friend later?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

All those you write are fine. But keeping IP adresses in an issue and ussing members private info is another. By copying info in non TWC places like messeger , Twiter or Discord Channels that are far from TWC rules of privacy is a clear violation of the law. Now if that law is underminded by an adninistrator what kind of TRUST can we have that our personal data are safe? If then copying TWC members info even for discusion outside of TWC is a crime and the member that commited that crime must be expelled. Intentions may be good but the result is what it counts. If an administrator (in our case a Concul) broke the privacy of TWC members info by copying their info/data in a Discord Channel that TWC has no jurisdiction can be still remain unpunished? If yes we shoulod inite Tony83 back to TWC...gravity of the actions are different but they both brike the same law .
And laws aply for all of us....unless there are casts in TWC that laws aply differently to each cast.

There are some concerning misconceptions in this post. Let me cover some broad points. They may not apply in full to what you say but I believe need to be said.

• Akar is not affiliated with TWC staff at all, let alone the administration (which begins and ends with 'men in red'). He certainly has no access to IP addresses or any truly sensitive member information. Any such information handled by TWC staff either remains on TWC completely or is handled/discussed as approved in confidence by the TWC administration as 'need to know', and I see no reason here to suspect or raise an issue at that level.
• If you're referring to TWC as a website retaining IP information, potentially identifiable cookies, emails and so forth, that's not only default for websites, it's essential for reasons ranging from user experience to website security and you should expect these all to be retained to some degree by any service. It's a take it or leave it deal for the internet unless you're confidential to a Snowden degree. Nonetheless abuse can happen and any serious abuse falls under the first point.
• Discussing members outside of TWC is not a crime. The impact, consequences and stakes I believe have been grossly exaggerated. Though, Akar has been quite transparent about his willingness to discuss curial operation outside of TWC and break a number of traditional best practices; I don't think there's much that could be compromised with his access anyway, but hypothetically anyone can be saying things off platform behind anyone's back with whatever access they have and you never really know. It becomes a matter of trust however you slice it. If Akar's taking this too far, an opportunity is coming soon to express dissatisfaction and elect someone you (general you, the Curia) trust more for the role he is in.

This is reaching 'mountain out of a molehill' levels and it needs to be reeled back in perspective. The original issue (beyond this thread anyway, but I digress) was already a rather light case unworthy of serious hyperbole, and even for that much steps have been taken both publicly visible from the administration in the Q&S and attempted amendments local to the Curia.

[Muizer]

That's not what the invalid label is for. There is a specific label used when something is vetoed.

The decision that a proposal exceeds the powers of the Curia is a de facto veto. Only the admins have the power to veto.

That's just ridiculous.

No hyperlinking to mods or photos? No linking people to threads? I can't talk about a conversation I had on TWC with a friend later?

I'm sorry. I thought from the context of the thread it would be clear we're talking about information that is not public. And of course, non public information can be made public anywhere with the consent of all parties concerned.

But, to give an example, discussing by moderators or admins of private data like a TWC member's non-public moderation history on Discord or via email should be forbidden in the ToS for two main reasons:
1) the information was obtained under access restrictions which are not implemented off platform. That means the data has traveled beyond the limits where TWC can guarantee its safety.
2) the information was obtained in the capacity of admin or moderator, not as a private individual. Discussing it off-platform leaves no forensic trail for colleagues or future holders of those positions. It may be expedient, but it's also suspect.

[Gigantus]

You ignored me saying "if it's sufficiently egregious".

I believe I pointed out that the term is inherently subjective and that your equally inherently subjective merit is the only criteria for it's definition. That's hardly ignoring I would think?

------------------

I'll say it once again for you,

1)The Constitution does not have jurisdiction outside of TWC, any amendment that tries to regulate off site activity is inherently invalid.

2)Similar but more extensive language is now already found in the ToS, which would make the proposed amendment redundant and invalid.

