User:Peter Schmitt/Penalties

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

The following suggestion is the reaction to discussions in the forum and on CZ:Managing Editor/2011/004 - Constabulary action and its talk page:

Time penalties

1. As a disciplinary measure, offences against the rules of the Citizendium shall be punished/answered with time penalties, i.e., by temporary exclusion from the wiki or the forum or both.

2. Warnings shall be issued, and time penalties shall be imposed by — and at the descretion of — the Constabulary.

(a) Time penalties of two weeks or less cannot be appealed.
(b) Time penalties of more than two weeks may be appealed.
(c) Time penalties of more than a month have to be confirmed by the Management Council.
(d) Repeated time penalties may be appealed if the total length of penalties accumulated during the last three months exceeds one month.

3. Warnings and time penalties shall be announced where the offense happened and be recorded (together with a permanent link documenting the offense) on a page dedicated to this purpose.

4. Permanent bans shall be reserved for extreme cases and only be used against users who maliciously damage the Citizendium, or who are clearly unable or unwilling to contribute in a useful way.


Since these rules do not change the Charter (but see below!) they could be approved by the MC or accepted in a referendum by a simple majority.

Item (2a) may be seen as a (minor) infringement of the Charter

(Art. 38.4) Any act of the Constables may be appealed to the Management Council.

and therefore rules as stated above may need a two-thirds majority. It is, however, essential that small routine penalties are excepted from appeals in order to avoid bureaucracy and the risk to be drowned in appeals.

If a change of the Charter is required then the following referendum for an amendment of the Charter (requiring a qualified majority) is proposed:

Article 38 (4) is replaced by the following text:

Any act of the Constables may be appealed to the Management Council, but some routine acts may be excepted from this right.

Comments

I agree with the principle. Re. (2.a): I don't think we have to worry about being drowned in appeals. I suggest we leave this risk open, until it has been proven that it is really a problem. It's better if we can make the change without revising the Charter Johan Förberg 18:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hayford and Johan. This is not a pressing problem. Right now we have much more serious issues to attend to, such as finances. We need a treasurer and the longer we go without one the more peril the project faces. Dan Nessett 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)