Template:CharterVote2/33/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

• As established and documented by the Management Council. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We had spent a lot of time crafting a clause dealing with how the constables do their job. What happened to that? Do we need to empower the MC with the task of determining the powers of the Constabulary or should the Charter do it? In any case, just how does a constable "enforce CZ's rules of behavior" if they don't have a billy-club? Russell D. Jones 14:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Constabulary shall enforce the Citizendium's rules of behavior as determined by the Management Council, and which shall apply equally to all Citizens regardless of status or position, including Editors and those with official positions. In particular, Constables

1. shall not intervene in matters of content, and
2. shall act with reasonable pragmatism and leniency, and only in those situations where a behavioral dispute is clearly covered by existing rules.
3. Constables shall have power to block citizens' access to the Citizendium.
4. Any act of the Constables may be appealed to the Management Council.

Agree (removed and above) D. Matt Innis 14:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, with the caveat that there must be a comma before which or Hayford will haunt you. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Added that comma and turned used capital E for Editors. --Daniel Mietchen 22:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Still Agree, and agree with all the changes. Russell D. Jones 14:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. -Joe Quick 04:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous version makes the MC a court. I'm not certain that's what we wanted. Russell D. Jones 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Constabulary shall enforce the Citizendium's rules of behavior as determined by the Management Council, and which shall apply equally to all Citizens regardless of status or position, including Editors and those with official positions. In particular, Constables

1. shall not intervene in matters of content, and
2. shall act with reasonable pragmatism and leniency, and only in those situations where a behavioral dispute is clearly covered by existing rules.
3. Constables shall have power to block citizens' access to the Citizendium.
4. Any act of the Constables may be appealed to the Dispute Board.

Hmmm. Russell D. Jones 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree in general, but where should we make it clear that deliberate violation of an EC policy, or Charter principle such as advocacy, is behavioral and thus actionable by Constables? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

advocacy should not be actionable. Howard, you hold a position on Holocaust denial, which makes you an advocate. We need advocates from all sides. I think the actionable criteria is that they habitually break the rules that were designed to help reach a comprehensive, objective and neutral result. D. Matt Innis 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Holding a position is advocacy? That tortures the word. I actually haven't said very much on the subject, other than, perhaps, the factual description of some war crimes trial. If I quote Ahmadinejad, I'm not advocating his position, nor am I advocating an Israeli position that such statements are grounds for nuclear superiority. While it isn't strictly Holocaust denial, I'd feel comfortable and neutral in presenting sourced alternate translations of his Farsi statement about Israel vanishing.

Sorry, this is a tortured definition of advocacy, and I'm not referring to torture. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Howard, your advocacy against advocacy may become outlawed! Russell D. Jones 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If marriage is ever made illegal, only outlaws will have inlaws. (couldn't resist) For a more scholarly comment, I cite Talleyrand to young diplomats: "above all, no zeal." It's quite possible to write in an interesting way without taking sides. Admittedly, as I'm finding in some articles, it's hard to find coherent sources on both sides of an issue--not that in the Middle East, it's the simpler issues that have only one side. I think, however, I am complimented. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Let me put it this way, I am an advocate of living a clean and healthy lifestyle. I wouldn't want someone to ban me because I kept adding to articles about health that exercise and proper diet can prolong life. Either way, if someone is advocating something, it should make its way through the EC toward a decision that, if violated, becomes an MC issue and constables can do something about it. D. Matt Innis 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added "limit or" to the above:

The Constabulary shall enforce the Citizendium's rules of behavior as determined by the Management Council, and which shall apply equally to all Citizens regardless of status or position, including Editors and those with official positions. In particular, Constables

1. shall not intervene in matters of content, and
2. shall act with reasonable pragmatism and leniency, and only in those situations where a behavioral dispute is clearly covered by existing rules.
3. Constables shall have power to limit or block citizens' access to the Citizendium.
4. Any act of the Constables may be appealed to the Management Council.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Although, when we decide the name "the Dispute Board" should change accordingly. D. Matt Innis 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!! I had meant to change that back to MC. Russell D. Jones 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Russell D. Jones 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Joe Quick 16:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)