The Age of Aquarius: Seriatim [Discussion of the Triumvirate System]

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Or have citizenship for those who wish to participate in the curia without the caveat of 'behaviour threats' and a seperate award for contributions... [you might have actually said just that].....

Ie: You have been awarded 'X' for contributions, blah blah. Your award confers citizenship and the privilege of participation in the curia.

No more referrals/censors or BS. Just members who get awards for services rendered and those wish to participate in the curia...

When it's put that simply it seems very possible.

Cue the curia vulture lawyers...

This. I feel its the best and fairest way forward for all concerned. Those who wish to participate in the Curia can then, and those who don't (which is lets be honest most 'Citizens') don't have to, and also don't have a public body (As opposed to staff) with authority over them, who they haven't themselves mandated and endorsed.

It might also make the Curia's rep improved- as a more 'elitist' closed-in system for those who like Curial stuff would drum up interest 'what do they do in that corner over there, always huddled around a magazine?' while those who received citizenship as an award for their contributions (Like i see it as anyway- i was never informed they'd be an extra governing body with actual power over me once i'd joined...) can get along in peace. I don't agree citizens should be held to some higher standard, because again it's an award.

The only real reason i could see is that Citizens were a recruiting ground for moderation, and so being held to a higher standard was entirely necessary, of course now we can choose the most appropriate candidates for a wider pool, so there's no real reason Citizens should be better behaved to be honest.

[PikeStance]

No more referrals/censors or BS. Just members who get awards for services rendered and those wish to participate in the curia...
When it's put that simply it seems very possible.
Cue the curia vulture lawyers...

I would certainly would not be opposed to no referral system. The ToS enforcement is good enough. Judging by the number of referrals by staff, I would venture to say the vast majority of violators of the ToS are non- citizens. Moreover, even the criteria for citizenship infers that you are mostly obedient to the ToS not perfect. Furthermore, I can't think of a better way to pile on crap than to tell someone who had just been infracted, "oh BTW, you have been referred." It is not suprising that something say...."here is your stinking badge!"

Or have citizenship for those who wish to participate in the curia without the caveat of 'behaviour threats' and a seperate award for contributions... [you might have actually said just that].....

Ie: You have been awarded 'X' for contributions, blah blah. Your award confers citizenship and the privilege of participation in the curia. ..

This. I feel its the best and fairest way forward for all concerned. Those who wish to participate in the Curia can then, and those who don't (which is lets be honest most 'Citizens') don't have to, and also don't have a public body (As opposed to staff) with authority over them, who they haven't themselves mandated and endorsed.

The Curia exist because citizenship exist. What does the Curia do;

• It elect a Curator to manage the Curia
• It elect Magistrate to hear appeals of moderation on the Tribunal
• It elects two Censors to judge if a citizen acted unbecoming of a citizen (whatever that may be)
• It confers citizenship to contributing members
• It awards exceptional contributors
• It awards citizens contribution to the Curia
• It makes proposals to change the way the Curia operates/ functions
• It makes proposals for changes to the forum and TWC in general (somewhat redundant since Questions and Suggestions functions essentially the same way without the legislative procedure).

With citizenship there are some other minor perks that are more taken for granted, but guarded like a golden chalice.

It does seems odd that you would confer citizenship then give people an "option" to also recognized others for citizenship. After all, the Curia exist primarily for that purpose. The elections serves the Curia (except the Magistrates). The proposals either serves the Curia's function or the site's functions which can be circumvented anyway. We are only left with recognizing those who contributed to become citizens and those who are exceptional citizens.

The only real reason i could see is that Citizens were a recruiting ground for moderation, and so being held to a higher standard was entirely necessary, of course now we can choose the most appropriate candidates for a wider pool, so there's no real reason Citizens should be better behaved to be honest.

