One of the main reasons the Curia was founded, was so members could be vetted as to who they are, and would have one vote on subjects relating to the community. Therefore giving a representative opinion of the site at large. One of the founding principles of the Curia is subjectivity, and it has always been one of its strongest hands. I debate and argue this issue frequently because I see the Curia losing its ability to be representative/has lost it, based on subjective opinions on erroneous opinions on how citizenship applications should be judged on occasion. Erroneous in the sense that citizenship is clearly not an award or reward in the constitution, it is been treated as such, and I strongly believe it is a flat contradiction of it. Citizenship is a member rank, although I think the way the citizen badge part of the constitution was worded in the Curial reforms probably confused matters, and it obscures the fact citizenship should be conferred on a case by case basis based on an applicants merit to the community, and by definition, the advantages to the site in them having citizenship. "Contributions" in the sense many look at it, is just one aspect of one's merit to the community. Sometimes I wonder if anyone bothers to try understanding or even reading the entire constitution beyond the line
"Contributing members of TWC have the opportunity to become a Citizen". A statement in itself which is deliberately vague and worthless as it merely says you have an opportunity, if you are "contributing" without barring someone not "contributing" from having an opportunity other than the base-requirements (50 posts, no warnings etc). Personally my understanding of the line is that "contributing" means you're an active poster. It's always been the case with citizenship applications no matter the era anyway.
I've asked plenty of no-brainers recently for it, and for the most part, the general membership who I've spoken too completely contradict what you've just said. The sole obsession with contributions and nothing else; the turning of citizenship into an award when it isn't in the constitution; and the rejection of several good candidates for citizenship based on flimsy reasoning is extremely damaging to the Curia. Most non-citizens believe the bar is set far too high, and anyone looking at it objectively will come to the same conclusion. The current ethos for extraordinarily high citizenship requirements in comparison to applications in previous years, together with incongruous attempts to ignore the general opinion on the ground in the community at large with "no it's not high" cop outs will eventually put the final nail in the Curial coffin unless something gives.
Yup.
Did try to get a bit of carrot going so more people gave patronizing a go, but I imagine most think it will be a waste of time and effort - based off the same understanding that they're going to have to jump through hoops, juggle and usher in quotes from the likes of Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink to get the application passed.
I have questions for the "not too high" people's. If the Curia isn't representative of the community where vetted members without alts can give valued and verifiable feedback, then what is its use? Are you really suggesting it's all just for giving a pat on the back here and there? Why's the Curia needed for that? ....and where constitutionally does it say citizenship is an award or reward? What's the basis for this viewpoint in the constitution? When did citizenship get moved to the community award section of it? When did simply contributing posts - the classic definition, become not good enough? It feels that way. Where's borispavlovgrozny when you need him?
I get a feeling my rant will go no where in the end - I've been a citizen nearly eight years now and I've never been as disappointed with the way the Curia is going as I am now. I can't say the problem is individual Councillors as I think on the whole, they're all pretty good. But the current system for patronizing stinks and has bred this atmosphere toward the general membership I truly despise. From my time here, I do also know if you want to change the ethos of the Curia, you've got to set the example yourself. Might be time I think about throwing my hat into the Curial ring again in the next set of elections. Maybe I've thrown enough dirt and strongly worded opinions around to get beaten down to last place by the most glorious abstain!