Speaker Rights Amendment

[Tom Paine]

It is, of course, clear that at present the Speaker is meant to have admin rights according to the Constitution:

All Council Officers fulfill day-to-day administrative duties and all should discuss and co-ordinate their policies inside the Council.
(Article 1, of Section 1)

The Speaker of the House promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge, and contacts him as to whether he would like to remain a Citizen, or further self define as a Artifex or Civitate.
(Article 3 Section 3)

I move that this, and other areas where it occurs, are absurd. It is not the present state of affairs and has not been ever, for the simple reason of security. It will never be the state of affairs and should never be the state of affairs that the Speaker becomes an administrator unless there is a specific reason for him to be so - these are not. There I move that the latter be struck from the Constitution utterly and the former amended as follows:

All Council Officers fulfill normal day-to-day administrative duties and all should discuss and co-ordinate their policies inside the Council.
(Article 1, of Section 1)

Curia Officers shall be given by the Speaker Council appropriate local moderator privileges to carry out their duties
(Article 5, Section 3)

Supporters:
Patricians: Perikles; imb39,Erich von Manstein
Citizens:

(I missed one location on the first read through, not bad for a quick skim read really...)

[imb39]

Support. Reflects what I stated in the preliminary discussions all those months ago.

[Belisarius]

What about Promoting Civitates and moving/editing Curia forums according to motions? They can have the limited power to do that, it says "Administrative" not "Full-Administrative"

[Tom Paine]

The Speaker has, to my knowledge, no duties requiring moderation powers; and the only job requiring administrative powers is more than fulfilled by other Council members, meaning its easier to lose the security risk at all than simply reduce it to a smaller level.

[Elrond]

I agree - the speaker only needs moderating privileges in the curia (for sticking and moving threads etc) plus access to the staff forums.

[Muizer]

What is this security risk?

[Belisarius]

But - Its not a security risk. How is it a security risk to have the ability to log into a limited Admin CP and move someone to Civitates?

We strived to gain some form of independence from the Council and not we have to rely on them to do all the trivial tasks such as promoting Civitates etc....

So they have to read the threads and view the votes?

Or do you (if this passes) have to do that and PM them constantly?

Pointless IMO, Ozy get some limited powers and learn how to friggin use them!

[Shaun]

Support.

[Erich von Manstein]

Support.

[the Black Prince]

The speaker is supposed to be an equal curial representative on the council...

as for elected officers with admin powers, i have one word for you
Justinian
an elected consul, with full administrative access equal to the imperial consul. are you seriously telling me that limited access to the ACP for the purposes of moving ranks around is in anyway a security risk of any kind? given the kind of member it takes to get elected to this position, the speaker is far less of a security risk than any other member on the technical staff and the council. I'd trust people like Ozy and Justinian over a relatively unknown member like Kshcshbash anyday.

There's nothing the speaker can do thats not logged and recorded and easily undone by an admin with greater access, there's no question at all of needing or giving server access. the security issue is a non-issue here. If there were any member who might be a security threat who was running for this office, the council could simply veto him.

the speaker does not require moderation powers
but then, the speaker is not a moderator.
currently, only TWO people on the council are moderators, EvM and Soren. And thats only assuming soren is hanging on as a non-permanent officer in the moderation branch. if not, the only admin who should be moderating is the Chief Moderator, for everyone else, its not their job too, except perhaps Ians.

incidentally, your amendment doesn't even do what you want. There's any number of sections in the constitution where the speaker is mandated to perform certain tasks that require administrative access, with regard to promoting and demoting users.

[Belisarius]

Christ, I agree with Aden!

and poeple.... before supporting please read into these things!

I challenge ANY member of Hex to show me how limited ACP is a Security Risk.

[the Black Prince]

i'd also point out that this proposed "security risk" was in the first draft of the current constitution that i wrote and was both accepted and approved of by Ian and Ozy, despite their extensive critique and amendments to that draft

but please, any Hex member, show me how Justinian, in his year long tenure as an administrator was a security risk to the site, and then demonstrate how someone who's admin rights need only be a limited version of that is any more of a security risk.

[Simetrical]

There is certainly a security risk in the current board setup for untrusted users to be given limited administrative rights. They couldn't do permanent damage, but they could cause quite a lot of short-term disruption. Like my fellow Council members, I feel that granting them would create an unsettling precedent. We didn't grant them to Asterix either, despite our unequivocal trust of him and his former full-admin status. It's not that we don't trust Ozymandias particularly, but there may be others in the future who might not be suitable for veto but at the same time we might not fully trust. It seems easiest all around to head the problem off at the pass.

I would support this amendment, except that 1) there are undoubtedly other bits referring to Speaker admin rights and 2) "All Council Officers fulfill day-to-day duties" sounds a bit strange. Some rewording is in order, I think.

[Professor420]

So essentially what we are saying is that more trust is granted to someone promoted by 6 or 7 members than someone who has the trust and confidence of the citizens on this site?

[Tom Paine]

Let's see. Yes, Prof, because its the 6 or 7 members who promote who do the trusting. I might add you do get to veto any Hex appointment with the ratifications, so the person must be trusted by both Curia and Hex. Personally I don't trust people elected by huge numbers, far larger than the Curia - ie the general populace.

Anyway, another quick read of the Constitution for other bits in need of editing will ensue now.

[Scorch]

Who exactly would do the moving of threads and the changing of ranks then?

[imb39]

The speaker is supposed to be an equal curial representative on the council...

Err.. No... I said this in the discussion ages ago. Admin rights WOULD NOT simply be handed out when both Silver Guard and Bel demanded them. The position is to have a voice and a vote on the Council, no more. Of course it doesn't preclude the giving of said rights when and if it is deemed necessary/acceptable.

as for elected officers with admin powers, i have one word for you
Justinian

Yes, voted on from a very limited field, iirc. Someone who had worked there way up through Staff. Apples and oranges - you know it, so drop this line of attack.

an elected consul, with full administrative access equal to the imperial consul. are you seriously telling me that limited access to the ACP for the purposes of moving ranks around is in anyway a security risk of any kind? given the kind of member it takes to get elected to this position, the speaker is far less of a security risk than any other member on the technical staff and the council. I'd trust people like Ozy and Justinian over a relatively unknown member like Kshcshbash anyday.

That is not for you to judge, though, is it? You make it very personal - we do not know who will run and get elected in the future.

There's nothing the speaker can do thats not logged and recorded and easily undone by an admin with greater access, there's no question at all of needing or giving server access. the security issue is a non-issue here. If there were any member who might be a security threat who was running for this office, the council could simply veto him.

I shall say this slowly for people to understand more carefully...

The Speaker's role is to act as a link between Hex and the Curia. It is so that the Curia can have an input into policy making.

the speaker does not require moderation powers
but then, the speaker is not a moderator.

There is no objection to giving him moderating powers within the Curia and Symposium.

currently, only TWO people on the council are moderators, EvM and Soren. And thats only assuming soren is hanging on as a non-permanent officer in the moderation branch. if not, the only admin who should be moderating is the Chief Moderator, for everyone else, its not their job too, except perhaps Ians.

So? Firstly, bar one, all have come through the moderating branch oor have extensive experience of it. The only one who didn't has ben a local mod before. Besides, we were very happy to offer him all of this based upon our knowledge of him .

incidentally, your amendment doesn't even do what you want. There's any number of sections in the constitution where the speaker is mandated to perform certain tasks that require administrative access, with regard to promoting and demoting users.

Well, we can trawl through that soon enough.

i'd also point out that this proposed "security risk" was in the first draft of the current constitution that i wrote and was both accepted and approved of by Ian and Ozy, despite their extensive critique and amendments to that draft

Give me a break. Several things got through which I missed. Unlike you, I get bored of reading these things very quickly.

but please, any Hex member, show me how Justinian, in his year long tenure as an administrator was a security risk to the site, and then demonstrate how someone who's admin rights need only be a limited version of that is any more of a security risk.

Already answered.

Who exactly would do the moving of threads and the changing of ranks then?

Currently, the Curator - scottishranger. I have no objection to the Speaker having moderator rights too.

[Fabolous]

The Speaker's role is to act as a link between Hex and the Curia. It is so that the Curia can have an input into policy making.

Indeed.


I, personally, wouldn't object to a Speaker who is an admin, however I don't think it should be in any way forced with the posistion. It is an unneeded pairing. Admin rights are given out by hex, not the Curia, presently. I'm still amazed that hex is willing to give hex access to a Curial elected member, so perhaps I'm just taking what is given, but I honestly don't see why admin powers should be coupled with the Speaker role.

Therefore, I support this amendment.

[Tom Paine]

Changing of ranks would be done by the Council members other than the Speaker, for instance imb39 Simetrical and EvM can all do it; as to thread-moving, the Speaker has never had any need to do that.

[Scorch]

Changing of ranks would be done by the Council members other than the Speaker, for instance imb39 Simetrical and EvM can all do it; as to thread-moving, the Speaker has never had any need to do that.

Oh I see. Isn't it part of the speaker's duties to promote members, or is that the curator?