(Moved to Vote)Amendment: Tribunal Judges

[Garbarsardar]

Amendment: Tribunal Judges

Proposer: [user]Garbarsardar[/user]
Supporters:[user]Tacticalwithdrawal[/user] [user]Justinian[/user] [user]Mimirswell[/user]

Article 3 - Judges

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of three Judges is elected by the Curia, using the procedure outlined in Section 2 Article 2, from among the Senatorii or Patricians with at least one being a Senatorii. In addition to having the rank of Senatorii or Patrician, a Judge must also have no staff warnings and cannot hold the position of Staff Moderator. Each Judge serves a three month term. The Judges are granted local moderator privileges in the Tribunal. A Judge may resign his post, and will be removed summarily under any one of the following conditions:

* Becoming a member of the Moderating Staff as per Section 1 Article 3;
* Incurring an infraction of any level;
* or being subject to proceedings laid out in Section 4 Article 1

Following the discussion here and the problems due to the very limited number of active Senatorii, I propose to include the Patricians in the possible candidates.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I support, but I'd like a slight amendment:

'from among the Senatorii or Patricians, with at least one being a Senatorii'

Just so we have moderating experience on the Tribunal

[Garbarsardar]

I support, but I'd like a slight amendment:

'from among the Senatorii or Patricians, with at least one being a Senatorii'

Just so we have moderating experience on the Tribunal

Good call Tac, done.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I'd also be tempted to change this bit

'* Incurring an infraction of any level;'

So that cautions were allowed. I think cautions can be picked up fairly easily if people get involved in heated discussions, whereas full warnings are more difficult.

Not sure though?

[Tom Paine]

I'd also be tempted to change this bit

'* Incurring an infraction of any level;'

So that cautions were allowed. I think cautions can be picked up fairly easily if people get involved in heated discussions, whereas full warnings are more difficult.

Not sure though?

But I've never incurred one, and how many such discussions have I been? It simply shows a good ability to avoid getting into such emotional states as to impair your reasoned posting.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

But I've never incurred one, and how many such discussions have I been? It simply shows a good ability to avoid getting into such emotional states as to impair your reasoned posting.

nah, cautions are easy to pick up, warnings should be hard

[Mímirswell]

I support this.

[Tom Paine]

nah, cautions are easy to pick up, warnings should be hard

So easy that I still haven't got one?

Picking up a caution calls your ability to judge other cautions into question, in my mind. Remember we are here dealing with official cautions, not just unofficial slaps on the wrist.

[the Black Prince]

i see no reason to add the CdeC limit... afterall, you can hold other curial officer positions and be on the CdeC... why not the tribunal?


i'd also move to replace staff officer with staff moderator. the wya staff works at the moment, there's no possibility of a conflict of interest, content staff have absolutely nothing to do with moderation and cannot see the moderators forums

[Fabolous]

i see no reason to add the CdeC limit... afterall, you can hold other curial officer positions and be on the CdeC... why not the tribunal?


i'd also move to replace staff officer with staff moderator. the wya staff works at the moment, there's no possibility of a conflict of interest, content staff have absolutely nothing to do with moderation and cannot see the moderators forums

I agree with tBP on both issues, of the CDC and of the staff officer vs. staff moderator issue.

[Shaun]

Support.

[Justinian]

At first I would think it would take a little importance away from Senatorii position, but considering that only 2 people (me and WBK) have applied for the spot, I'd say it's necessary.

[Ragabash]

I support, we need more candinates for Tribunal Judges.

[the Black Prince]

the ONLY member who has applied for the tribunal has just joined the content staff and is no longer eligible

i ask therefore that the requirement not to hold a staff officer position be changed to staff moderator.


i'd also ask that the CdeC limiter be removed, we're trying to expand membership not restrict it, and i see no conflict of interest between the CdeCs role and that of tribunal

[Justinian]

Allow me to clarify on what I pointed out to tBP:

Section 4, Article 3 states:

In addition to having the rank of Senatorii, a Judge must also have no staff warnings and cannot hold a Staff Officer position.

Section 1 of the constitution pretty clearly defines staff officer as a member of the content, moderation, or technical branch. No problems so far, but Section 4, Article 3 continues on to say:

A Judge may resign his post, and will be removed summarily under any one of the following conditions:

• Becoming a member of the Moderating Staff as per Section 1 Article 3

And Section 1 clearly defines Moderation Staff as being just that, members of staff "invested with general moderating powers".

So what Section 4, Article 3 is saying is that to be ELIGIBLE, a member cannot be in the content, moderation, or technical branch; but to lose their eligibility after being elected to the Tribunal they have to be in only the moderation branch.

Obviously, eligibility and grounds for removal should be exactly the same, and save for that, they are. This amendment should change "content staff" to "moderation staff" so the clause doesn't contradict itself.

[the Black Prince]

Justinian has also pointed out that the bullet list contradicts the rest of the article, in that you currently cannot be a staff officer when you apply for the tribunal... but if you are already a tribunal judge, you only have to resign if you become a moderator...

so right now, i could resign as a podcast editor and helios writer, get elected to the tribunal, and then be re-appointed to both positions... but cannot actually stand for election unless i resign. which is absurd. i name no names, but it was not me insisting on adding that final list...

Proposed by: the Black Prince
Supported by: Justinian, Ozymandias and Fabolous

Article 3 - Judges

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of three Judges is elected by the Curia, using the procedure outlined in Section 2 Article 2, from among the Senatorii or Patricians with at least one being a Senatorii. In addition to having the rank of Senatorii or Patrician, a Judge must also have no staff warnings and cannot hold the position of Staff Moderator. Each Judge serves a three month term. The Judges are granted local moderator privileges in the Tribunal. A Judge may resign his post, and will be removed summarily under any one of the following conditions:

* Becoming a member of the Moderating Staff as per Section 1 Article 3;
* Incurring an infraction of any level;
* or being subject to proceedings laid out in Section 4 Article 1

[Tom Paine]

Actually, tBP, I insisted with imb only on the summary removal section... the other bit is your own responsibility... Ho hum.

[the Black Prince]

i think then, thats Justinian and Fab supporting my version of the bill (post 15)

[Tom Paine]

No, that's Justinian, Fab, and myself...

[Kagemusha]

I think its a good proposal and support it.