An update of the amended part, taking into consideration the input thus far. Underneath the proper formatted section, the OP has been updated with it.
Kindly re-affirm your support.
The real problem in my opinion is that much of that supporting evidence is unreachable to regular members.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
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
Last edited by Muizer; September 21, 2022 at 03:21 AM.
"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 -
There have been claims of 'it's not in the constitution' when it comes to matters that one should be able to reasonably expect - like the provision of support when making allegations in an ostrakon. This removes the excuse, difference enough I would think, given the prior history.
Or we could just say those claims were wrong, which they are. Just pointing out the "constitution doesn't explicitly say" route means the same could then be applied to "merit", beyond merely ticking a few boxes. So then "merit" will demand itemization as well. And so we end up forever adjusting the rules instead of applying them.
Last edited by Muizer; September 21, 2022 at 05:03 AM.
"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 -
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
How would you know they are wrong if they are not supported? Or are they wrong because they are not supported? The goal here is to prevent them from being brought up in the first place so they don't 'poison the well'.
And yes, we could create pages defining expectations what 'merit' is supposed to mean. Sadly it might come to that itemizing if a consul puts his mind to apply 'laissez majeste' to yet another aspect of merit in an ostrakon.
I think "merit" works well in the first instant, but it does not work well in the second instant, "meritorious."
As far as the purpose of the amendment, I agree with Flinn's point. So I support in theory, but the wording still needs work.
I'm still inclined towards Pike's suggested phrasing myself.
With great power, comes great chonky dragons to feed enemies of the state. --Targaryens?
Spoiler for wait what dragons?:
Why it's no better: the current wording covers everything that's being proposed. The phrase "make a case" already covers the need to provide arguments and the determination of "merit" concerns the quality and relevance of the presented evidence and reasoning.
Why it could be worse: Especially the latest version should make that obvious: "Allegations must have supporting evidence in order to be considered to be meritorious". That makes the presence of the evidence a measure of "merit". By itemizing what a case should contain, we make those requirements nominal ones. If the initiator has the wherewithal to 'tick the boxes', this actually makes it easier for a Consul to defend not filtering out bogus Ostraka: They nominally meet all the requirements the constitution lists.
If we failed to hold a Consul to account, it's not due to holes in the constitution but to seeking pretext not to apply it. The proposed wording makes that harder in cases that can easily be circumvented procedurally. This is going nowhere.
Last edited by Muizer; September 21, 2022 at 07:52 AM.
"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 -
I honestly don't see it as a problem, it's indeed the Constitution that regulates the Curia, not the other way around. The more the Constitution is vague and the easier will be for a biased Citizen or Curial officer to make their own interpretation overrule the document. The very purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that to be valid (and thus be validated by the Consul) an Ostakon has to be based on concrete evidences, evidences that everybody have access to. Just because you dislike someone and you know they acted naughty is not enough. Please keep in mind what happened with Ponti's second Ostrakon, a former moderator had to break the SND in order to build a case for an OStrakon which shouldn't have been validated to begin with.
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
The current wording allowed an ostrakon with zero attached evidence to pass through. Zero evidence. I don't see how it can get worse than that.
It's not the Consul's job to determine if the person should be ostrakoned or if the ostrakon is bogus, his job is only to ensure that the ostrakon meets the requirements of form. We determine if it's bogus or not. The Consul only has to determine if it's supported by anything more than "I feel".
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
I disagree it is worse. You can argue that it is redundant, but it cannot be worse. If it is you argue the wording requires supporting evidence (making a case), then the wording cannot make it worse then it is. The alteration only increase the burden from "making a case" to requiring supporting evidence. So the worse case scenario is that it changes nothing and the best case scenario is that it increase the burden of proof. The Consul still needs to "filter" out unjustified Ostraka.
The wording did not allow it. The Consul did, and the Citizenry let him get away with it. It's not possible to solve any situation with legislation if there's no enforcement, which is the problem here it seems.
If you want the Consul only to check whether there's something under the headers 'evidence' and 'arguments', then what you do is
1) provide criteria for a 'Ostrakon with merit' that can be met with evidently ridiculous and even entirely irrelevant evidence and reasons.
