We might need a system to revoke citizenship permanently.

[HigoChumbo]

I'll try to keep it short. We have no mechanism to permanently revoke citizenships from those users who voluntarily so request. The issue is that, while the Constitution contemplates the voluntary resignation of awards (including citizenship), it only does so in a nominal way, since the member is to all effects still considered a citizen after his or her resignation (for instance, he or she would would still need to be referred to the Triumvirate if an infraction was issued):

The award of Citizenship and all Awards listed in Section V, Article 3 are honours given to members by the Curia. While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia. As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime. Procedures to revoke or remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them.

But if a member requests the revocation precisely not to be bound to the behaviour standards and procedures related to citizenship, I think it would be fair for the user to be released from any obligation if he or she decides to resign all his/her privileges as a citizen (including the ability to request a re-institution without requiring a new application). The current process makes sense for those cases in which the citizen has the ability to rejoin the Curia at will, but for those who just want to leave, I see no reason for continuing to bother them with citizen-specific disciplinary procedures.


Should we add a way to deal with these situations in The Constitution?

[Halie Satanus]

That caveat is there to ensure a member cannot resign their citizenship during an ongoing case.

Besides what your basically saying is this member wants the curia to condone their behaving like a tool.

So no, absolutely not.

Further: If this member feels hard done by, as an example. I resigned my citizenship for 5 years, then I came back, if they do the same we can consider a permanent removal, I make no promises though.

[HigoChumbo]

That caveat is there to ensure a member cannot resign their citizenship during an ongoing case.

Besides what your basically saying is this member wants the curia to condone their behaving like a tool.
.

No no, in fact, when the issue has been raised, I have always clarified that a) resignation of citizenship does not invalidate or stop an ongoing disciplinary procedure and b) referrals are completely separate from requesting a voluntary resignation.


But if there are no ongoing disciplinary procedures, I see no reason not to let the citizen be "demoted" to regular citizenship. If he wants to behave "like a tool" after that, it would then be a matter for moderation.

Further: If this member feels hard done by, as an example. I resigned my citizenship for 5 years, then I came back, if they do the same we can consider a permanent removal, I make no promises though.

That's precisely the case in which the current system makes sense, since you still had the right to rejoin citizenship at will at any time, and therefore not being bound by citizenship behaviour standards could be exploited to behave improperly while still retaining citizenship.

But here were talking about the citizen resigning ALL rights, including the ability to request an immediate re-institution. Once a permanent revocation is requested, the only way for the citizen to be re-admitted would be through a standard patronization process, in which the citizenry would of course evaluate his behaviour.


If a citizen wants to leave I see no reason why we would have to force him or her not to, as far as we leave clear that leaving is by no means a way to invalidate existing infractions. We are not here to educate users, if they want to leave, that should be their decission, and it's them the ones who would have to deal with the consequences.

It would merely be a matter of adding a policy to highlight that condition.

[Halie Satanus]

This citizen has requested we revoke their right to claim back citizenship so they are not subject to citizen behavior rules in the event they wish to claim citizenship back. If they claim they will never want it back then why do we even need to discuss this. Bottom line, they are requesting the curia condone any misbehavior they intend to commit once resigned. That's a solid no from me.

But here were talking about the citizen resigning ALL rights, including the ability to request an immediate re-institution.

I believe such a system is already in place, you can't simply request citizenship back if you have current infractions.

If a citizen wants to leave I see no reason why we would have to force him or her not to, as far as we leave clear that leaving is by no means a way to invalidate existing infractions. We are not here to educate users, if they want to leave, that should be their decission, and it's them the ones who would have to deal with the consequences.

Any citizen can resign when they wish, what we should not condone is resigning so you can misbehave. What ever way you cut it that's a bad example. This is the curia, not a human rights committee, if the member doesn't like it, tough.

Others may feel the need to coddle this member. Personally, that they didn't ask the curia themselves shows a lack of commitment, I don't see why the curia should bend over for this.

[HigoChumbo]

This citizen has requested we revoke their right to claim back citizenship so they are not subject to citizen behavior rules in the event they wish to claim citizenship back.

But my point is that that's not how it is regulated by the Constitution. To all effects he or she would indeed be subject to citizen behaviour rules. The event that he or she might not care is a different matter, but I see no gain for any party in keeping procedures active (with the subsequent verdict communications) if the member has resigned all rights.

I think there is no better way to deal with the ambiguity of that than creating a constitutional route to deal with these cases.

I believe such a system is already in place, you can't simply request citizenship back if you have current infractions.

Well, unless I've missed some relevant bit, what the Constitution says is the following:

"The award of Citizenship and all Awards listed in Section V, Article 3 are honours given to members by the Curia. While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia. As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime. Procedures to revoke or remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them."

Any citizen can resign when they wish, what we should not condone is resigning so you can misbehave.

I personally believe that, after a full resignation, the behaviour of the member is not a matter for the Curia, but for moderation. And the member should then be considered, to all effects, a regular user.

This is the curia, not a human rights committee, if the member doesn't like it, tough.

Others may feel the need to coddle this member. Personally, that they didn't ask the curia themselves shows a lack of commitment, I don't see why the curia should bend over for this.

But none of that is a reason to "force" a user to keep being a member of the Curia against his or her will.

And believe me if I say that, in my particular case, "coddling" has nothing to do with it.

[Halie Satanus]

Well, unless I've missed some relevant bit, what the Constitution says is the following:

"The award of Citizenship and all Awards listed in Section V, Article 3 are honours given to members by the Curia. While members may refuse or resign their honours that does not reduce their right to them once they have been granted by the Curia. As such they may request them back at will if they have not been revoked or removed in the meantime. Procedures to revoke or remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them."

If you resign and then wish to reclaim your citizenship you have to apply to the curator to rejoin the group.

The Artifex badge is intended for use by Citizens who wish to indicate that their major contribution to the site is modifying Total War games. Citizens are appointed by the Curia.

Though it doesn't state specifically the inference is that you are subject to what amounts to a ratification by the curator who is bound by the constitutional requirements for citizenship. If you do not meet those requirements the curator should refuse.

But none of that is a reason to "force" a user to keep being a member of the Curia against his or her will.

And believe me if I say that, in my particular case, "coddling" has nothing to do with it.

I've seen people leave for all sorts of reason, some without a word, some with a spectacular nose thumbing, I've also seen many come back. I do not feel we should be removing that right to change your mind just so someone can feel vindicated in misbehaving without consequence. If you resign you are removed from the group, you do not have posting privileges in the curia, you are no longer a citizen, I'm not sure the constitution even has a policy to charge a resigned non citizen

No one is chained to a radiator here. If they want out just go and be done with it.

[Iskar]

I'm not sure the constitution even has a policy to charge a resigned non citizen

No one is chained to a radiator here. If they want out just go and be done with it.

Procedures to revoke or remove a member's honours operate normally even if the member is not currently displaying them.

People are chained to a radiator obviously, as staff referrals, for instance, would still happen even if you choose to currently not be part of the Citizen permission groups. We should have a way for a member to relinquish their citizenship entirely, resetting them to Peregrinus status.

[Halie Satanus]

Take that line literally. It doesn't say 'members who have resigned,' it says 'not displaying.'

Remind me never to get into a hostage situation with you..

[PikeStance]

I have a few understanding questions...

Let say person X is a citizens that decides to regin their citizenship.
A few later, they receive an infraction. I assumed that Moderation would not send a referral. Is this correct? It would make sense since the person is not displaying their citizenship then there is "no harm" to the "site."
However, let's say they decide they want to display their badge again a mere week after being infrscted. Shouldn't they meet the mininal behavioral requirement of no moderation for 6 months before being allowed to display the badge? (BTW, they also cannot receive a Curia warning if the person would had been referred, but as I noted, I am not sure moderation would bother).

Is there a loophole here or am I missing something?

[Iskar]

Take that line literally. It doesn't say 'members who have resigned,' it says 'not displaying.'

Remind me never to get into a hostage situation with you..

Voluntarily resigning citizenship (as in, leaving the citizen usergroups but retaining the privilege to rejoin at whim) is precisely "not displaying" their citizen honours.

@Pike: Strictly speaking moderation would have to check the citizen list for every infraction to determine whether the infracted is a citizen but is probably just not displaying their award. However, that is difficult in practice due to the wiki list lacking regular updates and not showing alternative usernames. (If, say, randompeasant now violated the ToS, how many moderators would know he is listed as Maximinus Thrax in the list?). It is thus kind of a loophole, though only if you consciously plan to violate the ToS (as you have to know beforehand to resign your citizenship ere you commit the ToS breach), which is kind of the worst case for citizen behaviour, I have to admit, though.

[PikeStance]

@Pike: Strictly speaking moderation would have to check the citizen list for every infraction to determine whether the infracted is a citizen but is probably just not displaying their award. However, that is difficult in practice due to the wiki list lacking regular updates and not showing alternative usernames. (If, say, randompeasant now violated the ToS, how many moderators would know he is listed as Maximinus Thrax in the list?). It is thus kind of a loophole, though only if you consciously plan to violate the ToS (as you have to know beforehand to resign your citizenship ere you commit the ToS breach), which is kind of the worst case for citizen behaviour, I have to admit, though.

This is more or less what I assumed. I also wasn't suggesting anything sinister. However, given that a referral would not be given, shouldn't the resigned citizen also still meet the standards of citizenship before their rights and privileges are given back?

