Citizenship Requirements: Is the bar set too high, or is it just par for the course?

[Robin de Bodemloze]

The other point is that the current bar incentivized me to work more than I would have if citizenship was more easily attainable. In other words, the current bar helps TWC in that it encourages members to contribute more. It did for me.

The budgie is correct!

[SonofPeverel]

Too high. 'nuff said.

I agree.

[General Brewster]

Too high. 'nuff said.

And this is why we all think Q is the man.

[Bethencourt]

Anyway the level is put by every CdC member with her or his vote, it is not imposed to them by the evil dark curial forces. And there is the other question, it requires 2/3 majority, isn't it? I defended to reduce this to simple majority last time we decided about majorities in the constitution.

Another thing, can it be that the level of contributions has rised? So what before was considered of high level now is normal?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Anyway the level is put by every CdC member with her or his vote, it is not imposed to them by the evil dark curial forces. And there is the other question, it requires 2/3 majority, isn't it? I defended to reduce this to simple majority last time we decided about majorities in the constitution.


Another thing, can it be that the level of contributions has rised? So what before was considered of high level now is normal?

Some say too high, some say just right, and an elite hobodkin's here and there says it should be higher. Elect those that share your view and your will, will thus thus be implented. But then again...is acting in with this narrow viewpoint not fundamentaly stuffing the ballot box and rigging the poll?

For those of you that did'nt get it...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* If you want the bar lowered elect cannidates that share your view.
* If you think the bar is fine, then endorse others that feel the same way.

Another thing, can it be that the level of contributions has rised? So what before was considered of high level now is normal?

Yes...the site has grown and with it a limitless opportunites of invesiture and contribution. Take the compeditive level of site literary competitions for example. Once upon a time a talentless hack like me could throw down there and walk away with effortless bling. {looks down at his shiny's}. But now it's a momumental struggle just to draw an occasional vote, let alone a win.

[Bethencourt]

Once upon a time a talentless hack like me could throw down there and walk away with effortless bling. {looks down at his shiny's}. But now it's a momumental struggle just to draw an occasional vote, let alone a win.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Really? Yourself must you trust.

Anyway, why is it 2/3 majority?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Anyway, why is it 2/3 majority?

Curial votes are passed by a high percentage ensuring that most felt the endeaver to be genuine. Citizens are voted in the same way carrying on the standard from the past into the present. When I consider an applicant I think about all those that came before with similar creditials. Extending to the current applicant, discounts and half off coupons would only dilute the standing of those that came before.

So to me the standard must be maintained so that all have been judged by equal standards.

[Bethencourt]

Someone whose name is secret, lollsuck, has told me what for other people is obvious, Read the constitution!

This is what the consty says:

"If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes and at least two-thirds of all CdeC members voted, he becomes a Citizen."

If there is 12 CdC members, lets make some maths about how variable this democratic justice can be:

If all members vote, yes or no, you need 7,2 yes votes, well 8 votes.

If 2/3 of members vote you need 4,8 reduced to 5 yes votes really.

Then you can be citizen, no matter your contributions with 5 votes or 8 votes. Which makes a difference of 3 votes, a 60% more of votes taking 5 as basis.

But this scenario is made with all particpants voting yes or not. Can it be that you get to be citizen when 8 members vote, 4 abstain, 3 vote yes and 1 votes no?

This would mean a diference of 5 votes betwen this last case and the first one, 3 votes needed now and 8 votes needed then. This is 160% of diference.

If this is true the system is very variable, unfair? maybe. Is my interpretation of the constitution correct? have I done all those maths without purpose? Who am I? Am I alone? why isn't anybody here? is there football on the TV?

[Ybbon]

You will have to go back some way to find anyone who had that few votes cast by the CdeC. Logically yes you are right, it is 2/3 of the non-abstaining votes but I think the Curator has an override too, if too many CdeC members abstained he could force a re-vote (I think that is the case but I could be wrong) so it is unlikely such a large disparity would exist.

However, to address Megas question, the bar is set as high as the current set of applicants as well as historical. If for example the CdeC get 2 applicants where one has mods and tutorials all over the place and one who has written one small AAR and been an LM only, then the second candidate will look shabbier in comparison to the first (though they might still get through). Part of the problem is that we citizens see the standard of recent applicants and then only put through candidates who we think match that standard which inevitably serves to raise the bar a little more.

It is up to us as citizens to patronise more marginal candidates, the more that are sent, the more likely they will help the standard be rationalised a little. The bar probably is too high now but not through any malicious or underhand conspiracy, just that it gets raised by the standard of candidate getting patronised. We need to push more candidates as citizens and I think there are many of us who don't patronise as much as we could (and I include myself there).

[Aikanár]

Technically you could have a 1/0/7 applicant receive citizenship. This technichality is no news though. As Ybbon pointed out, the Curator has a veto right to overturn every CdeC decision (excluding his dismissal), whether or not a Curator makes use of his veto powers is up to their discretion.

[Bethencourt]

So it is really variable then. Imagine you are not citizen just by one vote when all the members have voted, knowing this it is somehow tough to admit or accept. How many minimun positive votes would you consider fair? And if actual Curator answers would be nice to know about.

[Aikanár]

#non-abstaining votes / #yes votes needed to promote the applicant with the current 60% margin / #yes votes needed with 51% margin

1/1/1
2/2/2
3/2/2
4/3/3
5/3/3
6/4/4
7/5/4
8/5/5
9/6/5
10/6/6
11/7/6
12/8/7

So it's basically always 1 or 2 votes if you break it down like you do. Can you point out what your point is?

