Codebook to Civate/Patron Relations

[Kscott]

Due to recent events I think it is a good idea to set precedents to secrue a safe future. The core idea behind this proposal is respect.

First and foremost the process begins with the Patroning process. My fellow patrons, it is imperitive that when finding a civate that this member be someone you are compatible with. Not someone who agrees with you who is the best president or what color is the greatest. By compatible I mean somoene whom you can bond with and mantian a healthy relationship with.

Second it is the patrons duty to nurture this relationship. You must do your best to keep your civate intrested in TWC and encourage them to post in the curia. They are not required, but it is the patrons duty to make sure they are given the proper introduction.

The civate and patron must mutally respect eachother at all times. If conflicts arise it is the duty of the house to step in and try to play arbiter. If the matters cannot possible be resolved then it is plausible for one of the disputing members to leave their house and find a new patron or disclaim patronage. In such a case the patron needs to be informed before the public so that they are not shamed publically. After this the patron cannot claim rights over a civate who has choosen a new family.

These are what I thought of. Feel free to add more. This is not a law nor do I want it to be. Just a way civates should act.

[Belisarius]

If its non binding there isnt much of a point, could be nice but I still dont see the need. This is all a backlash of the Justinian incident. Something noone really has the full story about, so before using his "conduct" as an example for change, learn the full story.

[Kscott]

If its non binding there isnt much of a point, could be nice but I still dont see the need. This is all a backlash of the Justinian incident. Something noone really has the full story about, so before using his "conduct" as an example for change, learn the full story.

? notice this speaks of duties of the client and patron. I think Justinian and tBP were both wrong in this. Maybe if I knew the full story my opinion would change, but seing as nobody is going to tell me thats hardly something you can lord over me.

Now, this isnt binding, its a precedent. History has proven how strong precendents can be. The ones George Washington set still affect American politics. You say this is a backlash as if thats a bad thing. If some flaw in the system occurs it is our duty as good civates to try and fix the problem. Im trying to find a solution so excuse me for trying better the curia. I guess I wont bother next time unless I find the flaw before it becomes obvious through some event. If that event occurs its surely is to late to fix things so such an occurance doesnt happen again.

[the Black Prince]

i think its a good idea...

justr because somethings not binding doesn't mean it can't be enfiorced... for instance, on case speficic details, failure to accord the proper respec could be conduct unbecoming of a civitate. thwe language for an ostrakon is appropriately vague for a reason. conduct unbecoming of a civitate is whatever the curiua thinks a civitate shouldn't do, above and beyond the forum rules.


and even I don't know the full story with justinian, it was completely out of the blue

i log on one day, and suddenly i see he's ghelped to create an entirely new house, left mine, and me, and the first i know of it is when he declares himself part of the absurd house of Caesers without so much as a by your leave PM< or even a goodbye.

[RZZZA]

Yeah, well I agree wih Kscott, I just think we should bypass all the vague stuff and go straight to the bottom line, let us put in writing: No civ should leave his patron or house without first informing them. Simple, and I think patrons and house leaders would relate to that, nobody wants to have their civ's and house members just up and leave without proper notice.

[SoggyFrog]

Lucius Vorenus*, there would be no reason to disagree with this proposal itself, unless you found something disagreeable in it. Presumably, that is common sense, but it seems that has evaded you. The Civitate-Patron relationship is vital to our community's health, particularly in the area of TWC Houses. It is an essential construct that adds much to TWC's ability to build interaction between its members.

Kscott has realized much of this purpose, and the premise and general content of his proposal is good.
*GENERAL_MAXIMUS

[Kscott]

:withsoggy

*how the hell did that get in there

[Belisarius]

Lucius Vorenus*, there would be no reason to disagree with this proposal itself, unless you found something disagreeable in it. Presumably, that is common sense, but it seems that has evaded you. The Civitate-Patron relationship is vital to our community's health, particularly in the area of TWC Houses. It is an essential construct that adds much to TWC's ability to build interaction between its members.

Kscott has realized much of this purpose, and the premise and general content of his proposal is good.
*GENERAL_MAXIMUS

Thing is, nothing in the curia works unless its binding. Like in staff, we have the codebook, but we treat it as a guide and sometimes dont do things exactly according to the "book". I dont like the idea of being told what to do all the time. Again this is like the "Dont post in polls", people are turning the Curia into a nursery. We are mature people above the mire and are mature enough to know how to behave. All we need is a worthless (Non binding guides) for people to wave around. This should be ratified by the civitates, but wont because its not a proposal. Therefore, has no legal power.

