Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Appointment of Civitates

  1. #1

    Default Appointment of Civitates

    i'm not going to draft a bill on this discussion yet, though i hope one will be forthcoming...

    there have been rumblings on this issue before, about staff appointing civitates, and variou half hearted proposals to change this. i think its time to have a solid discussion on possible alternatives, or instead agree to keep the system as it is, i'd like to get civitate input on it certainly...


    currently, the situation is that a patrciain approaches a potential client, offers him the rank, the client accepts, and PM's a staff member with a paragraph stating why he would want to be a civitate etc... the staff check him out, vote on him, and a majority vote means he passes and becomes a civitate

    i believe the current proposal under voting makes a few changes to this, namely that the vote must be 2/3rds majority, and that the client must not have any warnings...


    my suggestion is that we the curia appoint/elect a small body of senior members, an Appointments Committee who handle aspects of civitate appointments, and ADVISE the staff on who should be a civitate.

    the system would work something like this.
    the curia appoints 8 members, all of patrician rank or higher. 2 other members are appointed by the republican consul - one of them the Pro-Curator, the other any other Prefect. from the curias 8 Councillors, one is named by the committee to be Censor, and Chairman.

    a subforum is created in the curia for the council to meet. for new civitates, the patron sends a PM to the censor, including the paragraph his client has written, and the 10 members hold a vote. 2/3rds in favour and the member passes.
    all 10 councillors can check the civitates posts and stuff. the Pro-Curator and Prefect (plus any other staff member on the committee) have a respnsibility to bring to the committee's attention any other details about the member that may be relevant - notably warnings

    The Censor has mod powers just in this sub forum and is responsibile for maintaining the lists of civitates. upon the completion of each vote, based on its outcome, the Censor as spokesman for the committee recommends that member for civiteship to the Trium. normally i would imagine the committee's advice will be followed, but the trium have the power to veto an appointment if they need to. can't imagine the power would ever really need to be exercised though.
    The Censor notifies the trium when a member is ready to be upgraded to patrician as well.
    i'm tempted to say this sub forum should be read only for all civitates as well, but if the staff are posting confidential information about warnings, that may not be such a good idea.

  2. #2
    imb39's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Patrician Citizen did you know I was admin once

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    20,872

    Default

    Who would form this council of the great and the good?

  3. #3

    Default

    8 self nominated patricians or above - with elections if more than 8 apply - one of whom will be elected by the council as Censor
    the Pro-Curator
    a Prefect appointed to the committee by the Republican Consul

  4. #4
    Niles Crane's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    15,460

    Default

    8 self nominated patricians or above - with elections if more than 8 apply - one of whom will be elected by the council as Censor
    I don't think many people are going to nominate themselves, instead we should continue with the standard method of nominating others or ourselves.

  5. #5
    Tacticalwithdrawal's Avatar Ghost
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Stirling, Scotland
    Posts
    7,013

    Default

    just a question, but if the staff actually voted properly in the Civitate elections (ie. didn't just say yes by default) don't we already have this?

    and allied to Archer's improvement of having a thread posting all nominations so people can PM staff with comments, don't we get the bulk of this already without having to form another committee?
    : - It's my smilie and I'll use it if I want to......
    ______________________________________________________________

    Ave Caesar, Morituri Nolumus Mori (in Glaswegian: gae **** yrsel big man)
    ______________________________________________________________
    Child of Seleukos, Patron of Rosacrux redux, Polemides, Marcus Scaurus, CaptainCernick, Spiff and Fatsheep

  6. #6
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Magical Unicorn Citizen Magistrate did you know I was admin once

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default

    I fail to see the point of this sub-comittee. Did any new civitates behaved badly? Broke any rules lately? Did any descision of the staff on civitateship went astray?

    Please tell me, because I did not notice anything that would justify such measures...

  7. #7

    Default

    I feel that before we create yet more ranks we should sort out the ones we have. tBP's proposals are interesing to say the least, but I feel we will need a republican Consul and Pro Curator before creating such a comitee. This proposal is interesting but I cant really form an opinion untill we have our constitution and a stable full staff.

    I'll just sit back and read and lurk for now.
    Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
    - Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54

  8. #8
    Trajan's Avatar Capodecina
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,934

    Default

    I like this idea. A specialized Appointments Committee for potential Civitates could be a very nice addition to TWC. It could greatly improve the current system and it would quell any supposed unfairness on who deserves Civitateship and who doesn’t. Since the number of members in TWC is growing, I believe that a Civitates Appointments Committee might be needed. I think such a committee could solve the recent issues that have been presented in the Curia and it would relieve some of the stress that has been put on the staff if there was any to begin with.


