(Moved to Vote)Tribunal Reform

[imb39]

Proposer: imb39
Supporters: Fabolous, Lusted, Garbarsardar, Perikles, Soren

Rationale -

When the changes were enacted it was anticipated that the Senatorii would participate. It is clear that there are insufficient numbers who will willingly get involved, as a result the Curia enacted the idea of using Patricians to 'flesh out' the numbers. Experience has taught me that it takes a while for people to get to grips with the nuances of moderating. To put Patricians in place to decide on the appropriateness of a moderating decision was a flawed attempt to redress that problem.

It is also clear that the idea of separating the Tribunal from Hex was flawed too. For that I offer my apologies. It has attempted to adjust policy, something that was not within its remit. It was a natural area for problems to arise and no blame can be attributed to anyone but me for this.

Finally, the appeals process itself has undermined the idea of an external Tribunal. There is to remain a degree of separation from the Moderating branch (in that the CoM is not to be a member of the Tribunal). The idea is for the old Tribunal to be recreated along with the rules that it used. It did not attract anywhere near the same amount of controversy as the current one has. Not only do we in Hex think that the current system is not working, neither do many of the members, judging from the Suggestus.

I have erased the democracy part from this as it is irrelevent, the Tribunal has no impact on these virtues invoked in the Constitution. It has no remit, for example, over any election - only over moderating.

Article 2 - Tribunal

To defend the democracy and freedom the rights of Members of TWC, and to ensure fair and just punishment towards those who violate the laws of TWC, a Tribunal shall be established.

The purpose of the Tribunal is to provide those members of TWC who have been punished in the past by the Moderation Branch a place to request the reversal of their punishment. This is in no way a guarantee that the punishment will be removed, but every case presented will be reviewed by a panel of three judges.

Members may create a thread in the Tribunal Forum with the Case Number and the name of the appealing member. The Judges will study the case details, in a private sub forum, and may request any additional information on the member from the Senior Moderators. The Judges will then post the majority decision in the original thread, and ask the Chief Moderator to remove any warnings if so required. The Judges are not tasked to decide the appropriateness or validity of a Forum Rule of Term of Service, and may only rule on whether the Term was correctly enforced and the punishment suitable for the offence.

Article 3 - Judges

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of three Judges is electedchosen by Hex. The judges can include any member from Hex, save the CoM, as he is is part of the appeals process. The candidates are not limited to Hex members and can include Senatorii 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 a warning level of 1
• Incurring 2 cautions in the space of 3 months
• or being subject to proceedings laid out in Section 4 Article 1

[Tom Paine]

GIVEN the failings of the current Tribunal, and the flaws with the system that I so strongly advocated on its adoption, I support this Bill.

[Fabolous]

Woot! Complete support...

[Garbarsardar]

As I already stated...

[Lusted]

I support this bill.

[Perikles]

Supportification. (if anyone is surprised, PM me )

[Garbarsardar]

Supportification. (if anyone is surprised, PM me )

If anyone PMs you I will be surprised.

[Belisarius]

I have erased the democracy part from this as it is irrelevent, the Tribunal has no impact on these virtues invoked in the Constitution. It has no remit, for example, over any election - only over moderating.

Seem to be doing that alot Ian.

What a load of bollocks in general. Yet another position which is not being elected for no apparent reason, because there are enough people - Tac Garb and I were all qualified.

I wont bother not supporting, enjoy placing in your friends Ian.

[Tom Paine]

Bel, look at the Tribunal. Was it deciding on policy? Why yes. Was it making decisions contrary to common sense? Yes. Was it seeming to forget its very purpose? Why, yes! Please, if you can defend the Tribunal on its own merits, do; otherwise, don't attack Ian.

[Garbarsardar]

As I said elsewhere:

On a more serious tone, I am also concerned with the function of the Tribunal at the moment.

The Tribunal customarily was administered by the staff. So it was actually an open forum where the senior moderators debated moderating actions.

It has now passed to the Curia; I supported this but I am not so sure anymore.

See, what happens is that it created strange side-effects.

First the Staff triple checks every caution and warning to make sure it is not reversible. That actually leaves few if none space to the Judges for overturning a decision.

Second, in the few cases where a decision is overturned the Staff feels reprimanded and in some cases humiliated.

There are many ways out of this:

One idea is that the Staff should accept the decisions of the Tribunal as revisions and not as reprimands. TWC is operating under a culture of openness and criticism should be welcomed. However I have no idea how this psychological transformation could be implemented.

