Citizenship Application: Is enough, enough?

[PikeStance]

There was a period of time when citizenship application voting was gradually decreasing. Fortunately, most applications have at least 20 votes or more. However, what if there was less than 10 or 5 votes in an application? What is the absolute minimal we can logically an applicant has the approval of Curia?

BTW, I would be against a proposal that would have the applicant fail. I would prefer an extension of the voting period at the discretion of the Curator and extensive announcements made to encourage citizens to participate.

Thoughts anyone?

[General Retreat]

Well, maybe a quorum of 12 could be added, purely as an amusing historical nod?

An automatic failure if this wasn't meet would feel unduly harsh, so I'd certainly support an extension of the voting time.

The only potential issue here is whether that's actually possible for the curator to do. So far as I understand, the curator has full moderation powers within the curial forums, but that doesn’t extend to editing ongoing polls. To the best of my knowledge, only Hex can do that.

[Halie Satanus]

The curia goes through periods of greater and lesser participation. I would be opposed any minimum number of votes requirement but if it fell below 7-8 over a long period I'd be wondering what went wrong with the curia.

[Sir Adrian]

A quorum is a very bad idea, imagine if a great candidate fails because enough citizens couldn't be assed to vote. The only variable should be contribution and nothing else. Polls are open for several days just so anyone who wants to vote can vote, if they do not that is their choice and that's that.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Well, maybe a quorum of 12 could be added, purely as an amusing historical nod?

An automatic failure if this wasn't meet would feel unduly harsh, so I'd certainly support an extension of the voting time.

The only potential issue here is whether that's actually possible for the curator to do. So far as I understand, the curator has full moderation powers within the curial forums, but that doesn’t extend to editing ongoing polls. To the best of my knowledge, only Hex can do that.

The Curator can edit on-going polls. Perhaps the best way would just to edit this part of the Constitution slightly:

The period of discussion or voting can be extended at the discretion of the Curator provided an explanation is given.

Or just change to "[...]the application process can be extended[...]" etc.

[PikeStance]

I think that is a good idea Shank. Is this a "minor" change allowed at the discretion of curator? If so, I doubt there are any objection... its a logical change.

I also agree that a non- vote is not a "no" vote. In my mind a non- vote is equivalent to an abstention. However, we don't want too few "yes" votes either, so an extension could be appropriate.

[The Hedge Knight]

Never Again

Opposed to any such stipulation.

[Halie Satanus]

The period of discussion or voting can be extended at the discretion of the Curator provided an explanation is given.

Indefinitely?

Since this isn't an issue currently why make the change at all. ?

I think that is a good idea Shank. Is this a "minor" change allowed at the discretion of curator? If so, I doubt there are any objection... its a logical change.

I don't think the word 'logical' means what you think it does..

[PikeStance]

Indefinitely?
Since this isn't an issue currently why make the change at all. ?
I don't think the word 'logical' means what you think it does..

Logically, can a poll be open indefinitely?
Logically, why wait until something is an issue. Cue the cliche's

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

I think that is a good idea Shank. Is this a "minor" change allowed at the discretion of curator? If so, I doubt there are any objection... its a logical change.

I also agree that a non- vote is not a "no" vote. In my mind a non- vote is equivalent to an abstention. However, we don't want too few "yes" votes either, so an extension could be appropriate.

This wouldn't be able to be done under a minor formative change; so an Amendment would be needed.

Indefinitely?

As long as an explanation can be given I could keep extending it I guess, it doesn't make any mention of a limit. However at the moment I can't extend the poll itself, just the first two days of discussion - as soon as that polls goes up I can do but nought.

[Halie Satanus]

As long as an explanation can be given I could keep extending it I guess, it doesn't make any mention of a limit. However at the moment I can't extend the poll itself, just the first two days of discussion - as soon as that polls goes up I can do but nought.

It sounds to me as though a candidate could have his vote extended until he passes.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Not at all, at the moment the vote cannot be extended - only the period of discussion that precedes the vote.

[Halie Satanus]

Ah right.

I'd still oppose this.

[PikeStance]

It sounds to me as though a candidate could have his vote extended until he passes.

The issue being discussed is not having enough votes not enough yes votes. The candidate wouldn't even know how many yes votes out of 4 is for or against unless someone publicly stated so.

There isn't anything to opposed. Funny, your opposition is based on the fact it isn't problem? BTW, this is a discussion, not a proposal.

[Halie Satanus]

The issue being discussed is not having enough votes not enough yes votes. The candidate wouldn't even know how many yes votes out of 4 is for or against unless someone publicly stated so.

As long as an explanation can be given I could keep extending it I guess, it doesn't make any mention of a limit. However at the moment I can't extend the poll itself, just the first two days of discussion - as soon as that polls goes up I can do but nought.

I replied to this. Are you not following the discussion?

There isn't anything to opposed. Funny, your opposition is based on the fact it isn't problem? BTW, this is a discussion, not a proposal.

You do realize I said 'I'd' oppose as in 'I would oppose' and not I am opposed, or I oppose or I am taking a position of opposition. As in I would should it be made a proposal, which Shank had also just explained it would need to be.

This wouldn't be able to be done under a minor formative change; so an Amendment would be needed.

When you asked if....

Is this a "minor" change allowed at the discretion of curator? If so, I doubt there are any objection...

Which was then countered by Hedge....

Never Again

Opposed to any such stipulation.

Any way, I shall be opposing this, should it become a proposal.

[Sir Adrian]

The waiting period for a potential citizen is already excruciatingly long so I'm opposed to any from of indefinite extension and vote padding by prolonging the discussion or the polls.

At the moment most active citizens vote in citizenship applications and the number of votes has remained more or less consistent both in the past year and with the number of votes a CdeC election usually produced so the system works as is. When the time comes that the current system is no longer representative due to lack of interest we shall see what is to be done. Until then we should instead look at why only ~20 citizens are interested in what happens in the Curia and look to improve this place in a way which will attract more citizens.

[PikeStance]

I replied to this. Are you not following the discussion?

You are not being abrasive, but more akin to obnoxious behavior. I look forward to you becoming abrasive with open arms



You do realize I said 'I'd' oppose as in 'I would oppose' and not I am opposed, or I oppose or I am taking a position of opposition. As in I would should it be made a proposal, which Shank had also just explained it would need to be.

Which was then countered by Hedge....

He counteres with an expample of an application that became invalid due to a lack of vote, to which he stated never again. In other words, he is against any proposal that would result in an invalidation. At least that I what he appeared to be against. I think we would all be against that.

Any way, I shall be opposing this, should it become a proposal.

Then, I gues you will be leaving the discussion, since you have nothing to offer but your opposition to anything discuss.

The waiting period for a potential citizen is already excruciatingly long so I'm opposed to any from of indefinite extension and vote padding by prolonging the discussion or the polls.

By definiteion a lack of votes can never become "vote padding."

At the moment most active citizens vote in citizenship applications and the number of votes has remained more or less consistent both in the past year and with the number of votes a CdeC election usually produced so the system works as is. When the time comes that the current system is no longer representative due to lack of interest we shall see what is to be done. Until then we should instead look at why only ~20 citizens are interested in what happens in the Curia and look to improve this place in a way which will attract more citizens.

If not mistaken, prior to HS becoming obnoxious, he did make one valid point; if there is a consistent lack of votes there is something seriously wrong with Curia. Of course counter to that is what if someone receives only two votes, no votes and no abstaining votes. Is the Curia ok with a de facto yes by participation in an application? [ok, 2 is extreme, but 5 is not beyond the possibility given that sometimes the activity is quite small on the forum]. For some reason there is an aversion to extend the vote. I am not sure why; it isn't as though an extension would give the applicant a better chance to become a citizen.

[Sir Adrian]

If not mistaken, prior to HS becoming obnoxious, he did make one valid point; if there is a consistent lack of votes there is something seriously wrong with Curia. Of course counter to that is what if someone receives only two votes, no votes and no abstaining votes. Is the Curia ok with a de facto yes by participation in an application? [ok, 2 is extreme, but 5 is not beyond the possibility given that sometimes the activity is quite small on the forum]. For some reason there is an aversion to extend the vote. I am not sure why; it isn't as though an extension would give the applicant a better chance to become a citizen.

But there is currently no lack of votes! More people could vote, yes, but at the present number of voters has remained roughly the same over the past couple of years. When the number of votes drops to 7 or 8 or 9 then we will be able to have a discussion on prolonging the terms and maybe rehashing the system altogether using information we will have available then. At the3 present we should focus on that scenario never happening rather than trying patch a hypothetical problem using today's status quo.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

If there was a case where only say 5 Citizens voted Yes, I'd say let it pass. Its not for that individual to suffer because the Citizens can't be around/choose not to participate. The same would go for only 2. If the applicant has the necessary support (even if it's just 2 yes to 0 no's or whatever) then he's fairly passed and we shouldn't obstruct that with a minimum requirement of 'yes'.

What we should then look at is how the Curia itself failed in such a respect. But again the Citizen got through, and shouldn't be punished for a failure in attendance from the rest of the Citizen body.

[PikeStance]

But there is currently no lack of votes! More people could vote, yes, but at the present number of voters has remained roughly the same over the past couple of years. When the number of votes drops to 7 or 8 or 9 then we will be able to have a discussion on prolonging the terms and maybe rehashing the system altogether using information we will have available then. At the3 present we should focus on that scenario never happening rather than trying patch a hypothetical problem using today's status quo.

If there was a case where only say 5 Citizens voted Yes, I'd say let it pass. Its not for that individual to suffer because the Citizens can't be around/choose not to participate. The same would go for only 2. If the applicant has the necessary support (even if it's just 2 yes to 0 no's or whatever) then he's fairly passed and we shouldn't obstruct that with a minimum requirement of 'yes'.

What we should then look at is how the Curia itself failed in such a respect. But again the Citizen got through, and shouldn't be punished for a failure in attendance from the rest of the Citizen body.

Ultimately, I cared not what system should be used. I didn't pose the question because it needs to be fix, I posed the question in the event it does happen, how do people feel.
I do not have a problem with only two votes. If only two voted and they voted yes, then so be it. It is the responsibility of each citizen to recognized the contribution of other potential citizens and citizens for large awards. However, if you do have a problem, it is foolish to wait until it is a problem to do something about it.