Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

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

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    52,488
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Definition of merit
    merit
    - a praiseworthy quality
    - character or conduct deserving reward

    Introduction
    'Unsupported allegations' by their own definition do not have any merit in an ostrakon and one should reasonably expect not to see those in an ostarkon, given the merit based scrutiny of the consul. Unfortunately this has been the case in at least one ostrakon as of late.

    Reasoning
    While this manner of discourse is permissible in the discussion threads, usually with the aim to sway opinions without providing proof, this should not be acceptable (eg have merit) when alleging misconduct of a member in a procedure that may strip him of his citizenship.

    The constitution stipulates that an ostrakon can only proceed once it has been cleared by the consul by virtue of his consideration of it's merit. It is irrelevant what ultimately led to an unsupported allegation being allowed to remain in an ostrakon - it does however show that the simple 'merit' in the constitutional instruction certainly is woefully inadequate when it comes to determine where the limit is to what can be put into an ostrakon.

    Proposal
    Section III, Article I - Ostraka and Citizenship Suspension

    Regulations and Procedures to Section III
    1 A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who determines if an ostrakon has merit.Allegations require verifiable evidence in order for the ostrakon to proceed. If an ostrakon has merit:
    Last edited by Gigantus; September 24, 2022 at 12:18 PM. Reason: proposal update










  2. #2
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Censor Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    19,081
    Blog Entries
    42

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    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

  3. #3
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,139

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Support
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  4. #4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Again having to turn into written law (into the constitution) things that should be obvious. Unfortunately it is necessary.
    So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16).

  5. #5
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    19,954
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    The wording is clunky and could use work before implementation - opposed.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  6. #6
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    52,488
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    I am open to suggestions, go ahead please.










  7. #7
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Merits sounds odd.

    Why not?

    A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who determines if an ostrakon has valid reasons, unsupported allegations are no valid reasons. If an ostrakon has valid reasons:
    Yeah you wanna go out
    'cause it's raining and blowing.
    You can't go out
    'cause your roots are showing.
    Dye 'em black.
    Dye 'em black.



  8. #8
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    52,488
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    I do take it you agree with the amended part but wish to address 'merit' as well?

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

    I believe 'merit' was used in the original to give the consul a means to reject 'frivolous' ostraka, irrespective if it was 'for the giggles' or had no support in it's allegation at all.

    What makes a 'valid reason' for an ostrakon is as subjective as is 'merit' - basically there are no guidelines for the former and only the consul's interpretation of the latter, meaning without actual clarification unsupported allegation will still be possible.

    Deeming something 'valid' is a huge step up from 'having merit' as well, placing an unnecessary onus on the consul, especially if the ostrakon fails. After all if it was valid it wouldn't have needed the ostrakon in the first place, right?
    Last edited by Gigantus; September 20, 2022 at 05:01 AM.










  9. #9
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    All constitutional terms need subjective interpretation. In the end the Consul is always responsible for a not justified Ostrakon no matter how we call the term, which is opening the door to a Ostrakon.

    Merit is simply a bad sounding term, which makes the constitution difficult to understand for layman.
    Yeah you wanna go out
    'cause it's raining and blowing.
    You can't go out
    'cause your roots are showing.
    Dye 'em black.
    Dye 'em black.



  10. #10
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    I do take it you agree with the amended part but wish to address 'merit' as well?
    To explain what is no merits/valid reasons can be usefull.
    Yeah you wanna go out
    'cause it's raining and blowing.
    You can't go out
    'cause your roots are showing.
    Dye 'em black.
    Dye 'em black.



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

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    52,488
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    Merit is simply a bad sounding term, which makes the constitution difficult to understand for layman.
    'Merit' is a fairly basic, and rather common term when it comes to evaluation of an issue, see the 'definition' section in the OP. 'Valid' on the other hand implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority.

    I am fairly certain I can put an ostrakon together that is valid but also utterly frivolous - which means it would have to be allowed if 'valid' is the benchmark. Whereas with 'merit' it won't see the light of day.










  12. #12
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Not for non native speakers like me. But forget it.

    As i'm no citizen and never ever will agree to become one i'm asking myself what i'm doing here.

    I withdraw my suggestion.
    Yeah you wanna go out
    'cause it's raining and blowing.
    You can't go out
    'cause your roots are showing.
    Dye 'em black.
    Dye 'em black.



  13. #13
    Dismounted Feudal Knight's Avatar 🦀¯\_(ツ)_/¯🦀
    Civitate Content Staff

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    in your 'Recent Visitors" list
    Posts
    2,461

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    I don't have an issue with 'merit', though I can empathize with the non-native case. Even still. I do think the original proposal makes a comma splice and the added bit would stand better as its own sentence.

  14. #14
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    52,488
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    I'll keep that in mind and will amend my proposal at a later stage, just waiting if other suggestions are made - no sense in starting the support re-affirmation numerous times.

    Note to self: put amended part in it's own sentence.










  15. #15
    PikeStance's Avatar Greater of Two Evils
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    12,882
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Consideration

    A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who determines if an ostrakon has merit. An allegation must have supporting evidence in order to proceed.

  16. #16
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    52,488
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Sounds smoother then my version - I'll consider it.










  17. #17
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    19,954
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    That is *much* smoother and better worded than the the OP, Pike. I would support that language were it to be adopted.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  18. #18
    Søren's Avatar ܁
    Patrician Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Library of Babel
    Posts
    8,911

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    Not for non native speakers like me. But forget it.

    As i'm no citizen and never ever will agree to become one i'm asking myself what i'm doing here.

    I withdraw my suggestion.
    Agreed, I don't think this wording is clear. Do you think any use of 'merit' is less familiar to a non-native speaker? Perhaps this might be simpler:

    A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who then determines if an ostrakon would be justified. The case must include supporting evidence for it to be considered.

    I also prefer PikeStance's version to the merit one. Although if we were to continue with the original version, I'd suggest 'will not be considered meritorious' or 'will not be considered to have merit' instead.
    Last edited by Søren; September 20, 2022 at 11:43 PM.

  19. #19
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,546

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    IMHO it's superfluous. The existing text says a citizen must make a case. This already encompasses arguments based on logic and facts.

    The risk with specifying minimum requirements is that such lists can easily turn into boxes that need ticking, achieving the exact opposite of what was intended.

    For instance "This is Akar's avatar. He brings shame on the citizenship by acting the clown" ticks the boxes of providing evidence and reasoning. A weak or malicious Consul could decide that's enough to cover his back and allow it.
    "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 -

  20. #20
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,139

    Default Re: [Amendment] Section III, Article I - no support, no merit

    We could VonC that weak and malicious consul any time we wished. Not to mention that slightly more than a year ago we had an Ostrakon that had zero evidence and was let in by the Consul on the basis of "yeah I don't like this guy either" and while it failed it ended up causing serious damage to the Curia which resulted in months of bickering, an outstanding citizen renouncing it and people abandoning the site.

    This amendment is necessary.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •