[Discussion] Changes to the Curia

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

I have been torn between which of the proposals I've been thinking of to present. In the end I decided to go for perhaps the more simpler one to (hopefully) start things of and see how it goes. I therefore propose we make the following changes to the Curia:

-The Curia is moved to nearer the top of the forum index, before the TW boards
-The Symp is renamed the Citizen's Forum as a more 'relaxed' (grown up members, grown up rules) discussion forum
-The Proth and Curia main are open all to all members who can offer proposals and nominate members for awards (the Rostra and Popular Acclamation are scrapped); the Curia Vote is open to Citizens only; only Citizens can stand in elections
-Citizenship is changed to follow the current process for nominating someone for an award
-Disciplinary procedure changes so Citizen referrals are abolished but replaced with a system where any other Citizen can propose to remove another's (similar procedure to a VoNC) if their behaviour is below what is expected; Staff referrals are changed (see below)

The other options I had in mind were either introducing an award to replace Citizenship and have Citizenship is a more fluid, active body of members willingly held to a higher standard instead of as a result of an award, or reducing the current model of Citizenship to simply an award and then having a new usergroup of members who would fulfil the same sort of as how Citizens would if a contributor's award was introduced. However when I was thinking about they both seemed to create an extra layer where there doesn't quite seem to be the need for one at the moment, hence this more toned down version of the proposal. If down the line their seems to be a general appetite for splitting up the award and behavioural aspects of Citizenship then these ideas can be picked up then.

Staff Referral Changes:
Same procedure when a Citizen receives an infraction currently, however it takes place in a forum in a similar style to the Praetorium whereby the Citizen post their defence as a new thread (if not it is assumed they do not want to take part, 96 hours as is the current time period for receiving a defence) and a discussion takes place between them and the Censors (and Hex if they wish to get involved). Only thread starters, Censors, Hex and the Curator can see the thread and posts in them. The Curator doesn't partake in the discussion but is simply their for admin reasons. At the end the Citizen decides if they want it to be sorted publicly or privately, as is the case currently.

As for the Censors I propose bumping them up to 4 just because it is the same as the Tribunal. The increase is due to the removal of the Curator from the disciplinary process, but if people feel that's pointless then two+Curator could still work. Honestly I would be in favour of just having the Curator when he is elected appoint the Censors for the duration of their term and then have a general Curia vote to see if the Citizens support his/her choices, where they can also voice any concerns. However I have a feeling that would't go down too well so I guess the extra two Censors would also be elected. Obviously they cannot be Magistrates or Tribunes.


Thoughts?

[pannonian]

Personally, I agree with Iskar in that staff referrals should be removed entirely. Other than that, the most substantive reform isn't a structural one, but one of attitude. If the administration wants help with something, what's the most effective way of finding volunteers? This doesn't mean names signing up, but people actually putting in time to do something. Everything else is moot, if this central issue isn't solved. That's why the issue I've pressed the most in staff is to remove inactives and promote actives. The citizenry doesn't remove inactives, but how do you promote actives (and not merely in terms of rank)?

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

And replaced with an automatic system, or nothing at all? As for the second part, I don't think I have the answers for it. Perhaps be more specific on what you need volunteers for with expectations of the work load so people have a reasonable idea what to expect, like a job sheet in the Q&A or something where people can crack on with particular task. There is the issue of people actually doing the task, but I think that will always be an issue when asking for volunteers, finding good ones won't be easy.

[Squid]

How to promote actives? And I can't believe I'm going to say this, but actives could be promoted by bringing back the senatorii, along with a badge, and again I can't believe I just wrote that. It wouldn't have any additional perks other than a new badge for being active in curial initiatives or in the curia itself. My concern would be that people will do the minimal of whatever the criteria is just to become a senatorii. A second concern is what is there to be active with other than applications and any bills that are proposed, you'd need to have stuff, in addition to the regular curia stuff, for people to be involved in.

[PikeStance]

Oh yes, I can agree with Squid on something. It's been awhile. At least it is worth an exploration!

......

Anything that reduces citizenship to an award removes the utility of the Curial. No standards means no point to being a citizen. For me the goal should be to encourage existing citizens to care rather than allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to add their two cents. Then again, there is the Curial Commentary Thread. I don't see non-citizens busted down the door. How much actvity will be created by decreasing the "carrot?"

I wouldnt object to third Censor to create a neutral Curator.

[Sir Adrian]

Mate, this whole thing has been just an award for well over 3-4 years now. Stop trying to prolong something that no longer exists.

-Disciplinary procedure changes so Citizen referrals are abolished but replaced with a system where any other Citizen can propose to remove another's (similar procedure to a VoNC) if their behaviour is below what is expected; Staff referrals are changed (see below)

Very bad idea. Almost every VonC I've seen since joining was a spectacular failure in terms of the behavior of some of the people involved. Do you really want to give people a cheap payback tool? Better just make it automatic, like D&D posting rights. First you lose access to the Curia, get more points and you lose access to the D&D., clean, simple, no animosity or overly subjective individuals involved.

[HigoChumbo]

I still think that the issue of the lack of activity in the Capitol is related to its structure. It's way too complex, in my opinion, a myriad of subforums to keep track of. Moving it to the top is not going to change that significantly, I think.

I believe it needs to be either streamlined/simplified, or, at the very least, be given one main forum where all the important stuff that requires citizens' attention is posted so that it's easier to check it periodically without having to dive into a ocean of confusing subcategories.



Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd rebuild the whole thing from the ground up, trying to accomodate the essential functionality in the least possible number of forums/subforums, and making names/descriptions clearer.

[Iskar]

I agree with some points of you, Shank, and most of what Higo said. I cannot see, though, Squid, how such a Senator badge could be made to work? Who would decide on who gets it? Would it not just cause people to create inane, meaningless pseudo-activity in the Curia to get it?

I think the transition from a member awarded for their attitude and contribution to a member that regularly partakes in Curial things for the benefit of the site should be as fluent as possible, with no badge or rank thresholds in between that keep people out, just so those already in can feel more special.

It would in my opinion be preferrable if we kept the discussion on the disciplinary/conduct stuff in the appropriate (Triumvirate system) discussion, so as not to get confused which arguments were brought up where.

As for a restructuring and opening up of general discussion, I can very well see myself supporting such a thing. Higo is very right in pointing out that the convoluted structure of the Capitol with a myriad of no longer needed threads and subfora is quite daunting and likely to keep people out and activity low. How about a tidy-up along these lines:

Move all discussion of proposals and nominations into the Rostra,
move the Curia (minus the Proth) into the FM as another subforum,
get rid of all the old, no longer needed subfora there,
clear up the Symposium and rename it to something less daunting (I like Greek but it tends to frighten people off.),
move the entire Capitol thingy more to the top,
abolish the Curial commentary in the Q&S and redirect anyone wanting to comment on curial things to a FM general discussion.

That way we would have the FM as an actual meeting place for members caring for the community, open discussion for everyone, voting restricted to citizens as the recognisably responsible members in the Curia, the Curia and Rostra as virtual places on our virtual Forum Magnum. I mean, even that metaphor with ancient Rome would fit then, heh

Just brainstorming for now, but it definitely is an interesting idea.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

How to promote actives? And I can't believe I'm going to say this, but actives could be promoted by bringing back the senatorii, along with a badge, and again I can't believe I just wrote that. It wouldn't have any additional perks other than a new badge for being active in curial initiatives or in the curia itself. My concern would be that people will do the minimal of whatever the criteria is just to become a senatorii. A second concern is what is there to be active with other than applications and any bills that are proposed, you'd need to have stuff, in addition to the regular curia stuff, for people to be involved in.

That could easily be incorporated into this proposal. Not sure how to deal with your concerns, perhaps have it whereby Senatorii can remove their own members if they do not think they are being 'active'. I'm not sure, defining active is the difficult bit.

Anything that reduces citizenship to an award removes the utility of the Curial. No standards means no point to being a citizen. For me the goal should be to encourage existing citizens to care rather than allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to add their two cents. Then again, there is the Curial Commentary Thread. I don't see non-citizens busted down the door. How much actvity will be created by decreasing the "carrot?"

I wouldnt object to third Censor to create a neutral Curator.

No point in being a Citizen? I would think the badge, the coloured username, access to the Symp (hopefully) and being recognised as a contributing member to the site would be a big attraction. It seems the majority aren't that fussed about the Curial side of things. This isn't about creating some new role with the Curia, it is just about allowing it to embrace its current roles better - awarding members for their contribution to the site, with the addition of being able to propose Decisions and being the home of the Citizenry. In the end, is it right that we expect, or we have a desire, for members who we award for contributing to take part in the Curia? This is the issue of Citizenship being an award or something more than that, if it is the latter then that side should be developed more whilst separating it from the award side of things. For the minute this proposal is taking a step back and just starting with a few things, nothing it proposes stops current/potential Citizens from taking initiative and Curially active, just a lack of any kind of 'perk' from it.