My understanding of the history is that the Curia didn't function for this purpose. It had a real governing function of the site. Moderators were elected bu the Curia when this function was removed, it made natural sense that moderators should and ought to come from this group. The non- citizen who would become a moderator would still be considered the exception rather than the rule. It could be argued in such incidences the Curia itself failed to recognize the contribution while Moderators have. Then again, perhaps the would be citizen didn't feel ready.

Going back to the purpose of the thread...... or I could amend to be a general hotbed for discussion anything and everything

It would appear that we do not need to discipline citizens above what is done through moderation. citizens are generally better behave and it would be unreasonable to expect citizens to be perfect.

[mishkin]

Still support this idea (getting rid of the triumvirate), but I think we have to be clear about the consequences. This will enable citizens to act on the edge of the ToS. You know, trolling, flaming, "insulting" mercilessly the post and not the poster, etc.
(Personally I also liked the component of "chivalry" implicit in citizenship)

[PikeStance]

UPDATED THE OP TO REFLECT THE WIDE RANGE OF DISCUSSION

Still support this idea (getting rid of the triumvirate), but I think we have to be clear about the consequences. This will enable citizens to act on the edge of the ToS. You know, trolling, flaming, "insulting" mercilessly the post and not the poster, etc.
(Personally I also liked the component of "chivalry" implicit in citizenship)

There are a few points to consider
There are very few referrals and everyone I have seen have been staff referrals, and on- staff referrals are generally dismissed. (I do nti have any figures, but I am guessing based on what other people have stated). I think the infraction by itself is enough. If you accumulate too many infraction, then you will eventually get suspended. I supposed an alternative system is only have a public referral if a member is suspended from the site for any length of time. By the time, you have accumulated fair amount of points. I wouldn't advocate outright removal, but perhaps a vote for suspension or removal could be entertained. The suspensions are 8 points (1 day), 12 (3 days) 16 (7days) and 20 (1 month). TBH, this is the sort of compromise that would most likely be needed to pass a proposal that would remove the formal referral system we have now.

I think citizens are largely better behave and I think they are independent of Curia scrutiny. People recognized for contribution are mostly people who communicate well. Being an effective communicator are inherently better of getting their points across without violating the ToS. Expecting perfection and when they occasionally slip, censuring them for it, seems more like a punch in a face than a slap on the wrist.

[Halie Satanus]

The Curia exist because citizenship exist. What does the Curia do;

Separating the award and conferring citizenship would probably better define the purpose of the curia as an awards committee and place where members who are generally more invested in TWC can propose ideas to improve the site. I'm also thinking it would remove a lot of the petty politicking and manipulative backstabbing that has blighted the curia over the years.

It does seems odd that you would confer citizenship then give people an "option" to also recognized others for citizenship. After all, the Curia exist primarily for that purpose.

That couldn't be more wrong. Citizenship is the recognition of contributions to TWC, not an marker of who would make a good citizen. Have you not realised yet that the reason a large percentage of citizens don't participate in the curia is because they don't give a flying flute for the BS politics. They get their award and are happy with that recognition of their hard work.

We could change the perspective people have of the curia. Remove the politics and invite them to participate in reviewing candidates for awards.

We are only left with recognizing those who contributed to become citizens and those who are exceptional citizens.

No one contributed to become a citizen and there is no such thing as an exceptional citizen.

Still support this idea (getting rid of the triumvirate), but I think we have to be clear about the consequences. This will enable citizens to act on the edge of the ToS. You know, trolling, flaming, "insulting" mercilessly the post and not the poster, etc.
(Personally I also liked the component of "chivalry" implicit in citizenship)

There's nothing stopping citizens behaving like that now and there's no evidence to suggest members would behave any differently.

Are citizens better behaved?.. This has always been a misnomer. There are thousands of members here who behave perfectly just as there are many citizens who breech the ToS. The only difference is citizens can lose an award they worked hard for.

[mishkin]

There's nothing stopping citizens behaving like that now and there's no evidence to suggest members would behave any differently.

Yes, I do not know how much deterrant the triumvirate is or can be, and we have been told they do not have to deal with many "non ToS breaches" cases. I just thought that possibility (citizens openly acting like s) should be mentioned.

[Halie Satanus]

Yes, I do not know how much deterrant the triumvirate is or can be, and we have been told they do not have to deal with many "non ToS breaches" cases. I just thought that possibility (citizens openly acting like s) should be mentioned.

It's always the definition of what is 'unbecoming' that's been used and manipulated and causes mistrust in the curia. During my many years as a stone thrower from the curia commentary thread I was asked many times to review cases of citizen referrals. I was all to often amazed how that process was abused with very dubious reasoning. It doesn't surprise me at all that now the process is more open to scrutiny that we don't see nearly as many such referrals. So I can't help but wonder if the process is [on occasion] used because it's there or if it's really needed at all.

[Aikanár]

No one contributed to become a citizen and there is no such thing as an exceptional citizen.

I did. And I know Genius did so too (can't find the quote of him right now, but he said so in a discussion about citizenship in the Curia not all too long ago), so there you have at least 2 people who did contribute because (not saying it was the only reason, but one) they wanted to become a citizen.

Still support this idea (getting rid of the triumvirate), but I think we have to be clear about the consequences. This will enable citizens to act on the edge of the ToS. You know, trolling, flaming, "insulting" mercilessly the post and not the poster, etc.
(Personally I also liked the component of "chivalry" implicit in citizenship)

This happens on a daily basis. I don't see that many referrals.

[PikeStance]

Separating the award and conferring citizenship would probably better define the purpose of the curia as an awards committee and place where members who are generally more invested in TWC can propose ideas to improve the site. I'm also thinking it would remove a lot of the petty politicking and manipulative backstabbing that has blighted the curia over the years./....Have you not realised yet that the reason a large percentage of citizens don't participate in the curia is because they don't give a flying flute for the BS politics. They get their award and are happy with that recognition of their hard work.

Yes, I know people stay away from the Curia for those reasons. I do not see how that is reason to separate it. At least now, when we are graced by their input it is alike a breath of fresh air. If separated the air would be stale and suffocating.

That couldn't be more wrong. Citizenship is the recognition of contributions to TWC, not an marker of who would make a good citizen.

I think you have me confused with someone else; I have been arguing this fact for quite some time. I did state that a good citizen or contributed are generally and inherently 'good' citizen. Generally is the operative word here because you do occasionally have some "stinkers."

We could change the perspective people have of the curia. Remove the politics and invite them to participate in reviewing candidates for awards.

I am intrigued on how you would do this. I do not think simply separating citizenship into award/ Curia Participation would create a more harmonious environment.

I do enjoy the irony that we can define the Curia as the place of elites, but also define as a den of thieves and scoundrels.

No one contributed to become a citizen and there is no such thing as an exceptional citizen.

I was referring to large award recipients, like Opfex and Phalera. (taken from the wording of the award)

There's nothing stopping citizens behaving like that now and there's no evidence to suggest members would behave any differently.

Are citizens better behaved?.. This has always been a misnomer. There are thousands of members here who behave perfectly just as there are many citizens who breech the ToS. The only difference is citizens can lose an award they worked hard for.

I once argued that we should change it from removal of rank to indefinite suspension because I didn't like the notion that we were stripping someone of their contribution. One suggest permanency while the suggest a hint of redemption in the future to be recognized again.

[Halie Satanus]

I did. And I know Genius did so too (can't find the quote of him right now, but he said so in a discussion about citizenship in the Curia not all too long ago), so there you have at least 2 people who did contribute because (not saying it was the only reason, but one) they wanted to become a citizen.

So not the only reason then.. As long as we're clear it wasn't the only reason..

Yes, I know people stay away from the Curia for those reasons. I do not see how that is reason to separate it. At least now, when we are graced by their input it is alike a breath of fresh air. If separated the air would be stale and suffocating.

What?

I think you have me confused with someone else; I have been arguing this fact for quite some time. I did state that a good citizen or contributed are generally and inherently 'good' citizen. Generally is the operative word here because you do occasionally have some "stinkers."

I don't get the middle part.

I am intrigued on how you would do this. I do not think simply separating citizenship into award/ Curia Participation would create a more harmonious environment.

Nor do I, which is why we are also discussing removing censors/censorship/petty politics and faux elitist attitudes ect ect...

I do enjoy the irony that we can define the Curia as the place of elites, but also define as a den of thieves and scoundrels.

It is not a place of 'elites.' This is the basic wrong premise that so much nonsense has been built on over a number of years.

I was referring to large award recipients, like Opfex and Phalera. (taken from the wording of the award)

Non citizens can get Opifex/Phalera (a few have). Any member can be exceptional.

If the nominee was not already a Citizen, the Rank shall be conferred upon them if they pass.

[PikeStance]

What?

I like the input of those that mostly stay away. It is a positive I wouldn't want to lose.

I don't get the middle part.

Good contributor tend to also be good posters as well

It is not a place of 'elites.' This is the basic wrong premise that so much nonsense has been built on over a number of years.

Agreed!

Non citizens can get Opifex/Phalera (a few have). Any member can be exceptional.

If the nominee was not already a Citizen, the Rank shall be conferred upon them if they pass.

Exactly why I shortened it to "Exceptional Citizen" By definition the award and the citizenship is given.

[Halie Satanus]

I like the input of those that mostly stay away. It is a positive I wouldn't want to lose.

You wouldn't lose the input of those who mostly stay away.

Good contributor tend to also be good posters as well

Sometimes, but that can be said of all members, not just citizens.

Exactly why I shortened it to "Exceptional Citizen" By definition the award and the citizenship is given.

Not sure what you mean there. But a separation of citizenship from it's award element would be the same as we already have for large awards.

[Squid]

Ie: You have been awarded 'X' for contributions, blah blah. Your award confers citizenship and the privilege of participation in the curia.

No more referrals/censors or BS. Just members who get awards for services rendered and those wish to participate in the curia...

Not to be pedantic but isn't this what we have now already, minus the referral/censor part. You contribute you get a badge which gives you the optional privilege of participation in the curia. I'm not seeing any change from the present situation, aside from the already stated removal of behaviour requirements.

The behaviour requirements exist so that those members that the site holds up as being worthy for other members to aspire to should actually be members we want others to aspire to. I can think of a few people who if one were to look at just contributions should be citizens but there's no way I'd ever want to hold them up as members other should aspire to.

[PikeStance]

Not sure what you mean there. But a separation of citizenship from it's award element would be the same as we already have for large awards.

You seem to have forgotten the context of the statement. It was in regards to role of the Curia within TWC. In fact, the statement was the summation of the points that I had made above. Since the Curia votes to recognized large awards I could not leave it out of the summation.

It does seems odd that you would confer citizenship then give people an "option" to also recognized others for citizenship. After all, the Curia exist primarily for that purpose. The elections serves the Curia (except the Magistrates). The proposals either serves the Curia's function or the site's functions which can be circumvented anyway. We are only left with recognizing those who contributed to become citizens and those who are exceptional citizens.

The argument still stands....
If the Curia exist to award the contribution of its members with either citizenship or the large awards
If citizens are the Curia, then how can citizens not be apart of the Curia?
Then there is the other argument: How can removing mostly non- participants create a less toxic environment?

You wouldn't lose the input of those who mostly stay away.

"Mostly" means they do provide some input. Since they irregularly post they may not bother to 'register' (?) to be poart of the Curia therefore, would not post at all losing what little refreshing u=input they provide.

Sometimes, but that can be said of all members, not just citizens.

What non-citizens do is irrelevant to the point. I am only addressing the fact that citizens are mostly well behaved. Can you be well- behaved and not make a significant contribution? Yes. This fact has no relevance to whether or not citizens are generally well- behaved.

Not to be pedantic but isn't this what we have now already, minus the referral/censor part. You contribute you get a badge which gives you the optional privilege of participation in the curia. I'm not seeing any change from the present situation, aside from the already stated removal of behaviour requirements.

I agree, I do not see how it does either.

The behaviour requirements exist so that those members that the site holds up as being worthy for other members to aspire to should actually be members we want others to aspire to. I can think of a few people who if one were to look at just contributions should be citizens but there's no way I'd ever want to hold them up as members other should aspire to.

I am incline to agree. However, I do not think we need the system of oversight that we have now. Citizens should be expected to follow the ToS. If you want to hold citizens to a "higher standard" it should be consequences based on ToS violation and not some poorly defined higher idealism. Any system devised should be superimposed over the preexisting ToS violation system. I do not see a need for human oversight. The point values seems fair enough in the ToS.

[Halie Satanus]

Not to be pedantic but isn't this what we have now already, minus the referral/censor part. You contribute you get a badge which gives you the optional privilege of participation in the curia. I'm not seeing any change from the present situation, aside from the already stated removal of behaviour requirements.

The behaviour requirements exist so that those members that the site holds up as being worthy for other members to aspire to should actually be members we want others to aspire to. I can think of a few people who if one were to look at just contributions should be citizens but there's no way I'd ever want to hold them up as members other should aspire to.

You're right it is fundamentally the same. I believe making those changes would make the curia a more open area used by more members, and no I don't think that would happen overnight, but in time.

[Admiral Piett]

Not to be pedantic but isn't this what we have now already, minus the referral/censor part. You contribute you get a badge which gives you the optional privilege of participation in the curia. I'm not seeing any change from the present situation, aside from the already stated removal of behaviour requirements.

The behaviour requirements exist so that those members that the site holds up as being worthy for other members to aspire to should actually be members we want others to aspire to. I can think of a few people who if one were to look at just contributions should be citizens but there's no way I'd ever want to hold them up as members other should aspire to.

The gist of what Halie was saying was that the Curia no longer becomes a political role-play and becomes what it was originally intended to be. The reason most of us citizens are not more involved is because the Curia is not very conducive to trying to new ideas unless you can type it overly long winded essays to try and convince a small group of people that don't really desire to change anything or try anything radically different. So the Curia is already more or less just a user recognition and medal machine anyway, why not just make that process more streamlined by taking the elite out of it? We have already made the process of becoming a citizen a lot more relaxed and less bureaucratic by removing the Cdec. But, how many of these citizens feel encouraged to take part?

I mean, I would think there are quite a few of us, especially the D&D regulars, that would prefer better recognition of contributions than just that one time red badge. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that as a whine on my own behalf, there just have been some good folks that went unnoticed and unrecognized, eventually just losing interest in contributing to the site at all.

[PikeStance]

The gist of what Halie was saying was that the Curia no longer becomes a political role-play and becomes what it was originally intended to be. The reason most of us citizens are not more involved is because the Curia is not very conducive to trying to new ideas unless you can type it overly long winded essays to try and convince a small group of people that don't really desire to change anything or try anything radically different. So the Curia is already more or less just a user recognition and medal machine anyway, why not just make that process more streamlined by taking the elite out of it? We have already made the process of becoming a citizen a lot more relaxed and less bureaucratic by removing the Cdec. But, how many of these citizens feel encouraged to take part?

The Curia is essentially an awards entity. With the exception of the Magistrate it only elects officers directly related to Curia affairs. Personally, I would rather see elected site wide, but I am told this would be a nightmare to prevent cheating. The next best solution would be to have all three members of the Tribunal chosen. [one former/ current Moderator and two other members]. That will probably never happen.

Personally, I do not find the Curia dispensing awards to be a bad thing; it is what makes this site unique is that it does recognized its members in a meaningful way. The Curia lack of proposal power is demonstrated by the fact that three proposals [[Decision] New Usertitles provided by MMFA | [Decision] Historical Community | [Decision] Modding Community] voted on and passed by the Curia have yet to be decided on. I understand making major changes may take time to work out the details, but it does illustrate the lack of faith in the Curia in general. Then again, who's fault is that' the Curia does do a great job of discrediting itself. It does beg the question: If proposals are not an exclusive thins (Questions & Suggestions) and the Curia has no special weight, why make it exclusive to citizen participation? The Curia would actually never vote for this. In fact, it has summarily voted down similar proposals/ suggestions. The admin, out of respect to what the Curia once was (why history of the Curia beyond 2010 is important) would never unilaterally make this decision. So here we are in our quagmire.

In a nutshell, it isn't the end of the world if the only thing the Curia does is give awards. If anything, it doesn't makes more sense to separate (if this is even really technically possible) Citizenship with the Curia. It makes more sense to allow a mechanism for anyone to make a proposals. We also do not need to elect Magistrates either. Censors jobs can be automated as discussed. So what we are left with is the Curator (whether it is one or 3) and the awards it dispenses.

I mean, I would think there are quite a few of us, especially the D&D regulars, that would prefer better recognition of contributions than just that one time red badge. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that as a whine on my own behalf, there just have been some good folks that went unnoticed and unrecognized, eventually just losing interest in contributing to the site at all.

To be honest, the best people to patronize a potential civitate are Civitates themselves. If you do not have time to do it yourself, you can suggest someone here and someone else may do it for you.

[Adar]

I'll just chip in as I got the valuable experience of getting one of those referrals (I actually found this thread because I was looking for the publicly stored discussion on it).

And I honestly don't see the point of the referral. I broke the rules and the moderators dealt with it appropriately while the referral was little more than a waste of time. I don't know who the Triumvirates are and they honestly aren't powerful enough to make me care enough to find out. Citizenship is a reward for contributions and it takes some rather severe misbehaviour to lose it (which is appropriate).

So with the current referral system the Triumvirate really get a role of being watered down moderators and a mild nuisance for citizens.

[Makrell]

I'll just chip in as I got the valuable experience of getting one of those referrals (I actually found this thread because I was looking for the publicly stored discussion on it).

And I honestly don't see the point of the referral. I broke the rules and the moderators dealt with it appropriately while the referral was little more than a waste of time. I don't know who the Triumvirates are and they honestly aren't powerful enough to make me care enough to find out. Citizenship is a reward for contributions and it takes some rather severe misbehaviour to lose it (which is appropriate).

So with the current referral system the Triumvirate really get a role of being watered down moderators and a mild nuisance for citizens.

That is very true. As a censor we deal out lot of censures for moderator warnings, like 1 pointers for off topic posting and so forth. In my 6 months and more as censor i have seen 1 case that wasnt a result of a moderator infraction/warning.

[Adar]

That is very true. As a censor we deal out lot of censures for moderator warnings, like 1 pointers for off topic posting and so forth. In my 6 months and more as censor i have seen 1 case that wasnt a result of a moderator infraction/warning.

I think it is good that you deal with cases that aren't a result of moderator infractions/warnings, because that is really where you can make a difference. I could easily have turned me vs [certain poster] into a pretty nice sniping war as I know exactly what makes him blow his fuses. But for moderators this is very hard to deal with as the interpretation of the ToS is ridiculously restrictive in some cases which benefit veteran baiters.

In those situations I think you could play an important role as long as the instigator is a citizen. Because I think most of us agree that it is unbecoming of a citizen to provoke many fights even if the poster himself isn't breaking the rules very often.

So that is my view on when the Triumvirate really can make a difference.