[Kscott]

We are mature people above the mire and are mature enough to know how to behave.

recent events tell otherwise

[Spiff]

This is a fine idea, as tBP says, behaviour unbecoming of a Civitate needs some form of precedent as it is really quite vague, and i dont think listing specifics in the Act is the way to do it.


I would add avoiding blatant racism to the manner in which a Civitate should behave!

[RZZZA]

This is a fine idea, as tBP says, behaviour unbecoming of a Civitate needs some form of precedent as it is really quite vague, and i dont think listing specifics in the Act is the way to do it.


I would add avoiding blatant racism to the manner in which a Civitate should behave!

Your last sentence in the first paragraph contradicts the next sentence. We need to add specifics because laws, should be specific. A vague law is a bad law, leave as little speculation as possible if you want the law to have the best affect.

[Kscott]

He is saying precednets are the way to solve vague laws. Not my opinion, im just translating

[SoggyFrog]

Presumably, Lucius Vorenus*, you are mature enough. I won't judge that, but simply state that generally this is something you should be acting by (perhaps you termed it well enough). However, this also helps to establish what the civitate institution is for new or less experienced members. If we draw from precedent and can show things like this then they will be able to continue the tradition in such esteem. It is a guarantor that we will select for people who are mature enough to uphold the institution.
*GENERAL_MAXIMUS

[Spiff]

Your last sentence in the first paragraph contradicts the next sentence. We need to add specifics because laws, should be specific. A vague law is a bad law, leave as little speculation as possible if you want the law to have the best affect.

Basicaly im of the opinion that the Syntagma should not be cluttered with exhaustive lists when threads like this can be created and updated much more easily

[Belisarius]

Presumably, Lucius Vorenus*, you are mature enough. I won't judge that, but simply state that generally this is something you should be acting by (perhaps you termed it well enough). However, this also helps to establish what the civitate institution is for new or less experienced members. If we draw from precedent and can show things like this then they will be able to continue the tradition in such esteem. It is a guarantor that we will select for people who are mature enough to uphold the institution.
*GENERAL_MAXIMUS

If we want to talk about the "civitates institution" -

Nothing here (The Curia) is made law without a Civitates vote, if this isnt voted on it has no power and is thus pointless because if someone "breaks it" we have no legal grounds to do anything.

[Kscott]

We have plenty of legal ground. Unbeccoming of civates is very general term. Surely it is up to the curia what unbeccoming is. If the curia thinks the person unbeccoming they now have a guidline in which to base that off. That wasnt my purpose of this, my purpose was to give people a better idea in how to behave becuase guidlines are always helpful and can also pressure people into good behavior. However, its expanded point that people are making of it is very valid too.

[Spiff]

Thats the point in the week long discussion though, we can look at this thread for pointers, not legally binding rules. So long as we keep this thread to fairly obvious things it shouldnt be a problem.

[Belisarius]

Well you guys can write this up if you like, but my stance is that in the curia the civitates voice is law in here. Unless this is constitutionally ratified and links to the constitution I dont regard it as binding. If it is, thats all well and good.

*remembers when LV had a codes of conduct section of the constitution and it was removed*

*LV thinks how easy this whould have been included*

*LV says meh*

[imb39]

As LV has said, this can only be a guide only. It most certainly shouldn't be used as grounds for Censure or ostrakon unless ratified in some form by the Curia. If that's the case it should be part of the Syntamga... I think that would be too much.

[Justinian]

recent events tell otherwise

Would you mind insulting me to my face instead of back-handed like that, mate? Cheers.

Yes, I should have notified tBP of my wish to leave the house (I had suggested it occasionally, somewhat unclearly). This was essentially because I expected tBP to react the way he did, with claims that it was illegal for me to leave his house without him "allowing" it.

and even I don't know the full story with justinian, it was completely out of the blue

Yes you do. I don't want to state it publically.

But ignoring that, as it really has nothing to do with this, I think a guideline for patron-client relationships is a good idea. It should include that it's bad form for a patron to attempt to use a client's position to further the patron's wants, or vice versa.