Vote of no Confidence in the Black Prince, our Curator

[Scorch]

The constitution says that:

At any time, any Citizen of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer, with the exception of Moderation or Technical Staff not on the Council, for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Curia.

I'm invoking this right and asking that we institute a vote of no confidence in our Curator, the Black Prince.

My reason for this is simple. He has been involved in a more-than-acceptable number of incidents of him abusing the authority bestowed upon him. He has recently gone beyond his remit as curator in changing the names of bills as he saw fit, as pointed out here.

His actions here are best summed up by Mimirswell, the bill's proposer:

The title you inserted into my bill implies all ranks and medals are being whereas the title I chose specifies the exact reason they are being removed. You have poisoned the vote after delaying it unnecessarily, thank you.

In this case, he went to the measure of changing the title of Mimirswell's amendment on the removal of superfluous medals to that of a medal abolition amendment after expressing displeasure at the amendment within the thread, and thus abusing his authority by imposing his personal opinion on the curia through his station as curator.

The Curator, over this incident, has said that "I'll just let you vote on whatever rubbish you happen to write". He is clearly showing contempt for the thoughts and views of the majority of citizens, and using his office as Curator to enforce his particular partisan viewpoint on the issue. His authority is given in order to facilitate the day to day running of the Curia, not for him to influence bills that he likes and those that he doesn't. When the bill-proposer gives a name to a bill, a bill that the curator is clearly and vehemently against and then he uses his authority to rename the bill to something more in line with his 'interpretation' when the name clearly uses words with connotations directly contravening what the proposer's intent was, I think that's quite a clear attempt at bias, and thus an abuse of power.

But this is not a new concept. In fact, from almost his first day, he went about stifling discussion (such as Garb explains here, here is the actual thread) and undermining the work and almost any precedent set by his predecessor and indeed his current counterpart and Speaker of the House. He has thus far used the office of Curator to change bills into an image of what his interpretation things they should be. In fact, at one point, he instituted an entire new voting system at the last minute in implementing IBFD's Opifex Vote. As a result, only one team member passed, even though the mod was definitely qualified, even though every team Opifex vote taken to the Curia before had passed, and even though there were only 8 'no' votes, which was one of the fewest for any team Opifex vote. These are actual people being recognised for their hard work and contributions, it's not a time to experiment with a new voting style without notifying anyone.

The Syntagma says that the Curator is responsible for the 'day to day running of the Curia', and given his actions I think it's quite clear that tBP is acting beyond his remit as curator and clearly abusing the authority bestowed on him by the Curia.

On the other hand, it is extremely worrying when you can attribute quotes such as "it shouldn't be too hard to lead the curia sheep in another direction" to the current curator, as this is damaging to the independence of the institution, as it introduces concepts of partisanship and obscurity to the person and thus the post. It's even more worrying when the curator decides to enforce his own personal views and opinions upon the general membership of the site.

In public, the Black Prince has gone about doing this. He has said in public that the opinions of a member are worth little and shouldn't be heard if he isn't a citizen and that non-citizens don't deserve to have their opinions heard about matters that explicitly effect them. He has attempted to stifle discussion about the recent TWC Awards in in the Curia, Symposium and to a lesser degree, the Q&S and has also indirectly accused his predecessors of not doing their job properly at all. This is damaging to the role not only now but in the future, when the decisions that tBP has made will stand as precedent.

As such, tBP's actions both in public and in the Curia are poisoning the relationship between the general membership and the Curia, as well as damaging the office of Curator and the Curia in general.

In his actions both within the Curia and outside it, he has complimented his abuse of authority with threatening negligence of his duties, and this is severely reducing the functioning ability of the Curia.

So there you have it, my case. The current situation is unacceptable, so I call for the Curia to, given my arguments, follow through with a vote of no confidence in the Black Prince as Curator in order to remedy the current situation.

[Aristocrat]

I support.

[Fabolous]

My reason for this is simple. He has been involved in a more-than-acceptable number of incidents of him abusing the authority bestowed upon him. He has recently gone beyond his remit as curator in changing the names of bills as he saw fit, as pointed out here.

His actions here are best summed up by Mimirswell, the bill's proposer:


In this case, he went to the measure of changing the title of Mimirswell's amendment on the removal of superfluous medals to that of a medal abolition amendment after expressing displeasure at the amendment within the thread, and thus abusing his authority by imposing his personal opinion on the curia through his station as curator.

I'd advise you wait to see how this issue plays out, though his actions seem rather poor at this point.

The Curator, over this incident, has said that "I'll just let you vote on whatever rubbish you happen to write". This is a threat to the curia that he won't refine the bills (which is a clear abuse of power) and in doing so, be negligent of his duties, as well.

There is no requirement that the Curator rewrite bills. Further, given the way some of his advised changes have been met, I would also consider not doing so if I was tBP. There are many others of us with tremendous experience writing bills, tBP is not required. And not wanted it seems, by many. So perhaps he should allow us to vote on the rubbish we happen to write.

But this is not a new concept. In fact, from almost his first day, he went about stifling discussion (such as Garb explains here, here is the actual thread) and undermining the work and almost any precedent set by his predecessor and indeed his current counterpart and Speaker of the House. He has thus far used the office of Curator to change bills into an image of what his interpretation things they should be. In fact, at one point, he instituted an entire new voting system at the last minute in implementing IBFD's Opifex Vote. As a result, only one team member passed, even though the mod was definitely qualified and every team Opifex vote taken to the Curia before had passed.

If the Curia wished the team members to get it, then why didn't they vote for the members? tBP installed a new method of team Opifex which allows for certain worthy members to recieve while (perhaps) unworthy members (according to the Curia) to be denied. How are you to say the entire team would have passed given the old system, given the dissent against certain team members shown? And how can you say that the Curia rejecting unwanted members Opifex instead of (perhaps) mass promoting them is not an improvement?

His actions during the issue (primarily) raised by Garb were very troubling.

On the other hand, it is extremely worrying when you can attribute quotes such as "it shouldn't be too hard to lead the curia sheep in another direction" to the current curator, as this is damaging to the independence of the institution, as it introduces concepts of partisanship and obscurity to the person and thus the post. It's even more worrying when the curator decides to enforce his own personal views and opinions upon the general membership of the site.

Do you deny that there are Curial sheep? Or that it is easy to lead them?

In public, the Black Prince has gone about doing this. He has said in public that the opinions of a member are worth little and shouldn't be heard if he isn't a citizen and that non-citizens don't deserve to have their opinions heard about matters that explicitly effect them. He has attempted to stifle discussion about the recent TWC Awards in in the Curia, Symposium and to a lesser degree, the Q&S and has also indirectly accused his predecessors of not doing their job properly at all. This is damaging to the role not only now but in the future, when the decisions that tBP has made will stand as precedent.

If you believe that the ideal behind becoming a Citizen is to help run the site, then a non-Citizen is obviously less likely to be listened to as they are not trusted to help run the site (else they would be a Citizen) and who listens to people you don't trust?
(I disagree with the orginal ideal, but it is not an unworthy one, in my mind. I would wager it is one in Scorch's mind, though we will see his response.)

Where does he accuse his predecessors of not doing their job? I don't see that anywhere in the post you link to.

As such, tBP's actions both in public and in the Curia are poisoning the relationship between the general membership and the Curia, as well as damaging the office of Curator and the Curia in general.

In his actions both within the Curia and outside it, he has complimented his abuse of authority with threatening negligence of his duties, and this is severely reducing the functioning ability of the Curia.

So there you have it, my case. The current situation is unacceptable, so I call for the Curia to, given my arguments, follow through with a vote of no confidence in the Black Prince as Curator in order to remedy the current situation.

The orginal issue Garb raised worries me. I'm interested to see whether he did indeed insult SR's performance as Curator as you said, but have not yet shown. And we will see if he attempted to bias a vote most recently. If he did both of these things along with the first incident, I would be hard pressed not to support.

[Scorch]

I'd advise you wait to see how this issue plays out, though his actions seem rather poor at this point.

Indeed.

There is no requirement that the Curator rewrite bills. Further, given the way some of his advised changes have been met, I would also consider not doing so if I was tBP. There are many others of us with tremendous experience writing bills, tBP is not required. And not wanted it seems, by many. So perhaps he should allow us to vote on the rubbish we happen to write.

Sorry, I phrased my original post wrong, I'll fix it in a minute.

If the Curia wished the team members to get it, then why didn't they vote for the members? tBP installed a new method of team Opifex which allows for certain worthy members to recieve while (perhaps) unworthy members (according to the Curia) to be denied. How are you to say the entire team would have passed given the old system, given the dissent against certain team members shown? And how can you say that the Curia rejecting unwanted members Opifex instead of (perhaps) mass promoting them is not an improvement?

tBP himself has admitted the fault and stupidity of this method, I am just arguing the abuse of authority that was involved in instituting it in the first place. He went well beyond his remit in doing this. However as I said, it had one of the fewest amount of no votes, yet only one member was given the title. It was poorly managed, and many members (such as Mak) have expressed their frustration at an inability to vote the way that, ideally, they would have liked to because of the system.

His actions during the issue (primarily) raised by Garb were very troubling.

Very much so.

Do you deny that there are Curial sheep? Or that it is easy to lead them?

I don't have the experience to say, but it is worrying nonetheless.

If you believe that the ideal behind becoming a Citizen is to help run the site, then a non-Citizen is obviously less likely to be listened to as they are not trusted to help run the site (else they would be a Citizen) and who listens to people you don't trust?

However the opinions of the general membership (that is, the other 99% of the board) should not be discarded with such negligent and reckless arrogance, as tBP did, using the office of Curator to give some semblance of officiality to his statements. That's abusing the authority given to him, as I see it.

(I disagree with the orginal ideal, but it is not an unworthy one, in my mind. I would wager it is one in Scorch's mind, though we will see his response.)

The idea of awards?

Where does he accuse his predecessors of not doing their job? I don't see that anywhere in the post you link to.

As I said, it was indirect, however the implication is there in the post quoted in imb's post (which has since been edited) here and the post directly after.

The orginal issue Garb raised worries me. I'm interested to see whether he did indeed insult SR's performance as Curator as you said, but have not yet shown. And we will see if he attempted to bias a vote most recently. If he did both of these things along with the first incident, I would be hard pressed not to support.

Well from my perspective he's guilty of both of those things. When the bill-proposer gives a name to a bill, a bill that you're clearly and vehemently against and then you use your authority to rename the bill to something more in line with your 'interpretation' when the name clearly uses words with connotations directly contravening what the proposer's intent was ... that's attempting to bias, from what I see.

[makanyane]

Have only time to make a quick couple of points on the two things that concern me:
RE: Opifex votes;

If the Curia wished the team members to get it, then why didn't they vote for the members? tBP installed a new method of team Opifex which allows for certain worthy members to recieve while (perhaps) unworthy members (according to the Curia) to be denied. How are you to say the entire team would have passed given the old system, given the dissent against certain team members shown? And how can you say that the Curia rejecting unwanted members Opifex instead of (perhaps) mass promoting them is not an improvement?

Point isn't really which system is right or wrong, I can debate quite strongly for maintaining the system set for the earlier team votes, but this isn't the place for that. The point is that the curator on his own initiative overturned a precedent that had been set (and which was debated earlier), he did that unilaterally without apparently consulting the bill proposer, and didn't take a lot of notice when myself and the bill proposer raised concerns during the vote. I was annoyed at the time but didn't want to embroil the IBFD guys in an argument that could have become unpleasant for them, and as at that time the change didn't seem to be part of a general trend of actions by the curator. I thought it could be left to debate in more general terms when the next opifex vote came up.

tBP has acknowledged that that voting system didn't work which is a promising sign but:

@Mak
I don't recall changing the title of that one when it went to vote... as for voting method... there's no such thing as team Opifex. Doesn't exist, and nor should it, because Opifex is an individual award. I tried to come up with what i hoped was a clear voting system to use to make the idea work. I tried, but i didn't succeed. I've already decided that next time someone proposers team Opifex, there won't be a single vote, each person will be voted on separately, as the constitution intended. Its really the only way to have a fair vote.

He's now just decided on own again apparently to divide the votes totally, whether you think that is better system or not, the point is that it would be a unilateral action by the curator - again - overturning previous precedent without debate, in a direction that is likely to favour his personal stance of maintaining the exclusivity of the upper ranks (you might say by excluding unworthy candidates - I'd say by excluding the less known candidates, which was whole problem with individual Opifex proposals).

Re: Non-citizens
This is going to have to be from memory so will probably get shot down on points but... During the debate that arose over whether Professor420 should be allowed to stand for Modder Liaison, tBP decided as Curator that he was not eligible, so far so 'good' in terms of just translating constitution, whatever anyone may think about the possibilities of the post. However the other posts made in same threads went on to imply strongly that non-citizens should not be allowed onto curial committees, the constitution does not preclude non-citizens on committees the members of the committees are actually selected by hex and they can and have used the provision under

The temporary committee can be dissolved at the discretion of the Council. It can also add and remove members when it sees fit.

to include with quite some success non-citizens. tBP appeared to be trying to say that he would overturn that in his role as curator, he might have meant only to state it as his preference in a personal capacity but by then it was impossible to tell whether he was talking personally or attempting to state official policy on behalf of the whole curia.

Generally speaking I think problem is arising because tBP sees role of Curator as that of a judge presiding over the interpretation of the Constitution and thinks he is able to overturn previous precedent as he sees fit. I'd have thought that the curator role, although very responsible should be more that of court clerk, in terms on record keeping and 'paper shuffling' but that it needs to stay well clear of any areas that could be seen as influencing policy / outcome of votes, especially when the individual filling the position has very strongly set views on a number of subjects.

Re: the VonC, depends really how he chooses to respond, if he won't acknowledge that there is at least the appearance of a large problem with the way the role is being carried out then I'd support the motion as I think the current situation is unsustainable.

[Shaun]

Given the evidence presented by Scorch, I fully support. However, I think its best we see tBP's side of the argument as well.

[Søren]

I officially cast my absence of an opinion.

However, as to two points which I feel qualified to comment on:

On the other hand, it is extremely worrying when you can attribute quotes such as "it shouldn't be too hard to lead the curia sheep in another direction" to the current curator, as this is damaging to the independence of the institution, as it introduces concepts of partisanship and obscurity to the person and thus the post. It's even more worrying when the curator decides to enforce his own personal views and opinions upon the general membership of the site.

To deny the existance of Curial sheep would to be in a dangerous state of denial.


Secondly, his supposed challenging of Scottishranger's and other curator's performances:

Previous Curators tended to interpret the Constitution less strictly, and according to what they thought was sensible. tBP, on the other hand, prefers to keep very close to the letter of the text (rightly or wrongly). Therefore I think it was reasonable of him to say that they did not uphold the Constitution in the same way as he would, as they definitely didn't.


Also, a possible solution to all this would be to simply forget tBP and SC's performances, and concentrate soley on mine. I was undoubtably the most s*** curator in the history of the site, mostly because I seldom did anything. I should really be pilloried instead, though preferably by proxy.

[Garbarsardar]

Meh, tBP overstepped his role in three separate occasions at least, slandered the previous Curator and thinks that he is the ruler of the Curia and not a humble servant of Syntagma...

Well, I wonder, when he was was voted in what exactly did you excpect he would do?

Meh.
Meh.
Meh.

[Belisarius]

I don't blame Aden I blame the Curia.

meh

I will give my stance as soon as I read tBP's reaction.

[the Black Prince]

My reason for this is simple. He has been involved in a more-than-acceptable number of incidents of him abusing the authority bestowed upon him. He has recently gone beyond his remit as curator in changing the names of bills as he saw fit, as pointed out here.

The decision to change the name was made under the Terms Service, for which the Curator is a local moderator in the Curia, and has nothing to do with the Constitution or Constitutionally defined powers.
The appropriate section of the ToS is the section on trolling that prohibits misleading topic titles.

The thread title in question has since been changed to the current one by myself after Mimirswell pointed out to me that he had already changed the name of the Bill to one that was more representative. I had missed that change, and have now corrected that mistake. The original topic title of the thread certainly did not represent the bill accurately.


As i have already pointed out in debate, i do not believe that the topic title i originally used was in anyway partisan biased or "poisoned" or whatever other term you may wish to use. Abolition of Rank and Medals is a descriptive title that accurately describes what the bill does. Abolition itself is not a negative word.

my dictionary definition of Abolition is
The act of doing away with
which is precisely what the bill does. it removes 3 ranks and several medals.

as Mimirswell himself has said on this issue

It's an easy mistake to make, one I made a few times before. I understand and accept your arguments about abolition, but without the understanding that you simply missed the change, it appeared as though you were attempting to insert bias.

I missed his own name change, and the original one was misleading. When he pointed out his name change to me, it was implemented.



As to team Opifex
there is no such thing. I can't implement a team opifex vote wrong, bevcause team opifex does not exist. Its simply an easy way of mass proposing several candidates at once.

The previous voting system was incredibly flawed. Opifex is an individual award, yet the previous voting system only allowed you to vote yes or no to everyone. I attempted to create a better method of implementing this idea, but i fully admit, and indeed already have done so, that this was by no means perfect. The next time Team Opifex comes up, when the nomination goes to vote, it will be in seperate votes for each member. Following the flaws highlighted in the last vote, i believe this is now the only correct and fair way to implement the constitution.

As curator, my job is to interpret the Constitution. At no point am i bound to follow past precedents



TWC Awards are currently granted by the Curia, therefore they are a matter for the Curia to discuss. At no point have i stifled debate about them in the Symposium or in the Curia, because that is its proper place.
i did indeed move an opinion poll on the issue from the Curia Main to the Symposium, but that is because polls cannot be held in the Curia, as per the constitution.


I'm not sure how the post you link to is my criticism of a previous curator, so i ask you to clarify that point.

In his actions both within the Curia and outside it, he has complimented his abuse of authority with threatening negligence of his duties, and this is severely reducing the functioning ability of the Curia.

i strongly deny that claim. At all times i have been prompt and efficient in running the Curia, insuring relevant people are informed as to what is going on, moving bills to vote, and maintaining the archives.
as Ian himself has said

No one doubts your efficiency. You have been highly efficient.

i believe thats all the points in the original post

There is no requirement that the Curator rewrite bills. Further, given the way some of his advised changes have been met, I would also consider not doing so if I was tBP. There are many others of us with tremendous experience writing bills, tBP is not required. And not wanted it seems, by many. So perhaps he should allow us to vote on the rubbish we happen to write.

There is indeed no such requirement. It was an idea i got from Mimirswell when he was Curator, and something i kinda made a campaign promise, that i would help people write bills that achieve what they want, rather stand back and simply move to votes bill that i know do not do what the proposer has wanted.


Personally, i think it is a good thing for the Curator to make these suggestions for change, which i have done so regardless of whether i support the bill.

BP himself has admitted the fault and stupidity of this method, I am just arguing the abuse of authority that was involved in instituting it in the first place. He went well beyond his remit in doing this. However as I said, it had one of the fewest amount of no votes, yet only one member was given the title. It was poorly managed, and many members (such as Mak) have expressed their frustration at an inability to vote the way that, ideally, they would have liked to because of the system.

there is no procedure for a vote on team opifex. i can't overstep my authority and do it wrong because no such procedure exists. its been entirely made up by the curators and original proposer of the 1st team opifex (Halie i believe)

the previous system was even more unfair, because it meantr you had to vote yes to everyone, even if you only wanted to vote yes to one. This method allowed you to vote yes and no to who each individual. i tried to make it perfect, but i failed, as mak pointed out, under my method, if you wanted to vote yes on one, but abstain on the others, rather than voting no, you could not. i hadn't considered this.
the only way to accommodate this is to ensure that every candidate for team opifex has 3 options, precisely the same as any other vote, which under a literal interpretation of the constitution is how it should have been done in the 1st place i guess.