    Edit:

    After reading some of the comments, I do agree that the current system has and still is working well and as Garbarsardar mentioned, the current system hasn't produced any bad Civitates so maybe such a committee is not needed at this time.
    Last edited by Trajan; December 30, 2005 at 06:28 AM.

  9. #9
    Omnipotent-Q's Avatar All Powerful Q
    Discontent Emeritus did you know I was admin once

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Oxford, United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,828

    Default

    I think there as any easier way to get rid of Double Standards.

    People under the patronage of a staff member must be voted on by the Curia instead of the staff, thus taking away double standards. A simple first past the post system could work such as:
    12 votes for, to pass the vote with under 6 no's, or if there is 6 no's or above, the vote must automatically go for 48 hours for a simple majority. (The theory is that 12 votes would be easy to get for people deserving, but there would be more objections for people that shouldn't be in, that it forces a full spectrum vote and consideration that isn't got in staff votes). This system could also be used if people think that the staff vote went unfairly, in the sense they could appeal to the Curia Consul for a vote on the potential. (Thus removing another "double standards" argument/problem).

    Lets face it, the 8 person council will be filled with staff or people wanting to get into staff so they'd just appease whoever on staff is patronising, thus not getting rid of the current "double standards" problem.

    Under the patronage of the Legendary Urbanis Legio - Mr Necrobrit of the Great House of Wild Bill Kelso. Honoured to have sponsored these great warriors for Citizenship - Joffrey Baratheon, General Brittanicus, SonOfOdin, Hobbes., Lionheartx10, Mangerman, Gen. Chris and PikeStance.

  10. #10
    Libertine's Avatar Neptune eats planets
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Ok, this is my first proposal here so be gentle :laughing:

    Howabout a House of Lords style system? Like the one tBP suggested but if we replace the council with the Staff and have a Curia vote also. so it would be something like this:
    Patrician selects potential civ.
    The Civ is brought before the Staff for a vote.
    If the vote passes then it is put before the Curia who do not have the power to deny the member his vote, only the right to put back the patronisation for...say...2 weeks. After 2 weeks the vote goes before the Curia who will vote again.
    If a dely vote is voted 3 times then the member will have to wait for a period of 2 months and find another patrician.
    Heir of Kscott
    Proud Patron of the lost Fable and Proud Patron of God
    Spurs Fan?
    Member of the SG Fan Club
    Finland had unusually little to do with the whole New World gig. - Watchman

    Helios News Monkey
    Knight of the Lulz

  11. #11
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Nah, it is to complicated GrimSta as is tBP's...

    Staff votes for new Civitates, right? There are 1 Imperator, 2 Consuls, 4 Praetors and 6 Quaestors, if my head serves me well. So let's say not only a majority but 9 of 13 said "Yes" then the Civitate gets the title, otherwise revote in a week if the vote was at least 6 voted yes. If less than 6 of the staff voted "Yes" civitateship is denied under the current patron.

    Seems simple and keeps it in the hands of staff, where I think this should be. Also makes it a bit harder to get there and hopefully makes the staff inform a bit before voting.


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  12. #12
    imb39's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Patrician Citizen did you know I was admin once

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    20,872

    Default

    Keep it as it is! Archer proved that the numbers of Civitates was no excessive (a thread from a month ago or so). This thread just carries on from that in reality. Moving from a simple to a 2/3 majority should be enough.

    And what would make this committee any better than the Staff anyway? I just fail to see the point. Another layer of bureaucracy which will in all probability not change things at all.

  13. #13
    Ardeur's Avatar Chattering in Chinese
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Keep it as it is! Archer proved that the numbers of Civitates was no excessive (a thread from a month ago or so). This thread just carries on from that in reality. Moving from a simple to a 2/3 majority should be enough.

    And what would make this committee any better than the Staff anyway? I just fail to see the point. Another layer of bureaucracy which will in all probability not change things at all.
    Right on! I think the main issue here is that of the possible-civitate passing on a simple majority. The case currently being argued was a member who passed on an almost even split, 5-4-1.

    I think that most of these questionable passings/failings will clean themselves up if the requirement is raised to 2/3 with no option for abstentions.

  14. #14
    Fabolous's Avatar Power breeds Arrogance
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    7,699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacticalwithdrawal
    just a question, but if the staff actually voted properly in the Civitate elections (ie. didn't just say yes by default) don't we already have this?

    and allied to Archer's improvement of having a thread posting all nominations so people can PM staff with comments, don't we get the bulk of this already without having to form another committee?
    I agree with tactical on this issue. Staff is much the smae as this council would likely be. And with some of the new methods put forth with people PMing staff members their feelings on civs, I think this isn't needed.