Well, if nothing else you are persistent. there is just a small issue here: the difference between an explanation (what I have asking for since the OP) is rather different from making a claim (like you are doing). That shouldn't be too hard to understand? Repeating a claim ad absurdum doesn't make it true. An explanation of it does. Let me put it once again (lost count here) it for you - maybe eventually you get it?

Simple questions about the Consul's invalidity claims

Where in the ToS is that 'similar if not extensive text in the ToS'?
Where in the proposed text is it proposed, or even assumed, that TWC has jurisdiction outside TWC?

------------------

Fair enough, I'll change it.

The only thing fair enough is the misdirection from your claims. Belisarius references where I explained why I deemed it abandoned: because the proposed ToS change would make my proposal obsolete once it gets amended. Heck I even quoted myself saying so in the final request. Just like the 'granularity' proposal, that has long passed (28th April) and is not implemented, will be in the constitution once it gets amended.

Bit scary having a consul that doesn't know the difference - I do take it that's where the 'similar ToS text' claim came from?
Pending confirmation that leaves the 'jurisdiction' one.

I am getting hoarse from calling BS here on your claims why you considered the proposal invalid. Simply changing the label and calling it a day because it looks like a easy way out after a week of repeating your claims still doesn't resolve the issue that the invalidation had no base to stand on. Basically a veto you are not entitled too.

Assenting to my request after a week of constant repetition of your unsupported claims of invalidity simply isn't going to cut it.

[Akar]

Those labels have literally zero bearing on actuality. I could mark everything in the archive vetoed and it wouldn't make it so.

Assenting to my request after a week of constant repetition of your unsupported claims of invalidity simply isn't going to cut it.

[Gigantus]

Those labels have literally zero bearing on actuality. I could mark everything in the archive vetoed and it wouldn't make it so.

I think it's really time that I stopped participating in this thread - by now it's difficult to differentiate what is serious and what is trolling. I mean what's the purpose of labeling proposals - for the lulz?

Following through with the argument I guess by extension your two claims re invalidity of my proposal 'have literally zero bearing on actuality', too? I mean, so far (and it's been over a week) there is no explanation forthcoming that they do - so they were the just for lulz, too?

You may recall that my question in the PM was to give a reason why you labeled my proposal 'invalid' - I can't recall the part where you said it doesn't matter, but I certainly recall the part where you gave me the two reasons that by now you have repeated a fair number of times. Would this contradiction be the reason why you objected to me quoting your reasons?

I mean by now you must have realized that your claims 'have literally zero bearing on actuality' so reversing the invalid labeling based on Beli's argument must have seemed a great opportunity to oblige my initial while simultaneously avoiding to make a no-win response.

My bet was actually that you would claim that Beli's argument was sufficient, which your response of 'Fair enough, I'll change it' seems to imply, as ridiculous as that would be vis a vis the seriousness of your claims, but I see you transcended my expectations.

So we are still on for a response to my questions that I so exquisitely formatted right above this ludicrous response?

10 days so far that you are stalwartly resisting to explain what your 'invalid' claims are based on.

[Sir Adrian]

I find it ironic that for someone who has raised so much stink about personal information that you have no issue divulging the contents of private messages without permission.

Any party involved in a PM may freely divulge the contents as long as there are no supplementary ND rules involved. He didn't need permission.

[Gigantus]

Any party involved in a PM may freely divulge the contents as long as there are no supplementary ND rules involved. He didn't need permission.

The ironic part is rather that he defined himself what the harassment rule covered, I think it was in the ToS update thread. Never mind that if the consul isn't obliged otherwise as he so often stated (and which I agree on, else I wouldn't have started the amendment) it stands to reason that a regular citizen isn't obliged either. No tribunal stuff involved so I think I am good.

One for the lulz - it was curia stuff, you know, the only department that does not have ND obligations (yet). So technically I could have even spilled ND related issues as long as I skip e-mail addresses and telephone numbers (because that's in the ToS).