Where does he accuse his predecessors of not doing their job? I don't see that anywhere in the post you link to.

that issue has long since been dealt with between myself and Ian, and was the result of Ian misinterpreting what my post had originally said. i have since removed the line that was misinterpreted to prevent people subsequently misreading the way Ian did. As you can tell from the date the post was editted, this issue was settled some time ago.
At no point have i accused any of my predecessors of not doing their job. If i believe any curial officer was failing in his duties, i would avail myself of this very procedure. you will note, i have not done so.

@mak, its my job to decide these things. The exact format of a vote is laid down in the Constitution, where it is not, then its for the Curator to fill in the gaps, thats what his interpretive role is all about.
Opifex is an individual award given to citizens, there is a procedure for opifex votes, which from now on will be followed to the letter. Its now been proved that this is the only way a fair vote can be held.


as to maks last point...
yes, there are issues here... i acknowledge that

but two of the issues raised, the previous curator, and the bill name, have been the result of mistakes and misunderstands. i've made made mistakes, i admit this, i'm only human. but having admitted the mistake, and in the case of team opifex, announced what i will do in the future to prevent the mistake occuring again, i'm still being attacked for it.

With SR, my words were taken the wrong way, i explained what i meant to Ian, edited the post to prevent further people making the wrong assumption, and now i'm being attacked for an issue long over that i never did.

With the bill, i missed something Mimirswell has posted, and acted on my own initiative to fill the gap, that mims post had already filled. When mim pointed this out to me, i resolved that issue and changed the name of the bill to the one mim proposed. again, my mistake, and one i apologise for. i will certainly be more careful to ensure it does not happen again.


as to the issue Fab raises, if the citizens here so wish, i will cease from making formative suggestions for bills, and merely argue for or against them as a citizen.
The only reason i have done is that i always have taken a literal approach to interpretation, something previous curators have not done, as Soren points out. I hav wanted to make sure that what people wanted was what they got. There have been thats have gone to vote that would not achieve this if i hadn't made the suggestions i did, suggestions which in almost all cases have been adopted by the proposer.

[Muizer]

About the recent goings on in the Curia, I'd like to point out to my right honourable fellow citizens that some of us have been jumping in and supporting "bills" that weren't remotely fit to go to a vote. Fortunate we are that the bill proposers tend to be a bit more critical.
Point is that if we pass sloppy legislation, it will, sooner or later, have to be implemented and so it will fall to the Curator to pick up the pieces. Any good curator would try to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, if the Curator is personally opposed to the bill in question, it will look like sabotage.
I'm not argueing this accounts for the experiences with the current Curator. I just think it is an aspect that needs to be highlighted.

[Mímirswell]

The only reason i have done is that i always have taken a literal approach to interpretation, something previous curators have not done, as Soren points out. I hav wanted to make sure that what people wanted was what they got. There have been thats have gone to vote that would not achieve this if i hadn't made the suggestions i did, suggestions which in almost all cases have been adopted by the proposer.

When I was Pro-Curator, I was very careful to never support or oppose a Bill when I was officially acting. There were occasions that I strongly endorsed or opposed bills but during such occasions, Justinian (later Fabolous) would act as the impartial actor. Furthermore, whenever endeavoring to improve a bill, I gave suggestions and positive feedback whereas you tend to demean and criticize the bills flaws, creating negative feelings. This critical and haughty nature is what I perceive as having lead to this VoNC and the general hostility you have received in the Prothalamos.

[scottishranger]

Some things I would like to say...

there is no procedure for a vote on team opifex. i can't overstep my authority and do it wrong because no such procedure exists. its been entirely made up by the curators and original proposer of the 1st team opifex (Halie i believe)

the previous system was even more unfair, because it meantr you had to vote yes to everyone, even if you only wanted to vote yes to one. This method allowed you to vote yes and no to who each individual. i tried to make it perfect, but i failed, as mak pointed out, under my method, if you wanted to vote yes on one, but abstain on the others, rather than voting no, you could not. i hadn't considered this.
the only way to accommodate this is to ensure that every candidate for team opifex has 3 options, precisely the same as any other vote, which under a literal interpretation of the constitution is how it should have been done in the 1st place i guess.

