1. The Constitution requires a review and probably several minor edits. Further detail here. 2. The Constitution is not properly updated. The solution would be that, even if a legislation is passed if it is not in the Constitution/Rules/Other Official Documents then it is not a law. 3. In the Constitution, it shows that if a Tribune disagrees with an idea passed in the Senate, they must post a poll in the People's Assembly. How many polls have been put in the People's Assembly like this? 1? I'm not entirely sure that was even relevant. This must be enforced as it is a great idea. 4. Generally, Tribunes are no powerful enough. They can make noises in the Mod's Corner, but the People's Wishes are clearly not being enacted. For instance, Ler was one of the most pro-reform people in the forum, and yet he could not get change through. 5. What the fuck is going on in our justice system? Everything I know about it has been small pieces I've put together from mods and tribunes in the People's Assembly. 6. Plebs are the default people in the People's Assembly. They elect candidates, they nominate, and they vote in polls. Senators are not Plebs. The Constitution makes that quite clear. Stop being so power grabby, moderators. 7. The way Personal Insults are handled on this forum is atrocious. Not only does it have to be reported by the person insulted for it to be intractable, but if the person makes a long, complex insult and then at the end throws "no offense" or "just kidding" they have reasonable odds of dodging any punishment. 8. Allow Tribunes to cite material (and yes, name names) from the Mod's Corner. I have a right to know who is and isn't being reasonable. 9. I have yet to see a single document outlining how a Mod is picked, what happens when they retire or become inactive, and how they make legislation. 10. The fact that someone can be barred from elections because of an active warning, given by only a small minority of mods, is ridiculous. 11. There is little accountability for mods when they do break a rule. It seems they can just shrug it off and bury it into forgotteness after a small debate. 12. If a Tribune is not doing his job, typically out of pure in activeness, then there should be an opportunity for the Plebs to recall him. 13. Any information regarding the status of the Tribunes must be considered open knowledge. (Aside from investigations and such) We have a right to know what our Tribunes are saying and doing in the Mod's Corner.
A ton of people say that Mods should be allowed to vote and nominate in the Elections, but since nominations and votes are done by Plebs, not members of the forum, then they should, Constitutionally, be unable to vote and nominate.
yes Tribunes were never meant to be that powerful, but merely to serve as a voice in the mod's corner We're still pushing for transparency on that issue, and will soon have appeals decisions publicized, and hopefully finalized infraction notifications. The last part isn't true, as we're currently investigating a very similar case involving someone saying "no offense" and a user still taking offense to it. The problem there is mods are somewhat elevated and put in a position of trust by Stalin. This means we shouldn't have to live in fear of being harassed by the general public for expressing our opinions on something. We're picked by Stalin, and can generally propose legislation at our discretion. No idea on retirement as it's only happened once, and it still hasn't really been addressed. Warnings aren't issued by a minority of mods, in the event they are they can be appealed and a majority of mods can overturn the decision. Barring users with active infractions was first proposed by a Tribune, so presumably the idea came from you guys and not us. I agree, and in appeal decisions we've expressed the desire for mod accountability. Personally I think there should be a separate code of conduct for mods, and we should be subject to temporary removal of moderator status for breaking that. I wouldn't really say any tribune has failed to do their job, the mod section doesn't always move very fast. I even have trouble pushing stuff through despite the fact i wind up writing 75% of what we publish. The mechanism in place for this is to not reelect the guy, and I think that's fine. I think that should generally fall under the tribune doing his job
Transparency is nice, but I mean the fact that there's not anything explaining how the process works. How do you decide who joins an investigation and who doesn't? How do you handle appeals? Basically something outlining the Justice System. Understandable, but I find that the mods are generally very reasonable. In a simplistic sense, it's a few bad apples that spoil the pie. You should not have to "live in fear" so long as your doing your job well. Yes, which is why some sort of legislation detailing retirement and such is vital. Eventually, it will happen again. I suppose that shows why we need that Justice System outline. Now now, you should know your history on this. Stalin started it all because he wanted to keep Che from running in the election (at the time it was feared he could win because of his Fantasyland's size). So he implemented, at the last minute, a rule that prevented users who had previously been banned from running. It was so widely unpopular that he promised to overturn it later, but didn't. So a number of suggestions were put out, the most popular being mine - members with active warnings can't run. For whatever reason, the Mods didn't catch on quickly. I assume because they wanted to give it to the Tribunes as low hanging fruit, and Ler proposed then easily won.
That's reasonable, I'll bring it up in the mod section whether to amend the rules to make the process more explicit, or to just kind of do a Q+A thread, or to just have an explanatory thread. This is more just the prevailing argument among enough mods to prevent the passing of transparency issues. The issue also was brought up today that we need at least part of the forums to be private in order to be able to express certain opinions or attitudes that might otherwise be constituted as insulting. Basically, a place for us to be able to vent (in a way that has no legal ramifications) every now and then in order to keep everyone sane Yea that all happened while I was away, but still contextually it appears as an expansion of an electoral principle by a tribunal proposed amendment. Tribunes could have argued against everything entirely (not sure if this happened or not) but in the end this is what they settled on, and by extension what you guys wanted. If this was such an unjust rule you guys have had what 3 elections and Tribuneships to try and propose a change?
Well the thing is it's not an unjust rule. The rule is perfectly reasonable. I only mentioned it because coupled with warnings being given out without due process it would be unjust. However since I, apparently, no less than I thought I did about the Justice System, I'll have to hold on that until that document is made.
