Tribunal Senatorii

[the Black Prince]

This appears to be a sticking point in the other thread. I may be wrong, but i think one of the reasons ian wants some reform of the tribunal is that he doesn't like the idea of people who have never been moderators serving on it.

in that aspect of his reforms i entirely agree.

It may be beneficial to consider this aspect separately to the rest, and i for one believe that with this change, under its current form, if the constitution is both followed, and enforced, the tribunal can function as is.


I therefore propose to restore the Tribunal to senatorii only, as was originally intended.

Proposer: the Black Prince
Patrician Support: John I Tzimisces; Belisarius
Citizen Support: Kagemusha
Section 4 Article 2 is amended as follows

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.

[Hotspur]

At the risk of busting your chops, how can someone be on this forum for as long as you have and not know how to use DEL tags?

[imb39]

At the risk of busting your chops, how can someone be on this forum for as long as you have and not know how to use DEL tags?

Anyway, that is not my only 'beef' with it. Please go over my rationale.

[the Black Prince]

a/ because the code available has steadily been expanded over the years, with the full list (available from the FAQ) being many times longer than the original basic list of BB Code available when i first joined.
b/ because i think its rather easy to understand, red text removed, green text added, the way its always been done
c/ becausei prefer to use strikethrough over delete tags anyway
and finally
because frankly sir, i don't give a damn!

[Mímirswell]

c/ becausei prefer to use strikethrough over delete tags anyway
and finally

Off topic: The irony here is you preferred using red when the substantive difference between delete and strikethrough is the color.

This allows two individuals without moderating experience overrule a single individual with. That could be a negative or a positive pending your few but it should be noted either way.

[John I Tzimisces]

I lend my support to this addition.

[Garbarsardar]

Considering that you want to reverse a bill that passed just a month ago with overwhelming support and your sole justification is "another bill that is under discussion" and you failed to show why you back-pedal on this one and your bill hardly addresses Ian's objections to the function of the Tribunal which you purport to address...


...erm...NO

[Tom Paine]

How's this, Garb: Qualification for Patrician shows no necessary understanding of the site rules and policy and their application by the moderators. Since these are absolute necessities for Tribunes, how can we allow people to serve as Tribunes without them?

(By the way, strikethrough - a nice tag, tBP - is [s] )

[Garbarsardar]

How's this, Garb: Qualification for Patrician shows no necessary understanding of the site rules and policy and their application by the moderators. Since these are absolute necessities for Tribunes, how can we allow people to serve as Tribunes without them?

How's this Ozy: The person that single handedly destroyed any notion of functionality in the Tribunal was not a Patrician?

[imb39]

To be fair, he is carrying the can, but it was not his fault (who ever he is). The system was flawed, but this been dealt with else where.

[Shaun]

Erm, is there even enough Senetorii support to make this feasable? Although it seems logical that only past moderators should be able to be in the tribunal, due to them being (hopefully!) the most experienced in the forum rules, I agree with Garb, there was a bill passed with overwhelming support that said the contrary of this!. Why should it be reversed, what makes one think that the outcome will be any different this time?

[Hotspur]

If the concern is having Tribunal members with no moderating experience, why don't we train them. Here's the idea:

3 Senatorii Judges.
2 Patrician Associate Judges.

The associate judges would have access whatever super-secret Tribunal forums there are, but don't actually vote on any cases. They are there to learn how to be a judge. At the end of the term, the senatorii judges vote on whether or not to promote an associate judge to a senatorii judge. This is to ensure that an associate judge is active in the tribunal discussions.

In short, it's an apprenticeship program for patricians who would like to serve on the tribunal but lack moderating experience.

Let the shredding of the idea begin...

[Garbarsardar]

If the concern is having Tribunal members with no moderating experience, why don't we train them. Here's the idea:

3 Senatorii Judges.
2 Patrician Associate Judges.

The associate judges would have access whatever super-secret Tribunal forums there are, but don't actually vote on any cases. They are there to learn how to be a judge. At the end of the term, the senatorii judges vote on whether or not to promote an associate judge to a senatorii judge. This is to ensure that an associate judge is active in the tribunal discussions.

In short, it's an apprenticeship program for patricians who would like to serve on the tribunal but lack moderating experience.

Let the shredding of the idea begin...

This is not a bad idea at all. However because of the nature of the site the function of the Tribunal comes down to persons and not institutions. And there is an institutional way to deal with that:

Hex Veto!

[Scorch]

This is not a bad idea at all. However because of the nature of the site the function of the Tribunal comes down to persons and not institutions. And there is an institutional way to deal with that:

Hex Veto!

Exactly. If a patrician judge is such a threat, the Hex Veto always exists.

[Belisarius]

This is not a bad idea at all. However because of the nature of the site the function of the Tribunal comes down to persons and not institutions. And there is an institutional way to deal with that:

Hex Veto!

WHich was thrown out as an alternative in the other thread proposal if I remember correctly.

I support, though this was overturned by a 2/3 majority I would imagine whis is better then loosing the tribunal and having it turn into the proposed (in the other thread).

[Hotspur]

True, but there seems to be a hesitancy to exercise that power.

[Garbarsardar]

True, but there seems to be a hesitancy to exercise that power.

I rest my case.

[Tom Paine]

Question: Would exercise of the Hex veto because they are Patricians with no moderation experience and therefore no clear understanding of the application of policy be lauded? Hell no, let's be honest here. You'd be screaming for our blood.

[Garbarsardar]

Question: Would exercise of the Hex veto because they are Patricians with no moderation experience and therefore no clear understanding of the application of policy be lauded? Hell no, let's be honest here. You'd be screaming for our blood.

Me?

[Hotspur]

Question: Would exercise of the Hex veto because they are Patricians with no moderation experience and therefore no clear understanding of the application of policy be lauded? Hell no, let's be honest here. You'd be screaming for our blood.

I suppose it would depend on who got vetoed and how it was handled.
If Hex doesn't want to use the veto, doesn't having an apprenticeship program for Tribunal judges make more sense?

"Screaming for our blood"? I thought you were our representative to them, not the other way around.


Busting chops left, right and center.