[Akar]

Yeah I wasn't talking about what was technically allowed and what isn't. You're allowed to post the contents of PMs without permission, but that doesn't mean it's not ironic for him to release the contents without permission.

[Gigantus]

On the auspicious occasion of 12th day remembrance of this thread I have decided to no longer ask or wait for a clarification regarding the claims of invalidity by the consul. I will instead make some claims myself and unlike the consul will also provide reasoning for it.

So without further ado, here they are:

I firmly believe that the reason for the labeling the proposal was not fact but pettiness
I firmly believe that the reason for the claims was not fact but arrogance
I firmly believe that not responding at all to my request of clarification is a misuse of the powers given to the consul

Pettiness - non of the reasons for invalidity were upheld, certainly not the initial one that wasn't even even based on the proposed wording. In fact going through the thread I have not been able to identify any other clear claims as to invalidity. Hence the only reason for labeling it invalid will be the wishful thinking of the consul, combine that with the consul's opinion that 'those labels have literally zero bearing on actuality' and it should not come as a surprise - after all had the proposal progressed it would have put an end to his claims of not being obliged to ND, never mind the use of ND material like was done in the last ostrakon. The 'arrogance' part will make the pettiness at work here even clearer.

Arrogance - the reasons given for invalidity do not hold up even to the faintest scrutiny, nor were they ever raised within the thread. And as the protest right at the starts shows that arrogance was based on the conviction that I would not publish those claims to invalidity without permission. As to scrutiny - I invite members to finding a reasoning for the consul's claims that is based in reality. I pledge to give 10 rep points (not in bulk, mind you - not possible) for being successful in this endeavor - once for each claim. For details about this quest see the info at the bottom.

Misuse of powers - all the above got topped off with the steadfast refusal from day one to respond to my request to back up the claims of invalidity. Its not a case of mistaken accountability, after all the consul doesn't miss a chance to demand accountability from moderators when it comes to their reasoning of matters or complaints by members thereof.
Which leaves the same explanation as given regarding ND obligations of the consul - it's not in the rules, hence it's not applicable.
I am of the opinion that it constitutes misuse of power to actively decline to account for his actions whilst using the powers given to him. The consul has basically demonstrated that accountability does not apply to him.

Summary - the present tenure of the consul ends in a matter of days which means a VonC, which is the only avenue to seek redress here, is totally pointless. But there really is no rush, I'll just wait a bit - there is always the chance that he might run again, and even the possibility that he might succeed. After all, there is only one requirement when it comes to a VonC.
Note: a small part of the blame lies with me - not anticipating behavior as demonstrated here is not a valid excuse to not participate in the most crucial vote in the curia.

Details for the consul quest

This is the proposed text as it would have appeared in the constitution, the number indicates a footnote:

The proposal

The consul and the censors are bound by non disclosure obligations.<sup>13

13</sup> 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.

These are the claims by the consul why the proposal was labeled invalid, I marked the respective claims:

The claims

Your amendment is invalid due to over reach (the Constitution does not have any authority over what happens off site) as well as similar language being found in the ToS as such it is invalid.

10 rep points (each claim) for the one that comes up first with an explanation that proves the claim to be true.

[PikeStance]

I seem to remember a citizen having their citizenship revoke for divulging information he was privy to off-site.

@ Gig- nothing new said there. It is the (inconsistent) toleration of stuff like that that has brought down this site.

[Sir Adrian]

Yeah I wasn't talking about what was technically allowed and what isn't. You're allowed to post the contents of PMs without permission, but that doesn't mean it's not ironic for him to release the contents without permission.

He didn't need permission from anybody. The content is his, and yours, to release.

[Akar]

As I've said multiple times, no, he didn't - but it's still ironic given his statements on the subject of privacy.

[Gigantus]

And as the protest right at the starts shows that arrogance was based on the conviction that I would not publish those claims to invalidity without permission.