[Ybbon]

And it is somewhat straying from the original question which was whether the bar is too high, not if the vote count needs changing. That has been debated in other threads and will probably be re-visited some time in the future.

[Bethencourt]

So the rounding is dicretional, logical if it is not written. Yes that makes it be the same result as simple majority. But just in that case. So for a applicant the CdC members bigger participation increases her or his chances to pass, this is the part I do not like too much. It does not depend on the candidate but in the CdC commitment or lazyness. I only mean this variable chance part.

And it is somewhat straying from the original question which was whether the bar is too high, not if the vote count needs changing. That has been debated in other threads and will probably be re-visited some time in the future.

Well this depends on if the system has been always the same or not and, as I said in first paragraph, on the CdC being more or less commited now or in previous times.

#non-abstaining votes / #yes votes needed to promote the applicant with the current 60% margin / #yes votes needed with 51% margin

1/1/1
2/2/2
3/2/2
4/3/3
5/3/3
6/4/4
7/5/4
8/5/5
9/6/5
10/6/6
11/7/6
12/8/7

So it's basically always 1 vote if you break it down like you do. Can you point out what your point is?

Yes. Interesting calculation. The thing is not the comparition betwen the two systems in the same votation but different votation depending on the CdC members participation. It is not the same convincing 3 members than convincing 8. And the variation of numbers of positive votes needed in each case is not due to any of the applicant values but the participation of the CdC members. So in this point the system is unfairly variable for the applicant. It is not a mortal disease but it is something that can hurt anybody in such public exposure moment.

[Ybbon]

Ah, I see what you were driving at, apologies and ignore my post about being on-topic then

[Aikanár]

So the rounding is dicretional, logical if it is not written. Yes that makes it be the same result as simple majority. But just in that case.

Rounding is not mentioned in the constitution. It's mentioned that you need 60% yes votes. That leaves the Curator with several choices (Curator discretion):

- follow the logic that 1 man 1 vote you need 60% full votes = no rounding
- follow the logic that the % provided by each poll is exactly the outcome = no rounding
- follow the logic that x,x is more than x = whatever you do with it f.e. rounding

I, for myself, would folow the logic of the % provided with the poll result.

So for a applicant the CdC members bigger participation increases her or his chances to pass, this is the part I do not like too much. It does not depend on the candidate but in the CdC commitment or lazyness. I only mean this variable chance part.

Every councillor is obligated to partake in every vote! If he fails to do so, he can be held accountable = dismissal or vonc.
It is the job of the Curator and the councillors of the CdeC to notice when their fellows go MIA or AWOL and then take appropriate action. It's the job of all citizens to not re-elect councillors who's performance they are not contend with.

Edit:
Just saw that.

How many minimun positive votes would you consider fair? And if actual Curator answers would be nice to know about.

I am perfectly confident that GotR will provide you with his opinion about that as soon as it's somewhat of a reasonable time in Australia - if they're not subject to the Maya calendar that is.

[Bethencourt]

Rounding is not mentioned in the constitution. It's mentioned that you need 60% yes votes. That leaves the Curator with several choices (Curator discretion):

- follow the logic that 1 man 1 vote you need 60% full votes = no rounding
- follow the logic that the % provided by each poll is exactly the outcome = no rounding
- follow the logic that x,x is more than x = whatever you do with it f.e. rounding

I, for myself, would folow the logic of the % provided with the poll result.

Every councillor is obligated to partake in every vote! If he fails to do so, he can be held accountable = dismissal or vonc.
It is the job of the Curator and the councillors of the CdeC to notice when their fellows go MIA or AWOL and then take appropriate action. It's the job of all citizens to not re-elect councillors who's performance they are not contend with.

Ok about rounding.

About the other part, that is true but it is also true that chance or risk of real or subjective damageability for the applicant is there and the responsability of the Curator or the citizens that you have correctly pointed out is not directly curing that harm. So there must be a percentage of applicants, that have failed that may feel bad because of this mechanism. Can this be making it harder now? maybe if it is harder now and you put over it this chance of unfair variation, then it is even harder not to pass when this may happen.

Edit:
Just saw that.


I am perfectly confident that GotR will provide you with his opinion about that as soon as it's somewhat of a reasonable time in Australia - if they're not subject to the Maya calendar that is.

It is already the 21st there so RUN TO THE WEST! well the thing is round, isn't it? mmm,.... JUMP!

[Aikanár]

About the other part, that is true but it is also true that chance or risk of real or subjective damageability for the applicant is there and the responsability of the Curator or the citizens that you have correctly pointed out is not directly curing that harm. So there must be a percentage of applicants, that have failed that may feel bad because of this mechanism. Can this be making it harder now? maybe if it is harder now and you put over it this chance of unfair variation, then it is even harder not to pass when this may happen.

Proof? Up until now this is just speculation. I'd like to see proof of this being presented to back that up.

Edit:
Since December 2010 there is only one single case in which the denied applicant could have had the chance to pass despite the already casted no votes if all councillors would've voted. One. And only if the two who missed to vote would've voted yes or one would've abstained, just one of them voting no would have resulted in a denial, too.

All other cases in these 2 years in which not all councillors have cast their vote would not have ended in a different result. (source)

[Bethencourt]

It is just speculation really. But relativity theory was too, and the 21-12-2012 too........ JUMP!

[Aikanár]

Then go and ask the one case in 2 years. Or screen all records of the Antechamber and then ask all qualifying cases and you'll get your answer.

It would be interesting to know the total number of all such cases in order to set the relevancy of that question into perspective.