2a) take away from the Consul his power to throw out those ridiculous Ostraka and therefore
2b) take away from the Citizenry the grounds to call the Consul to account when he does not.
Exactly how is that not a deterioration?
Last edited by Muizer; September 21, 2022 at 03:54 PM.
"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 -
The point of the Consul to review "ostraka" is to prevent petty "referrals" from soiling the virtues of citizenship. If the proceedings were done in "private" this would be something we sort out ourselves. Plus, the citizenry has an unhealthy "self-concept," so strict rules may be the order of the day until that changes.
This was my initial reaction as well, but on reflection I thought it might be good to further emphasise the need for the person making the allegation to fully support their case. I'm not sure how impactful this change will be, but happy to vote for it as a net positive.
I think it's still implicit that the Consul has discretion over whether to allow the case to proceed. However I think my version:Originally Posted by Muizer
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.
And PikeStance's one:
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.
May make this even clearer?
Perhaps have the Consul and the Censors vote as a group on the "evidence" to verify if it has merit. That way you have more than one person looking at the material.
Or, alternatively, the Consul and the Magistrates.
Novus Ordo Hebdomadum - Reinstalling: A Total War Aficionado’s StoryPillaging and Plundering since 2006
The House of Baltar
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
Right. As it seems not all understand that "making a case" inherently requires evidence and argumentation, there's probably no harm in clarifying that.
However, even though with your wording the minimum requirements are made more explicit, it remains a floor that is very easily achieved: Just add something (however insubstantial or ridiculous) under the header 'evidence'.
Just like before, the protection against bogus Ostraka has to come from the judgement the Consul has to make about the "merits". There are no rules for this. It's determined by who gets elected as Consul and what we are prepared to VonC them for.
As Adrian pointed out, it is ultimately for the citizenry to decide merit. The consul has the role of gatekeeper on behalf of the citizenry to filter out bogus cases. Categorically speaking, the decision is the same one. Trying to find metrics for the relevance, substance and quality of cases to separate where the role of the Consul ends and that of the citizenry starts in this is IMHO a wild goose chase. It's a confidence matter between Consul and Citizens.
So, IMHO apart from clarifying what's already there your alternative doesn't really change anything for the better. It just doesn't make things worse, like some of the other proposals.
Last edited by Muizer; September 23, 2022 at 04:40 AM.
"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 -
This is honestly getting excessively convoluted, IMO. Let's make the whole matter clear.
All that the Consul has to do is to verify if the submitted Ostrakon is supported by verifiable evidences, is to say, posts that everybody can see and judge upon. This is a very easy task, either they are there or they aren't. The only possible case of doubt is if there are "too little of them", nor if they justify or not the Ostrakon (this is what the Curia will be voting on). The Consul has to have a very clerical role here, since they are not requested to judge in advance if the Ostrakon is justified or not (again, this is what the Curia will be voting on, I need to stress this point again and again).
As hinted above, the only case of doubt is if there are objectively too little evidences provided about any bad behavior that can justify the Curia in stripping up one of its members of their badge. How much is too little? Well that at the discretion of the Consul, and this can't be helped . I am confident most of elected Consuls will do a fine job in rejecting those who are objectively scarce in evidences (and maybe inviting at the same time the Ostakon submitter to gather more of them), if they not, this can lead to further consequences for them a Vonc (even though personally I would not support any Vonc for a Consul if I don't see a repeated pattern of allowing frivolous Ostrakones).
Also remember that we have recently added granularity on Ostakones (Dismiss, 1 Month Suspension of Citizenship, 3 Months Suspension of Citizenship, 6 Months Suspension of Citizenship, Revoke Citizenship or abstain) so it is really all about the Consul checking that verifiable evidences are provided, even if little of them, then it's up to the Citizens to decide what will be of it (as it should be).
@ Gig, would you think about making a more descriptive review of this Amendment, so that it is clear that is all about "verifiable evidences" and nothing else? Thanks.
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