Proposal for deliberation: Monthly Staff Report to Curia

[Obi Wan Asterix]

This would require an ordinary bill, or just a friendly agreement...

I am off course for the separation of power.... but

What do my Curial and Staff colleagues think of a monthly overview of non-damaging and non-name naming information being presented to the Curia....

Could we think of some categories that are important to know but wouldnt harm staff non-disclosure?

Staff are in a way like the Augures, the religious class of ancient Rome... they can report to us in a general/mystical fashion, and this report could serve as a powerful tool of communication and common direction without crossing competency lines.... much like an executive and a parliament report to each other, even in goverments where the legislative is tied to the executive....

tell me if its a bad idea, think of ideas for report content....

Finally I think it might serve as an opportunity for staff to gain a new skin of legitimacy and at the same time organize itself around such a report....

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

would be fairly interesting but, more importantly, as you have said would give more legitamacy by the simple expedient of being more transparent. I'd suggest the reporting below, the most important ones being the General comments from the Moderating & Technical heads. In these they could mention any trends that are showing up, changes they want to institute, plans they have etc.

I'd also suggest including the CdeC report in the same feedback, plus any Hex Committees that are ongoing.

General

• general comment from Head of Moderating on the previous month (any issues, trends, things coming up etc)
• general comment from head of Technical branch on previous month (any issues, trends, things coming up etc)

Infractions

• Total
• For Flaming
• For Trolling
• etc

People currently Banned/Suspended

• Total number
• Number banned/Suspended this month

CdeC

• Number applications for citizanship
• Number approved
• Number rejected
• Any comments/suggestions for improvement on applications

[Obi Wan Asterix]

I'd suggest the reporting below, the most important ones being the General comments from the Moderating & Technical heads. In these they could mention any trends that are showing up, changes they want to institute, plans they have etc.

Great idea

I'd also suggest including the CdeC report in the same feedback, plus any Hex Committees that are ongoing.

No I suggest keep them separate... CdC is not staff, and it will all become muddled if too much in one thread

General

• general comment from Head of Moderating on the previous month (any issues, trends, things coming up etc)
• general comment from head of Technical branch on previous month (any issues, trends, things coming up etc)

Infractions

• Total
• For Flaming
• For Trolling
• etc

People currently Banned/Suspended

• Total number
• Number banned/Suspended this month

CdeC

• Number applications for citizanship
• Number approved
• Number rejected
• Any comments/suggestions for improvement on applications

This is a great list minus the CdC bit which I think is fine atm....

I further suggested that the staff tell us of any permabans so that all on TWC can keep a headsup... actually naming them (this cant hurt since its already visible on the user profile but the staff has easier access to this info) and the civitate community can be trusted with it....

also I suggest that the staff report include staff movement and reassignments

[Garbarsardar]

All this is good. I agree with Asty that the CdeC should produce a separate report as well as any Curial comittee.

My only problem is the permabans. As you are aware permabans are mostly related with advertising or duplicate accounts that serve a malicious purpose. In rare cases permabans are the result of repeated aggressivity/insubordination by a poster. I don't see why in any case an account that shall not be used again should be named...

[Obi Wan Asterix]

My only problem is the permabans. As you are aware permabans are mostly related with advertising or duplicate accounts that serve a malicious purpose. In rare cases permabans are the result of repeated aggressivity/insubordination by a poster. I don't see why in any case an account that shall not be used again should be named...

^

That is my idea Lusted and Garb.... to make an extra incentive against the permaban... as other systems publically denounce their captial offenders, the staff could with discretion employ the community to help police against and stop the gravest of offenders....

I think since the profiles already display permaban (to all users) and since the report is not immediate but monthly, and since users (from my moderating experience) often report accounts they suspect of being doubles already.. why not help this trend?

[Spiff]

An interesting proposal but i don't see how the Curia could make use of the information - for example it wouldn't help in formulating proposals, and couldnt be used as an assessment of moderators since the statistics will be anonymous (not that i think moderators should be assessed by the Curia anyway)

[Lusted]

I would be against naming any members suspended/banned in a report as any suspensions and bannings are between staff and the user in question, likewise with infractions.

I do support the general idea of monthly reports by staff to the Curia as long as it only dealt with numbers of infractions/suspensions.

[Tom Paine]

What do my Curial and Staff colleagues think of a monthly overview of non-damaging and non-name naming information being presented to the Curia....

What would that be, beyond the number of moderation actions of the month, the number of warns handed out, and the number of cautions? And what does that actually tell the Curia?

[imb39]

It might keep the Curial Rep busy...

[Gaius Baltar]

Yes, weekly TPS reports. Great! Im sure designing the form would seperate us into camps, one proposing unstructured, and the other, structured.

And what joy to fill out!