Another way (and I am contradicting myself of two months ago here) is to return the Tribunal to its original status. A forum administered by senior moderators where explanations about moderating policy can be given in the open and decisions reviewed without this being a public admonishment of moderators.

I am leaning towards the second solution and I have to concede that Sim was probably right when cautioning me about the pitfalls of a Curial Tribunal.

I may be wrong again and the current state of things to be a result of persons and not structure.

We'll see...

[Belisarius]

The Tribunal was working fine recently, the problem was Hex didnt agree with it all time time. So-

Whenever Hex doesnt agree with something it takes it over?

Enjoy supporting yet another proposal to take powers away from the Curia Mr Speaker.

[Belisarius]

First the Staff triple checks every caution and warning to make sure it is not reversible. That actually leaves few if none space to the Judges for overturning a decision.

Thats a bad thing?

Second, in the few cases where a decision is overturned the Staff feels reprimanded and in some cases humiliated.

They shouldnt.

[Tom Paine]

Oh yes, working perfectly: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=95407

Fine examples of their constitutional right to overturn site policy. wait...

And as to "democratic institution", well, see tBP's reply: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=98095 it seems they can ignore the Curia if they want.

[Belisarius]

Oh yes, working perfectly: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=95407

Fine examples of their constitutional right to overturn site policy. wait...

Their constitutional right to ensure that the best is done for both members and the community.

See Ozy, its aobut time you learned that disagreeing with Staff is not wrong all the time, maybe then you would actually be our speaker.



Question - What happens if this fails?

And as to "democratic institution", well, see tBP's reply: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=98095 it seems they can ignore the Curia if they want.

Yes then they get owned by people like me and Garb.

[imb39]

See Ozy, its aobut time you learned that disagreeing with Staff is not wrong all the time, maybe then you would actually be our speaker.

You mean YOU are the Curia? That is what this seems to be about. Pleanty of other Curial members have agreed with the change - don't tell me, Ozy shouldn't be agreeing with them too.

I haven't replied to you yet as I have seen nothing to reply to. The democracy thing had NOTHING to do with the Tribunal - or si this another romantic vision you wish to add to everything? Not everyone has the rose tinted glasses you appear to don.

I am responding to the concerns raised by various people, don't pretend otherwise. It was a trial and I am glad I tried it, but let's not kid ourselves it has not been a glowing success and the blame is mine. Squarely mine.

Now, persumably, you shall attack me again in some form.

[Tom Paine]

Excuse me, but is it not the Tribunal acting undemocratically?

And their constitutional remit is very specific.

The Judges are not tasked to decide the appropriateness or validity of a Forum Rule of Term of Service, and may only rule on whether the Term was correctly enforced and the punishment suitable for the offence.

Now, we all know you don't value the constitution, but I'd have thought you'd have noticed that: They have no remit whatsoever to overturn policy. In fact they expressly may not.

I don't suppose you have anything other than ad hominems, by the by?

See Ozy, its aobut time you learned that disagreeing with Staff is not wrong all the time, maybe then you would actually be our speaker.

Enjoy supporting yet another proposal to take powers away from the Curia Mr Speaker.

I wont bother not supporting, enjoy placing in your friends Ian.

[Belisarius]

Excuse me, but is it not the Tribunal acting undemocratically?

And their constitutional remit is very specific.
Now, we all know you don't value the constitution, but I'd have thought you'd have noticed that: They have no remit whatsoever to overturn policy. In fact they expressly may not.

Policy is always Subjective and never rigid, thats something you never learned when a moderator and was the cause of many of our fights.

I have NO problem with soddomising Policy with a 52 inch pole if it were in the benefit of a member and the community in general.

As for the rest, I am in disbelief that a Speaker of the Curia is constantly proposing and supporting legislation that takes power away from the Curia.

[Søren]

As for the rest, I am in disbelief that a Speaker of the Curia is constantly proposing and supporting legislation that takes power away from the Curia.

In contrast, it's a very mature attitude for the Curia to be taking.

The Curia is right to recognise that it has both strengths, and weaknesses. Just as in some areas it is good for the Curia to have a say, there are others that are better left to the staff.

The Curia should not be some sort of troglodyte, proclaming "WE NEED MORE POWER" in an excessivly twee manner, to anyone who cares to listen. This sort of attitude represents a step forward. I strongly applaud every citizen who supports this measure.

[Søren]

I have been saying this ever since the idea of a Curially run Tribunal was decided upon. Naturally, I support.

[Tom Paine]

The Constitution, to repeat, does have a problem with you doing it. You accuse us of being undemocratic while trying to justify breaching and ignoring the Constitution. Interesting.