I agree with you, frankly, when the issue of team opifex first came up I had no idea how to deal with the voting aspect of it. I am glad that it changed under you, I knew my way was deeply flawed, yet I could not see a way to fix it.

As curator, my job is to interpret the Constitution. At no point am i bound to follow past precedents

I agree with you

that issue has long since been dealt with between myself and Ian, and was the result of Ian misinterpreting what my post had originally said. i have since removed the line that was misinterpreted to prevent people subsequently misreading the way Ian did. As you can tell from the date the post was editted, this issue was settled some time ago.
At no point have i accused any of my predecessors of not doing their job. If i believe any curial officer was failing in his duties, i would avail myself of this very procedure. you will note, i have not done so.

And I thank you for not doing so.

@mak, its my job to decide these things. The exact format of a vote is laid down in the Constitution, where it is not, then its for the Curator to fill in the gaps, thats what his interpretive role is all about.

Again, I agree

With SR, my words were taken the wrong way, i explained what i meant to Ian, edited the post to prevent further people making the wrong assumption, and now i'm being attacked for an issue long over that i never did.

I never even read the particular post in question, whatever it was, I don't care. It is the internet after all. Different people have different perspectives, and I respect that.

[Simetrical]

The decision to change the name was made under the Terms Service, for which the Curator is a local moderator in the Curia, and has nothing to do with the Constitution or Constitutionally defined powers.
The appropriate section of the ToS is the section on trolling that prohibits misleading topic titles.

I think you're laboring under a slight misapprehension here. You are not a site moderator and are neither required nor permitted to enforce the Terms of Service anywhere. Violations of the Terms of Service are dealt with not just by editing posts but by giving infractions; you cannot give infractions. Interpretations are discussed in the moderator forum; you cannot access that. Only site moderators enforce the ToS. Other moderators use their rights as they see fit, within certain bounds, with no reference to the site rules.

Incidentally, even if you were a site moderator, I should hope you wouldn't go around accusing administrators of violating the ToS.

When I was Pro-Curator, I was very careful to never support or oppose a Bill when I was officially acting. There were occasions that I strongly endorsed or opposed bills but during such occasions, Justinian (later Fabolous) would act as the impartial actor.

There was previously a clause that the moving of a bill to vote would be delegated to a third party if the Curator supported the bill. I think the incident in question merits reviving that, although of course in a somewhat broader form (if the Curator has expressed an opinion on the substance of the bill, perhaps).

[Wicked]

I have not been here much in over a year, and am still catching up on what has occurred in my absence, however I have never previously noticed anything so grievously untoward in his actions before as to warrant this.

Nonetheless, I will be interested in seeing the discussion, I firmly believe every Citizen should be able to speak his mind in plain words when he sees fit, I would however plead that those of you with the worst grievances contact him directly, through PM, email, or messenger as possible, I've often found the forum less than congenial when discussing severely conflicting views, the public eye tending to provoke defensiveness, my apology if those avenues of communication have already been used and found wanting.

-Wicked

[imb39]

There was previously a clause that the moving of a bill to vote would be delegated to a third party if the Curator supported the bill. I think the incident in question merits reviving that, although of course in a somewhat broader form (if the Curator has expressed an opinion on the substance of the bill, perhaps).

As have I. I'd have thought that sometimes just doing the 'blindingly obvious' should be taken as read. In fact, I often refused to take part simply because of my role, save in an advisory capacity.

[Freddie]

I don’t why you guys get worked up over this. Why can’t you all just enjoy the site and the games and cut out throw accusations and *****ing (word for a female dog with 'ing' on the end?) over things that will no effect on the success of this site?

[Hotspur]

Because it's the same fifteen or so guys from the beginning of TWC and they all have axes to grind.

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

I don't support -- this is apples and apples -- as far as the offenses go, real or perceived, he's doing his job and not really causing anymore or in the eyes of some any less offense than anyone else would do.

[happyho]

No support from me either for this attempt at a VonC on tBP.