(Moved to Vote)Citizens Behavior

[the Black Prince]

I'd like to propose an amendment to the current system.

Over the last several months, the CdeCs methods of dealing with cases has taken a standard form that doesn't reflect whats actually in the constitution. Rather than force the CdeC to follow the Constituton, i'd rather change the constitution to outline what, after months of practice and experience, we have decided is best practice, but with a few changes, in the hope of speeding things up a little.


Most cases we deal with come from a staff warning

If any Citizens receives a staff warning from an Officer of the Moderation Branch their case will be referred to the Consilium de Civitates by the Chief of Branch or the Speaker of the House. A vote will be held after two days discussion of the case. All relevant user notes of the accused will be made available to the Consilium de Civitates, the accused is allowed no defence. The vote concludes within seven days. The options are

* A warning level of one - a poll for suspension of rank for up to two months
* A warning level of two - a poll for a suspension of rank for two months or a permanent loss of rank

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for the vote to pass.
If the warning that formed the basis of this referral is subsequently overturned by the Tribunal, the Citizen’s Rank is restored

now thats very nice, but what actually happens is that a thread is opened by a council member outlining the warning.
We then hold one week long vote to decide whether to dismiss the case, or take further action, we then hold a second week long vote to decide what that further action will be.

The process works very well, but i don't overly like the 2 week time period, it means it takes a long time to get these cases completed.

I propose therefore the following changes


Proposer: the Black Prince
Miles Supporters: Scottishranger; selenius4tsd
Burgensis Supporters: Leonidas the Lion; mrjesushat

If any Citizens receives a staff warning from an Officer of the Moderation Branch their case will be referred to the Consilium de Civitates by the Chief of Branch or the Speaker of the House, . A vote will be held after two days discussion of the case. who will open a vote and post all relevant user notes of the accused. will be made available to the Consilium de Civitates. The accused is allowed no defence. The vote concludes within seven four days. The options are:

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

* A warning level of one - a poll for suspension of rank for up to two months
* A warning level of two - a poll for a suspension of rank for two months or a permanent loss of rank


If the CdeC vote to take further action, a second poll is opened for four days. The options are:

• Censure
• Suspension of rank for 1 week
• Suspension of rank for 1 month
• Suspension of rank for 2 months
• Permanent Removal of Rank
• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for the vote to pass. Where the poll has multiple options, a simple majority shall be determined by Multiple Transferable Vote. If the warning that formed the basis of this referral is subsequently overturned by the Tribunal, the Citizen’s Rank is restored

Multiple Transferable Vote is the process we already use in the CdeC where multiple options are included on the poll. because we are required to vote by a simple majority, a simple majority is only rarely going to be achieved just by looking at the option with the most votes. With 16 councillors, if all 16 vote, but the option with the most votes only gets 6 votes, thats not a simple majority. So, we all vote for our first choice, but list second third fourth (etc) choices in posts. once the vote closes, if no option has achieved a simple majority, the options with the least votes are eliminated, and their votes redistributed based on 2nd choices, continuing until one option receives a simple majority.

I know i'm shortening the voting time here. But experience shows that 14-16 councillors have voted on these polls within the first 3 to 4 days, and it then sits open for 3-4 days with no activity. Its not a like a citizen vote, where we have to debate extensively, or go off and research a member, these staff warning cases are pretty straight forward.

[scottishranger]

I agree with this, it simply takes to long for this procedure.

Support

[Leonidas The Lion]

tBP you have my support.

[mrjesushat]

Good, so long as we don't fall into the habit of greatly reducing procedures in favor of speed and efficiency. In governance, there's nothing worse than efficiency, since it tends to trample on the rights of the individual.

[Erich von Manstein]

I'd suggest one modest change, if I may.

The vote concludes within seven four days or when a majority decision has been reached.

One of the cases currently before the CdeC has a 5/8 majority but is still having to wait for the poll to timeout. Since a majority is all that is needed, perhaps we could speed things up further by taking that into consideration.

[Fabolous]

I'd suggest one modest change, if I may.



One of the cases currently before the CdeC has a 5/8 majority but is still having to wait for the poll to timeout. Since a majority is all that is needed, perhaps we could speed things up further by taking that into consideration.

Leave it to a week or when the majority has been reached. Every poll getting done in four days is a bit fast, given what I've seen in terms of CDC voting habits. You're probably going to cut half the CDC out of every vote if it is four days.

[Perikles]

I agree to manstein's changes too. The idea that we have to wait until the poll concludes even if they have passed/failed is really really annoying.

[Simetrical]

Remember to include a provision for tiebreakers. Recall that we had a tie a while back under almost every system we thought of. Probably it should be the Speaker or Curator or something with the casting vote.

Also, you know, we have ins and del tags.

[the Black Prince]

Curator already has powers of tie breaking in defined, we just forgot about them lol....

[Simetrical]

Curator already has powers of tie breaking in defined, we just forgot about them lol....

Where is the Curator's tie-breaking power defined?

[Tom Paine]

Article 5, under membership of the CdeC, says:

The Curator, who may take part in all Consilium de Civitates discussions, and has the deciding vote only in the case of a tie. The Curator has veto powers over any Consilium de Civitates decision.

[the Black Prince]

Erich, the long standing reason behind that is that people are supposed to be given the opportunity to vote. If it becomes the case that we simply close polls when a majority decision has been reached, then people who vote late, for whatever reason, are going to be less inclined to vote at all, because they'll perceive their vote not to be worth anything. I think thats a very bad line to go down. I'd rather see people passing votes 10:2:0 than 8:0:0 simply because we closed the poll early. Every councillor has a right to make their voice heard, even if it doesn't change the outcome, i see no reason to prevent them from doing so.

[makanyane]

One of the cases currently before the CdeC has a 5/8 majority but is still having to wait for the poll to timeout. Since a majority is all that is needed, perhaps we could speed things up further by taking that into consideration.

small technical point / question; I thought there were 16 of you at that point? In which case you'd need 9 for a majority....

@tBP - It sounds like a good argument but if there is already a definite majority surely everyone could see it's a bit pointless to vote after that - only use would be for future "I told you so 's..." which I wouldn't have thought was something to be encouraged!

[the Black Prince]

there's 15 of us currently


stopping a vote before people have been able to vote? thats just wrong.... in every sense. would you stop a general election just because one candidate has got 51% of all registered voters, even though at least 15% havn't voted yet?

if a councillor hasn't voted, he should have an opportunity to give his input, thats why he was elected.

[selenius4tsd]

You have my support.

[the Black Prince]

thats my four supporters then

[Fabolous]

I still think closing a vote after four days is a large error. I can't support that tight a limit given voting habits across the history of the CDC.

[Tom Paine]

Maybe people should vote in a more prompt and timely fashion?

[Fabolous]

Maybe people should vote in a more prompt and timely fashion?

Within a week is rather prompt, in my mind. Votes are not, click a thread and hit a button, they take thought and time, atleast a good bit of the time. Certainly in displinary cases, rarely are they votes one should be making a snap judgement on. Now, four days is more enough time to make such a judgement. But not everyone has the time to check the CDC and handle all the votes daily.

My point is, does 3 days really make a difference to the user on trial? I don't see how. Does it make a difference to the CDC? Yes.

[Scorch]

Well I support this.