    Also, I do think we should move from needing a simple majority to needing 2/3. What that would mean practically, is we have ten active staff members(Sulla doesn't count as active) and one almost always abstains. That leaves 9 people, so a civ would simply need 6 members of staff yo vote yes. That isn't too hard by any strech. So any proposal increasing it to 2/3 instead of a majority has my support. That proposal would be a simpel change, taking this from the new constitution:

    Any member (with 100 posts or more and) deemed to be a contributing member in good standing may be nominated and patronized by Magistrates, Senatorii, Patrician, or Cohortes Praetorio. Any members who directly request said status (by posting asking to be nominated) will be denied it outright. The Magistrates will review the prospective Civitates posts and vote for their possible ascendancy into Civitate status. The vote will be in the form of a majority, and upon approval the new Civitate will hold all rights as granted by letters patent, a vote in the Curia and a voice in His Forum.
    And changing it to:

    Any member (with 100 posts or more and) deemed to be a contributing member in good standing may be nominated and patronized by Magistrates, Senatorii, Patrician, or Cohortes Praetorio. Any members who directly request said status (by posting asking to be nominated) will be denied it outright. The Magistrates will review the prospective Civitates posts and vote for their possible ascendancy into Civitate status. The vote will require a 2/3 majority, and upon approval the new Civitate will hold all rights as granted by letters patent, a vote in the Curia and a voice in His Forum.
    Changes in bold of course. :wink:
    tBP knows how to handle a sword. -Last Crusader

    Under the Honorable Patronage of Belisarius
    Formerly Under the Patronage of Simetrical
    Proud Patron of Lusted, Rome AC, Solid, and Dirty Peasant

  15. #15

    Default

    how about 2/3 of all magistrates

  16. #16
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default

    How about this: Any potential Civitate passed by a simple majority in the staff is made a civitate, any potential Civitate that does not pass the simple majority may request to be brought in front of the whole Curia, and if he recieves a 2/3 public yes vote than he is allowed to become a Civitate.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q
    I think there as any easier way to get rid of Double Standards.

    People under the patronage of a staff member must be voted on by the Curia instead of the staff, thus taking away double standards. A simple first past the post system could work such as:

    12 votes for, to pass the vote with under 6 no's, or if there is 6 no's or above, the vote must automatically go for 48 hours for a simple majority. (The theory is that 12 votes would be easy to get for people deserving, but there would be more objections for people that shouldn't be in, that it forces a full spectrum vote and consideration that isn't got in staff votes). This system could also be used if people think that the staff vote went unfairly, in the sense they could appeal to the Curia Consul for a vote on the potential. (Thus removing another "double standards" argument/problem).


    Lets face it, the 8 person council will be filled with staff or people wanting to get into staff so they'd just appease whoever on staff is patronising, thus not getting rid of the current "double standards" problem.
    I totaly agree with Omnipotent-Q.

    For those saying that the system is working fine, lets face it; the Staff let us down this past week by their votes, which my thread shows.
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  18. #18

    Default

    i believe the current proposal under voting makes a few changes to this, namely that the vote must be 2/3rds majority, and that the client must not have any warnings...
    Surely you mean must have no unexpired warnings. A warning from a year ago shouldn't bar a candidate from Civitateship.

    For those saying that the system is working fine, lets face it; the Staff let us down this past week by their votes, which my thread shows.
    CrackerMonkey and KrewciaL failed, you just have to deal with it. They can try again in a month.

    Look, I failed my first Civitate vote, but I didn't say the staff was acting unfairly towards me. Other members were made Civitates while I was denied, I didn't complain about it.

    If you think the system is flawed because we let DrakKassleron in and CM and KrewciaL failed, you are wrong. This is a system which we've got Civitates from for a very long time, and how many votes have ended up wrong?

    Patron of Felixion, Ulyaoth, Reidy, Ran Taro and Darth Red
    Co-Founder of the House of Caesars


  19. #19

    Default

    Look, I failed my first Civitate vote, but I didn't say the staff was acting unfairly towards me. Other members were made Civitates while I was denied, I didn't complain about it.
    Yeah, because you were pretty sure the other members deserve it more then you.

    If you think the system is flawed because we let DrakKassleron in and CM and KrewciaL failed, you are wrong. This is a system which we've got Civitates from for a very long time, and how many votes have ended up wrong?
    Ferrets? Crandar? Regardless;

    I just feel we need to improve it so that no future misunderstands can occur.
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  20. #20

    Default

    yeah, but justinian, in your case, the staff WERE acting unfairly toward you

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •