[Discussion] House Cup

[Inkie]

@Finlander yes, we were looking at a more competitive basis for the cup, with 'passive' avenues for scoring points as a more auxiliary thing. This has been made a lot easier given that Hex graciously opened up all of the existing staff-run competitions to use for scoring in the cup.

A feature I mentioned in my post below OP was 'challenges', which would mean that any House would be able to challenge another House (or several) to any type of competition, be it in creative writing, art, debate, gaming or whatever. Both of them could then agree on a set number of competitors and organize their teams.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't know if there should be a big prize for this. I envision at as mostly for bragging rights with your house holding the cup.

I like the idea, and hopefully the incentive system works as planned. However, given that, as some have mentioned, most don't really identify as the member of a particular House, relying simple bragging rights as motivation might be wasting the possibility for more attractive incentives, like rep, a temporary medal (the cup displayed as an award while it is held), special username colors, etc; maybe all three. Something flashy (the more flashes and the greater the flash, the better) to bribe people with more useless internet prestige Also, if the Cup competition is particularly successful, this might revive some of the old house rivalries, and it may be wise to consider whether the cost of political intrigue and other silliness is worth the benefit of increased participation in the running of the site (I think it would be worth it, but something to bear in mind, nonetheless; and that assumes this Cup idea is implemented and successful). Also, some user or users would probably need to be tasked with the gathering and maintenance of the necessary info (there are alot of citizens and several houses after all), and these users would need to be independent of any house to prevent a conflict of interest, and held to standards that will decrease the influence of bias for or against a particular house for any reason. Another thing is, if this Cup idea really takes off, role playing might easily become a problem (after all, the King of the TD era wasn't a fun time for mods and Hex IIRC).

My two cents.

[Hobbes]

I like this, as it has the potential to make people more active. I do like me some bling, I guess lol. What will the tournament involve exactly, apart from counting votes each month? Will there be any competitions, specific to the House Cup Tournament?

A feature I mentioned in my post below OP was 'challenges', which would mean that any House would be able to challenge another House (or several) to any type of competition, be it in creative writing, art, debate, gaming or whatever. Both of them could then agree on a set number of competitors and organize their teams.

I'd love to see some debates, and I don't think it has happened before. However forum debates are much harder, since you can't really judge aspects such rhetorical skill like you do in real life. Maybe we could have someone summarize it at the end by providing the main arguments (as well as the appropriate links to said arguments) so that it's easier to judge based on arguments alone? I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, so I don't know if it could really work in practice.

[Poach]

@Finlander yes, we were looking at a more competitive basis for the cup, with 'passive' avenues for scoring points as a more auxiliary thing. This has been made a lot easier given that Hex graciously opened up all of the existing staff-run competitions to use for scoring in the cup.

A feature I mentioned in my post below OP was 'challenges', which would mean that any House would be able to challenge another House (or several) to any type of competition, be it in creative writing, art, debate, gaming or whatever. Both of them could then agree on a set number of competitors and organize their teams.

Having some sort of annual House Olympics would be a more organised way to do this and could contribute to who gets the cup. An example is the 2012 Exilian Olympics we did with the Exilian site. Yearly contests entered by Houses with victories scoring points and the Olympic winners getting the House Cup, or significant points towards it. I'd prefer it if the cup were decided entirely by these Olympics (which would encompass everything from gaming to writing to anything else in any arena or discipline approved for play) because that keeps the events controlled, trackable and on an even playing field.

I'm not too keen on Houses passively amassing points for holding certain ranks or relying on people reporting victories in untracked events across the site. A set period of festivity and contest would be more of an 'event' for the site and draw crowds and attention, playing into the 'community' drive we're aiming for.

[StealthFox]

Hmm, I quite like that idea a lot.

[Poach]

More thoughts:

* * *

1. Houses

The House naturally forms the basic organisational ‘unit’ of this idea. Based on the ‘family lineages’ and pre-existing historical Houses, we rehabilitate the system into a concept of a community group or family for the citizenry. Using either social groups or forums we endeavour to create a social space for people to discuss anything and everything.

Thus, to be subject of further debate:

1.1: Do we pull the Old Houses straight out as they are? How do we address some being vastly larger than others? How do we address the many inactive members? Do we consolidate smaller Houses into the larger one off of which they split? Could we create sub-Houses within larger Houses to let them keep an ‘identity’ if they want one?

1.2 How do we make them communal? A forum? Even for the very small offshoot Houses?

1.3 How do we govern them? Let each House decide? Centrally organised?

2. The House Cup

Houses will compete in a Site Olympics every year to acquire the House Cup. Exactly what form this trophy takes is subject to further debate. The Olympics will comprise all events approved by a select group (composition of and appointment to is open for debate and henceforth referred to as the Games Committee) and will run over a period determined well in advance to give the Houses ample time to prepare teams for the events. These events should not fall within or unduly favour any single discipline, instead giving fair space to things like Total War gaming, Non-TW gaming, art, writing, debate, and anything else approved by the Games Committee.

Events will net medals, following the traditional Gold-Silver-Bronze model, providing 3-2-1 points. The House with the most points wins the Cup for the year.

Thus, to be subject of further debate:

2.1: What should the House Cup be? A medal, but who receives it? Some perk? What?

2.2: How should we appoint a Games Committee? Proportional representation from the Houses? Direct election of candidates? Election of a single ‘Games Master’ and he appoints a team?

* * * * * * * * *

I’m going to throw out ideas to these questions, not necessarily totally formed and vote-ready ideas but food for thought at least.

Q 1.1: Do we pull the Old Houses straight out as they are? How do we address some being vastly larger than others? How do we address the many inactive members? Do we consolidate smaller Houses into the larger one off of which they split? Could we create sub-Houses within larger Houses to let them keep an ‘identity’ if they want one?
A 1.1: Bring them out, document them, and make a decision then on how to deal with the smallest Houses. I’d argue for doing it case by case, and if a small House has popular support among the members to stay independent then let it, but merging them should be the ‘assumed’ solution unless compellingly argued against by said small House.

Q 1.2: How do we make them communal? A forum? Even for the very small offshoot Houses?
A 1.2: If merging happens as proposed, pending agreement from Squid and GED on forums, I think it would be beneficial. That said, I feel more than simply participating in the Games is needed to warrant a forum and foster the community feeling. Like above, the small Houses that manage to stay independent can be decided case-by-case, as a forum for a very small group may not be a good use of server resources.

A couple of ideas:

1.2.1: Devolve the appointment and control of Citizens to the Houses themselves. Let each House decide their own policy on bringing in new members to the Houses. Might this erode standards? For some Houses certainly, for others it may increase standards, but this creates image: Houses seen as ‘low quality’ will be less prestigious, their name will carry less weight or be ridiculed.
In the exact same vein I say remove the old Citizen/Civitate/Artifex badges and replace them with House badges. Those from poor Houses will be known, and they’ll recruit less. Those from the “elite” Houses will be known, and will be more sought after among aspiring Citizens.

1.2.2: Introduce the real-world Political Party system into the Curia via the Houses. The existing set up is Citizens > Curia, change it to Citizens > Houses > Curia, making the Curia a “United Community of Houses” rather than simply a “United Community of Citizens”. This can range through extremes: for example the Curator will come from the last victorious House of the Olympics, with other offices coming from runners up (e.g. Curator Assistants being from the 2^nd and 3^rd placing Houses), these positions remain democratic but the candidates are sourced from those Houses. The other end would water that down and would simply keep the Curia as-is but with new House badges people would be representing their Houses rather than just themselves.
The Curator would take on a new role: He and his assistants would arbitrate on whether new Houses can form (e.g. by splitting from old ones), he would sit as Chair of the Games Committee (tasked with generally organising it and having a vote there) and, naturally, would maintain his role as custodian of the Curia forum.

Q 1.3: How do we govern them? Let each House decide? Centrally organised?
A 1.3: Let each House decide. It’ll give them character, it’ll keep them unique.

Q 2.1: What should the House Cup be? A medal, but who receives it? Some perk? What?
A 2.1: To this I’m still not sure. Some sort of pride of place in something: the Curator is elected from that House? Perhaps that is too far, but you see my general line of thought here. Something else?

Q 2.2: How should we appoint a Games Committee? Proportional representation from the Houses? Direct election of candidates? Election of a single ‘Games Master’ and he appoints a team?
A 2.2: Proportional representation from the Houses strikes me as fairest, as though it could be argued it favours the larger houses, it equally favours the larger body of the citizenry. Making it X per House regardless of size would grant small Houses undue influence over the majority of the citizens.

* * * * * * * * *

All that said, I re-affirm my support to the House Cup with or without the above reforms, I just think if we're reviving the Houses we should use them to rejuvenate the whole Curia, because they're a perfect fit.

My ‘vision’ if you will is to bring the Houses in as the ‘primary’ organisation for Citizens, with the Curia acting as a collective forum for all the Houses. I think forming communities of these Houses will rejuvenate the Citizenry, making it an active part of the forum experience for many, and that in turn will bring the Curia into greater use. Many of you know I hold a low opinion of the Curia in the current state, and I’m open and honest in saying that opinion has certainly influenced this post and been the prime motivator in the ideas to turn over many administrative functions to the Houses.

The House Cup alone, with nothing else, is a nice idea but I really think the Houses will struggle to form teams unless a series of other community-encouraging measures are taken. Creating autonomous communities under the Curia umbrella will do that, with Houses forming natural rivalries and competition as their respective systems of government, recruiting practices, traditions, Olympic performances and representation in the Curia goes through boom and bust.

The Curia will enter a new era of being the United Nations of the TWC Houses, the primary function being to support the existence of the Houses, rule on the formation or cessation of new or defunct ones, ensure the organisation and occurrence of the Olympics and act as the open floor for every member of every House. This will give it a continual, relevant role, as opposed to the current function of doing little more beyond approving Citizens, 99% of whom then never look back.

I love the idea of the Curia, and I love the idea of Houses being the vehicle of communal spirit for the Curia. I think anyone with a genuine interest in seeing the Curia become something relevant to every Citizen every day should rally behind this idea. Reviving the Curia as the glue between the new Houses will usher in a new age of activity and relevance for what, to many, is nothing but a relic of the past.

[StealthFox]

A very well thought out post! I like a lot of what I see. I'll take some more time to think on this before responding further.

[Derpy Hooves]

@Poach
Houses
The idea was to base the organization on the family lineages.
1.1 Currently, Inkie and I are organizing the list of houses. We have added additional houses that were "announced" in the Symposium thread. So yes, we are pulling old houses out and adding the ones that split off. As for the smaller houses being outnumbered, they can compensate for that by "allying" with another house for a brief period. Furthermore, while some houses might seem big, the participating members will be a smaller percentage. For house creation, they should be allowed to be created, however once this thing is organized and started, in my opinion there should be a rules for new house creation (such as a minimum membership). As for subhouses, you're going to have to give an examples (unless you mean something like the Line of Thor).

1.2 Do you mean the development of house communities? If so, then my suggestion is for them to make a group and stay active. The development of the house communities is purely up to the houses themselves.

1.3 The only government that the houses would need for the house cup is to decide who takes part. In an ideal world, I would say let the house leaders decide, but many of them are not active/would not be interested. Thus, my suggestion is to have house decisions be democratic.

House Cup

My first thought was that points would be accrued by participating in preexisting competitions, yet I also like the idea of having Olympic type things.
For the games of the Olympics, I would suggest having a story competition and art competition (if Content would allow that). Regardless of whether those two competitions can happen, there would still be other ones but in the form of video games. The choice of video games would have to be decided by the availability of the games. By availability, I mean how many participating citizens own game x? So in order to measure that, we could have a thread where people suggest games (with multiplayer) and specify the device to play it on. Then after like a week or two, we set up poll threads that the suggested games listed. With those threads, voters could say which games they own (and obviously be willing to play). Then we will choose the x most voted for games to have competitions for.

Committees: Yes there should be committees set up for the games. I guess there can be representatives from each house, but I would say that they should serve more as observers and advisors so that there is no bias towards one side or the other. The committee should be made up of people who are devoted to the project. Once the games are decided, it should be the committee who makes the rules, however since there is the possibility that none of the members played the games, there will need to be advisors.

As for prizes, medals would be best. If not just a thread stating which houses won or whatever.

Now for your answers to your own questions.

1.1 That is the plan, Inkie and I are documenting all houses and their members (I don't know if Inkie is doing this, but I am also noting which members have been on TWC since January 2012). As for the smaller houses, I have no preference. If there are houses that some deem too small, then we can definitely have them merged into their parent house.

1.2 The houses can also make a group on Steam too.

1.2.1 For the first part of this idea, houses already do decide who gets in via the patrons. For the latter idea, I approved or maybe suggested (I forget) this idea a year ago. The idea I liked was get rid of the Citizen/Civitate/Artifex badge and replace them with three or four badges based on the houses. One of those badges would represent the smaller (or as per your suggestion, the less prestigious) houses. The other two or three would represent the bigger or more prestigious houses. My initial thought was to have the big houses be a total sum of the original house along with the houses that split off from it.

Another idea to add to the favoring of the prestigious houses is this: the top two or three winning houses of the House Cup would have the honor of having their house's badge displayed while the ones that didn't make it could simply have a citizen badge or "Minor House" badge. In that scenario, badges would change potentially every year. By the way, this would not mean that if House of Wilpuri won for three years straight their badge would change three times. Their badge is preset as would be all house badges. The only time they would actually change would be when the entire site changes all of the badges. The problem with this entire idea though is that it would add more work to tech staff.

1.2.2 I don't know how to answer to this; it doesn't particularly interest me other than possibly the Curator's role in the Games Committee.

1.3 Agreed.

2.1 As I suggested earlier in this post, either a medal or have their badge displayed.

2.2 As I said earlier, I would say to have the representatives act as observers and advisors. We should have the committee staffed by people who want to make this happen.

For the last section of your post Poach, that was partially my intent for the House Cup. I want the houses to be revived so as to get the CVRIA to be more active and so that Citizens can do more things upon becoming a citizen.

[Poach]

Some responses to parts we differ on:

1. Patronisation is not control over recruitment. Patronisation is nothing more than a way to suggest a potential candidate, to be reviewed by the CdeC, who have the decision making power. I want Houses to have the decision making power, meaning every House can recruit in whatever way they feel suits their image and style most, with decision making power over how a candidate is nominated and what a candidate should have before being promoted. Thus, perhaps it'll come to pass that the House of Caesars is easy to get into, with candidates not needing very much to impress the "Caesars CdeC". Meanwhile, the "Wilpuri CdeC" is far more stringent in what they expect. Then the "Hader Cdec" has gone completely their own way and only recruits citizens that can beat an existing Hader Citizen in a certain game/event.

Doing this will bring huge variety and character to each House. They'll all start off similar, following the model inherited by the CdeC, but as the years roll on each House will diverge and their own standards, traditions and methods will start to govern it more, resulting in Houses having a very unique look about them.

2. I'd prefer all Houses getting a badge full time. Granting or removing something as simple as an identifying badge seems draconian as an 'award'.

3. Steam groups are a poor substitute. If we're doing TWC Houses they should live on TWC.

4. Allying with other Houses? How does one ally for the Olympics? If I'm House of Caesars my medals go to the House of Caesar, not some other House.

* * *

Operating under the assumption that every House granted an establishment under this new system gets a forum and a badge, I think the smaller Houses should be merged back into the larger parents. As a starting point I don't feel that is unjustified, and if Houses seek to split then they can be reviewed case by case.

The old Houses system never had any of this to consider. Making a new House was as simple as saying you were one. Now that we're actually codifying it a consolidation should occur to bring us back to a sensible starting point.

Where is this list of Houses you're working on, btw?

[Derpy Hooves]

For you first point, that kind of outlook I disagree with. Getting citizenship and getting into house x requires patronage from someone of house x. What you're proposing in that first point would make getting citizenship even more difficult to get than it is now.

Point four, there would not be a medal for each game win of the Olympics, rather it should be for the house that won the most times. The alliance thing would only be for one game. If two houses allied for one game and won, then that would be a shared win.

My my list is on my computer. At the present moment, I think we should focus on making the House Cup before we revolutionize the current system

[Genius of the Restoration]

1.2.2: Introduce the real-world Political Party system into the Curia via the Houses. The existing set up is Citizens > Curia, change it to Citizens > Houses > Curia, making the Curia a “United Community of Houses” rather than simply a “United Community of Citizens”. This can range through extremes: for example the Curator will come from the last victorious House of the Olympics, with other offices coming from runners up (e.g. Curator Assistants being from the 2^nd and 3^rd placing Houses), these positions remain democratic but the candidates are sourced from those Houses. The other end would water that down and would simply keep the Curia as-is but with new House badges people would be representing their Houses rather than just themselves.
The Curator would take on a new role: He and his assistants would arbitrate on whether new Houses can form (e.g. by splitting from old ones), he would sit as Chair of the Games Committee (tasked with generally organising it and having a vote there) and, naturally, would maintain his role as custodian of the Curia forum.

I don't really like that idea, Poach. It would result in a a worse experience than the current one for a user like me.

I don't care about the house system. I don't know what house I'm in. I don't participate in competitions. I'm not going to stop people who want to get involved in that, but it's not for me. Yet my involvement with the Curia would be mediated through an additional political body. For me, the pleasure of being curator is in the serving. I don't really want to have to jump through hoops or be excluded from serving based on who my patron was. It may build community spirit for those who partake in it but, for someone who doesn't, it's an extra layer of stuff that I'd have to deal with that interferes with what I actually want to do.

The House Cup alone, with nothing else, is a nice idea but I really think the Houses will struggle to form teams unless a series of other community-encouraging measures are taken. Creating autonomous communities under the Curia umbrella will do that, with Houses forming natural rivalries and competition as their respective systems of government, recruiting practices, traditions, Olympic performances and representation in the Curia goes through boom and bust.

The Curia will enter a new era of being the United Nations of the TWC Houses, the primary function being to support the existence of the Houses, rule on the formation or cessation of new or defunct ones, ensure the organisation and occurrence of the Olympics and act as the open floor for every member of every House. This will give it a continual, relevant role, as opposed to the current function of doing little more beyond approving Citizens, 99% of whom then never look back.

I love the idea of the Curia, and I love the idea of Houses being the vehicle of communal spirit for the Curia. I think anyone with a genuine interest in seeing the Curia become something relevant to every Citizen every day should rally behind this idea. Reviving the Curia as the glue between the new Houses will usher in a new age of activity and relevance for what, to many, is nothing but a relic of the past.

I really like the thought you've put into this and the organisation that you've envisioned but think it's too ambitious. I have a "genuine interest in seeing the Curia become something relevant" but not to every citizen and certainly not every day. I value the recognition that citizenship bestows by itself, and don't think that the Curia has to do more than that for all citizens. Some want to just do their thing and that's fine. I think this idea would shoe-horn people into participating in a system that they might not want to be a part of. I have no idea what I've got in common with the other members of my house. If they're a bunch of citizens who think the Curia should be an exclusive club of elites, what would I do? I could try and convince them otherwise and steer a resistant political entity towards something that I'm comfortable with, but it's more likely that I'd just stop participating because any influence I currently have as an individual has been enveloped by a broader unit. I'm a big believer in the value the current system places on the individual. Each citizen follows the same process on this site and has the same rights. I don't want that to change.

[grouchy13]

My sentiments mirror those of GOTR, I also don't have the foggiest about which house I'm in, who my fellow housemates are or ever considered looking into it.

However I'd say trial it and I bet a pound to a pinch of the proverbial within 6 months it will become as relevant the CAT, CCT and every other attempt to corral mobilisation of the Citizenship.

Like the CAT & CCT this idea to me mirrors the high minded desires of a very, very vocal minority, like the CAT & CCT I predict this idea mirroring it's trajectory, Whirlwind of activity by the involved and invested minority to start then a passive disinterest from the majority followed by a recognition of its irrelevance and a movement towards inactivity by the parties involved.

I hope I'm proved wrong as some of the passion displayed by those involved is genuinely worthy of merit, but scratch the surface and it's still high minded community guff that most TWC users will never embrace and therefore will only satisfy a mollified minority.

PS, happy new year folks

[Poach]

I think devolving patronisation to the Houses rather than the CdeC will make Citizenship not only more accessible but also more social and personal. The current CdeC is arbitrary, disconnected from reality and frankly views itself as far more important and serious than it is as they set grand standards for entry into an irrelevant and useless institution.

As with last time I'm saddened by not only the lackluster response in general but also in the resistance to anything that might bring the Curia into being relevant: it's as if you people are actually happy being irrelevant. This site wouldn't even skip a beat if the Curia were abolished, yet those who regularly participate in it are constantly fighting against any effort to change it. There is zero community in this place, zero output from this place, near-zero interest in this place, and a determined fight to keep it that way from the few who inhabit it. We might as well rename it the Sinecuria.

Fail it may, Grouchy, but if it fails it will at least be failing to revive a failed institution that in the current state would be better off abolished entirely.

For the record, Genius, you're in Caesars, patronised by Katsumoto.

[Derpy Hooves]

I don't really like that idea, Poach. It would result in a a worse experience than the current one for a user like me.

I don't care about the house system. I don't know what house I'm in. I don't participate in competitions. I'm not going to stop people who want to get involved in that, but it's not for me. Yet my involvement with the Curia would be mediated through an additional political body. For me, the pleasure of being curator is in the serving. I don't really want to have to jump through hoops or be excluded from serving based on who my patron was. It may build community spirit for those who partake in it but, for someone who doesn't, it's an extra layer of stuff that I'd have to deal with that interferes with what I actually want to do.

I really like the thought you've put into this and the organisation that you've envisioned but think it's too ambitious. I have a "genuine interest in seeing the Curia become something relevant" but not to every citizen and certainly not every day. I value the recognition that citizenship bestows by itself, and don't think that the Curia has to do more than that for all citizens. Some want to just do their thing and that's fine. I think this idea would shoe-horn people into participating in a system that they might not want to be a part of. I have no idea what I've got in common with the other members of my house. If they're a bunch of citizens who think the Curia should be an exclusive club of elites, what would I do? I could try and convince them otherwise and steer a resistant political entity towards something that I'm comfortable with, but it's more likely that I'd just stop participating because any influence I currently have as an individual has been enveloped by a broader unit. I'm a big believer in the value the current system places on the individual. Each citizen follows the same process on this site and has the same rights. I don't want that to change.

I agree totally. What I want first is to have the setup for just the competition. If there is a desire to revolutionize the current system, let's do that later or have another thread for that. All/most houses would participate in the competition. The membership of the houses would by no means be obligated to participate. That is up to the individuals.

My sentiments mirror those of GOTR, I also don't have the foggiest about which house I'm in, who my fellow housemates are or ever considered looking into it.

However I'd say trial it and I bet a pound to a pinch of the proverbial within 6 months it will become as relevant the CAT, CCT and every other attempt to corral mobilisation of the Citizenship.

Like the CAT & CCT this idea to me mirrors the high minded desires of a very, very vocal minority, like the CAT & CCT I predict this idea mirroring it's trajectory, Whirlwind of activity by the involved and invested minority to start then a passive disinterest from the majority followed by a recognition of its irrelevance and a movement towards inactivity by the parties involved.

I hope I'm proved wrong as some of the passion displayed by those involved is genuinely worthy of merit, but scratch the surface and it's still high minded community guff that most TWC users will never embrace and therefore will only satisfy a mollified minority.

That is what I want to have done. Do a trial run of the House cup competitions and if there will be general interest/positive feedback then perhaps it can happen again. Of course this requires dedication from the people running it, which is why I think just having representatives from houses being involved would not cut it. We need people who are genuinely interested, and if they're from the same house, then so be it. I have only one disagreement though, that is with the CCT/CAT. This plan would be unlike that in that those involved know what they want, although it is the minority that wants this to happen.

I think devolving patronisation to the Houses rather than the CdeC will make Citizenship not only more accessible but also more social and personal. The current CdeC is arbitrary, disconnected from reality and frankly views itself as far more important and serious than it is as they set grand standards for entry into an irrelevant and useless institution.

As with last time I'm saddened by not only the lackluster response in general but also in the resistance to anything that might bring the Curia into being relevant: it's as if you people are actually happy being irrelevant. This site wouldn't even skip a beat if the Curia were abolished, yet those who regularly participate in it are constantly fighting against any effort to change it. There is zero community in this place, zero output from this place, near-zero interest in this place, and a determined fight to keep it that way from the few who inhabit it. We might as well rename it the Sinecuria.

Fail it may, Grouchy, but if it fails it will at least be failing to revive a failed institution that in the current state would be better off abolished entirely.

For the record, Genius, you're in Caesars, patronised by Katsumoto.

At this moment, I disagree with the plan to revolutionize the current system. After the House cup succeeds/fails, then I'll be more than willing to help plan your revolution.

[grouchy13]

You raise some valid and interesting points Poach, I agree with you in some respects a more pertinent discussion would be what defines the Curia now, what role does it, or should if play. Hand in hand with this discussion should be a discussion on Citizenship, how should Patronisation work and who should make the decision.

My own opinion is that the Curia is fundamentally a relic from a by gone era, it has little pertinence or power now and has become glorified pasture for those who have passed the Citizenship Bar, you rightly say if it was abolished what would really change???

Not a deal I should imagine especially considering that any motions or decisions it comes to a consensus on are kicked up to Hex to decide upon.

What shouldn't be abolished and looked upon with more focus is Citizenship, without a doubt a true strength of TWC. A device that has driven contribution and creativity for years however as useful a tool Citizenship is in driving these qualities it too suffers under archaic and outdated practices, the CdeC for example is more a home for those banished from Content or other branches who need an output for productivity and therefore retain a position of some importance, joined by those who are merely hunting medals or likewise desire a supposed position of importance.

The CdeC hasn't always been so but I feel those days are gone, high ideals and principles are now replaced with cronyism, missed votes or worse of all poor judgements by councillors who do not pay due diligence to researching candidates backgrounds and merely waver through on the thinnest of reasoning.

Reform would be of more benefit to Citizenship, a TWC institution that should be cherished but this House Cup business is not the answer IMO, in conclusion unfortunately I have no answer to venture on how these institutions can be reformed but my feelings tell me this seemingly quasi RPG malarkey will not fix what are fundamental problems that stem from what we expect of Citizens.

[Derpy Hooves]

​My motivation for the House cup is not to fix the CVRIA or citizenship, it is just to provide citizens with an engaging activity.

[Poach]

Funnily enough the last time I spoke about the state of the Curia I got people 'agreeing' in principle, disagreeing with any and all proposals to change it, and failing to front anything in return. That's what this Curia is: a useless collection of people who pretend to want to do things but ultimately won't get off their arses to even try. If you lack the time, the energy, the inclination then fine, but why must you people insist in holding back everyone else who does with lazy disagreements for no reason other than vague dislike?

[Hader]

​My motivation for the House cup is not to fix the CVRIA or citizenship, it is just to provide citizens with an engaging activity.

While that's great and all and I don't necessarily oppose the idea of House Cup or anything like it, if we are needing something like this to get the Curia to do something, then that speaks volumes about what little it actually does otherwise.

Poach says it pretty well so I will just defer to and nod my head in agreement with him now.

[Derpy Hooves]

While that's great and all and I don't necessarily oppose the idea of House Cup or anything like it, if we are needing something like this to get the Curia to do something, then that speaks volumes about what little it actually does otherwise.

Poach says it pretty well so I will just defer to and nod my head in agreement with him now.

It's not about need really. It's about me wanting to bring new meaning to the houses.

[Hader]

It's not about need really. It's about me wanting to bring new meaning to the houses.

Yes, which can be cool, but still does nothing practical for the curia.