Bill VIII - Clientele Restrictions amendment

**Seleukos** · September 23, 2005, 01:04 PM

Please do not view the poll results before voting.

Proposed Amendment:

That the 6 clientel restriction for civitates be raised to 11 clients in the Syntagma.

Patronising new members
Any Patrician, Senatorii or Curator and can patronise new Civitates. No member may have more than six clients directly under them.

Proposed Amended Syntagma

Patronising new members
Any Patrician, Senatorii or Curator and can patronise new Civitates. No member may have more than eleven clients directly under them.

It is silly to have such a limit, especially at a time when we need more. Especially when members as great as Sibs and Wilpuri has 11 and 10 respectively. Just as two examples. So, we should raise the limit to 11 so it will be fair and equal for everyone.

As discussed here.

Voted, of course.

**Tom Paine** · September 23, 2005, 01:16 PM

I'm abstaining. I'd rather haveother measures to deal with th lack of civitates than an incrased client limit.

**Ldvs** · September 23, 2005, 01:26 PM

Voted.

**Justinian** · September 23, 2005, 01:27 PM

Voted.

**Søren** · September 23, 2005, 01:33 PM

Voted, to raise the limit. Although, if there was a choice to raise it to 8/9 I would have prefferd that.

**Sulla** · September 23, 2005, 01:34 PM

Voted.

**the Black Prince** · September 23, 2005, 01:35 PM

*sighs*

voted, i agree
but what is the point to small bits of piecemeal legislation?
if you're going to make chnages, why not sit down on MSn with some of the key people in the curia and staff and actually hammer out an entire new civitates protocol to represent the current position in use?

**Belisarius** · September 23, 2005, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

*sighs*

voted, i agree
but what is the point to small bits of piecemeal legislation?
if you're going to make chnages, why not sit down on MSn with some of the key people in the curia and staff and actually hammer out an entire new civitates protocol to represent the current position in use?

Its being done.

Voted yes, but I think the vote was started to soon. ... Lol how hypocritical :laughing:

**Søren** · September 23, 2005, 01:43 PM

Its being done.

Is it ?

Surely it would be a procedure that would be best discussed in the Curia. Or as tBP suggested, at least on MSN. (Which wouldn't work, for the obvious reason that it would be near impossible to get the Staff and Active "Curial" Civitates on at the same time)

**Belisarius** · September 23, 2005, 01:46 PM

All in good time TBN, All in good time..

**Fabolous** · September 23, 2005, 02:26 PM

Voted.

**Epistolary Richard** · September 23, 2005, 02:34 PM

Voted, as I argued, no.

The last time this was voted I said that, while I opposed removing the limit altogether, I wouldn't oppose adjusting the number. In this vote, however, I've voted no because I don't see this as being the end to the matter. When these patrons reach ten and eleven civitates will we just see another bill saying "Isn't it about time we raised the limit because 11 is incredibly constrictive".

If you want more clients then encourage other people (eg, your existing six clients) to patronise them, the civitate system isn't about personal geneological empire building, it's about getting quality people to become civitates and encouraging all civitates to become patrons in their turn and look out for promising new candidates. That means making sure patrons put a bit of thought into sponsoring members and that means limiting their numbers. I see no reason to raise the limit because of some historical, now inactive, members sponsored more because the system was only just being introduced.

BTW, to all voters, I found the discussion of this topic before the vote (which Seleukos links in his first post) very interesting. I would encourage you all to have a scan of its pages to understand both sides of the argument before casting your ballot.

______________________

Under the Patronage of Crandar
Patron of Prof

**Caius Britannicus** · September 23, 2005, 03:22 PM

Voted. no.

After reading through the discussion on this topic (posted by sel). I have to agree with Epistolary Richard and Jesus the Inane's comments. Once the newer civs reach patrician status then the pool of potential civitates will be severlly reduced due to the increased clientele allowed. Especially when you look at some members (for example Sel and Sim) that have patronized near there limit in a rather short about of time. If the limit is not raised and you have reached the limit of clientele allowed then pass the word on to someone else who can still patronize someone, and if you are really taking the families things seriously pass it on to someone in your family. As far as I know and understand there is no competion for the most and best civitates and if there is then I think people are going about things all the wrong way.

**Simetrical** · September 23, 2005, 03:48 PM

A very reluctant yes from me. I would prefer a lower limit, say eight, or better still a reduction of the Patrician waiting time to two months. Jacobus and I are hammering out a preliminary Civitates reform proposal that could overturn this anyway, so I'll accept this for now only. Or maybe not. Bleh, am I allowed to change my vote?

**~~Atheist Peace~~** · September 23, 2005, 04:15 PM

"A very reluctant yes" from me also. The thought of mass patronizing bothers me greatly but I doubt that more than a few people (probably staff) will actually go anywhere near this limit, so it probably won't be a big problem and we can always pass a new limit if it gets out of control.