Small note: I would say even if the wiki list was correct and up to date, it would be an incredible burden on a moderator to check each person (well only the one's they suspect). Moreover, in some cases, the "resigned citizen" may have resigned their rank some time a go. Plus, if the person is not displaying their citizenship then they can hardly behave detrimentally.

Another small note: In theory I like the idea of revoking your citizenship; however, I know some people sometimes "knee jerk" and give up their citizenship only to ask for it back later. Personally, I would rather go the other route of changing it to indefinitely suspended, but that didn't go so well the last time I suggested it.

[Sir Adrian]

An award once granted is granted forever and cannot be revoked outside disciplinary measures. If the holder wants to renounce it its his right, as is the ability to change his mind as many times as he wishes.

Better idea is to make staff referrals apply only to people displaying the badge.

[Veteraan]

An award once granted is granted forever and cannot be revoked outside disciplinary measures. If the holder wants to renounce it its his right, as is the ability to change his mind as many times as he wishes.

People change, the Curia changes, TWC as a whole changes in time. If you are a Citizen, but come to the conclusion that the current Citizenship is something you no longer would want to join if asked, you should be able to "give back" the award and no longer be part of a group you cannot identify with. It is a question of choice. I take it that the current "renounce" practice would still be available too, so people actually can choose.

Better idea is to make referrals apply only to people displaying the badge.

IIRC it is also possible to not display the badge, but still show "citizen". But besides that little detail, to me at least it doesn't feel quite right to give a "carte blanche" to someone who still is a Citizen.

[Sir Adrian]

If you feel things have changed you already have the option of leaving the Curia and never coming back. I don't see what you should not be allowed to return if you eventually do want to.

IIRC it is also possible to not display the badge, but still show "citizen". But besides that little detail, to me at least it doesn't feel quite right to give a "carte blanche" to someone who still is a Citizen.

You're still displaying the badge, you just didn't choose it as your primary group. There's no difference between me, hallie and you with our librarian and censor badges and hallie's nothing and pike with his artifex badge. We're all displaying the citizen badge.

[Veteraan]

If you feel things have changed you already have the option of leaving the Curia and never coming back. I don't see what you should not be allowed to return if you eventually do want to.

I don't see why this argument keeps popping up. It seems to me nobody is advocating the removal of the current practice where you can stop being an active Citizen and return to being active at will.

This is about adding an option for those who really don't want to be associated with being a Citizen and all that goes with that any longer. Why would we force them to if they want to leave. It's not like it is impossible as sufficient "bad behaviour" will result in permanent removal of Citizenship eventually. This we allow, but we would deny a request from a Citizen to be removed from Citizenship?

[Sir Adrian]

There is no such thing as "really don't want". I've seen loads of people leave and everybody came back. Not only is that extra option useless and needlesly complicates a simple process but it also makes it possible to yourself over royally. Imagine you get super angry at something and decide " that place, I'm leaving forever". Times passes, anger subsides and you suddenly get a reason to return: a big proposal (as in delete the CdeC big), some big new talented modder friend you want to patronize, having somebody you want to propose for a medal, etc well you have to go through the whole process once again.

[Iskar]

Nope, you can post it in the Rostra. Also, we probably should acknowledge people here as sufficiently grown up to take the responsibility for their actions. It is not our task to prevent people from "royally ing themselves over".

[Sir Adrian]

Which gets less attention than the Symposium. Good luck there. The Rostra is just an excuse which is here today and can be gone tomorrow. This isn't about responsibility, it's about common sense. Engineering rule 1: when designing a system minimize all potential for error and accident. There is no reason to add something which can cause problems to a system which works perfectly and without any problems as is.

[Veteraan]

I've seen loads of people leave and everybody came back.

IMO you can't have both. Being a sleeping Citizen, but still being able to return at any time you want and in the meantime able to do as you please without being referred is a bit much.

Also this is not a kindergarten, even when there are (very) young members present on this site. If somebody wants to leave, he/she should be able to do so. Perhaps they regret it later, or not. That's life.

However, I do have some sympathy for the argument that Citizenship should not be removed because the person asking it has done so in a fit of rage. A little mandatory cool down period could prevent that. A week or so from the moment the request has been made should be enough.


Edit: Note to self. At least refresh the page before writing a response.

[StealthFox]

We have a system in place for removing citizenship. If someone wants to lose citizenship, just post up an ostrakon thread for yourself and we'll kick you out. (I'm kind of half joking but half serious too) If said citizen ever wants back in they'll have to go through the same application process as other non citizens.

I am more concerned about the loophole of renouncing your citizenship and going off the radar for bad behavior. Iskar, you're reading too much into the wording there. Displaying means someone who isn't showing the badge, not someone who has resigned.