However, getting Citizens active in the Curia and projects the Curia could run would be great, but it currently goes beyond the scope of this proposal. Squid offers a suggestion to help this and pannonian has highlighted some issues, but that is something that could be developed down the line.

Very bad idea. Almost every VonC I've seen since joining was a spectacular failure in terms of the behavior of some of the people involved. Do you really want to give people a cheap payback tool? Better just make it automatic, like D&D posting rights. First you lose access to the Curia, get more points and you lose access to the D&D., clean, simple, no animosity or overly subjective individuals involved.

I am not a fan of automatic suspensions for Citizenship in its current form, hence Staff referrals remaining with only some change addressing a few issues that have been raised about the process in the past. The change to Citizen referrals is a resort for cases where a Citizen may behaviour in an unbecoming way that stays on the right side of the ToS, and who better to deal with that than the whole Citizenry? The behaviour of people involved isn't an issue with the system, but with the people.

I still think that the issue of the lack of activity in the Capitol is related to its structure. It's way too complex, in my opinion, a myriad of subforums to keep track of. Moving it to the top is not going to change that significantly, I think.

I believe it needs to be either streamlined/simplified, or, at the very least, be given one main forum where all the important stuff that requires citizens' attention is posted so that it's easier to check it periodically without having to dive into a ocean of confusing subcategories.

Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd rebuild the whole thing from the ground up, trying to accomodate the essential functionality in the least possible number of forums/subforums, and making names/descriptions clearer.

More 'modern' names were discussed recentlyish and I am all for that, an example being the Symp to Citizen's Forum to reflect what it does. The Curia name is a key part of TWC history and works well enough for naming a part of the site that needs a name, however sub-forum name changes could work in a move away from things like Proth to Proposal Forum etc. However, I don't think the current set-up in terms of number of sub-forums is that confusing and they fulfil the tasks needed. Plus, the changes to the Citizen nomination process mentioned in the OP would remove the QP forum anyway so that's one down.

EDIT: Iskar just seen your post, will respond shortly.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

It would in my opinion be preferrable if we kept the discussion on the disciplinary/conduct stuff in the appropriate (Triumvirate system) discussion, so as not to get confused which arguments were brought up where.

I agree, although there will need to be some discussion in response to what the proposal proposes I imagine.

As for a restructuring and opening up of general discussion, I can very well see myself supporting such a thing. Higo is very right in pointing out that the convoluted structure of the Capitol with a myriad of no longer needed threads and subfora is quite daunting and likely to keep people out and activity low. How about a tidy-up along these lines:

Move all discussion of proposals and nominations into the Rostra,
move the Curia (minus the Proth) into the FM as another subforum,
get rid of all the old, no longer needed subfora there,
clear up the Symposium and rename it to something less daunting (I like Greek but it tends to frighten people off.),
move the entire Capitol thingy more to the top,
abolish the Curial commentary in the Q&S and redirect anyone wanting to comment on curial things to a FM general discussion.

That way we would have the FM as an actual meeting place for members caring for the community, open discussion for everyone, voting restricted to citizens as the recognisably responsible members in the Curia, the Curia and Rostra as virtual places on our virtual Forum Magnum. I mean, even that metaphor with ancient Rome would fit then, heh

Just brainstorming for now, but it definitely is an interesting idea.

I would reluctant in a move the Curia into the FM, a the committee forums which are still used would just add to the clutter, even if the redundant ones are archived somewhere. However, all the threads in the FM could be moved into Curia main (which would have general posting rights as per this proposal) and have that as the centre of discussion whilst disabling posting in the old FM. I agree with the Curial Commentary thread, its movement to the FM is a pending decision but it could just do as well in the Curia main. Also, as a result of this proposal the QP would go and be merged with the Proth, which would leave the Curia Vote forum and the Proth as the sub-forums of the Curia both of which I feel are needed. As I mentioned in response to HigoChumbo I'm all in favour of ditching the Latin names for things more reflective of what the forums actually are such as Curia Vote, Proposal Forum, Citizen's Forum etc.

Despite that, specifics can be nailed out later, for now I was just seeing the general response to the ideas in the proposal until I can get something more concrete and formatted posted.

[Sir Adrian]

It is a an issue with the system if it willingly allows for a flaw. I agree with everything else you came up with but public referrals need to go asap. Moderation is far more qualified to ensure citizens maintain a certain standard, for one all of them are of proven objectivity, and they're not prone towards petty vendettas or mob mentality - and the curia does certainly have a capacity for that - an finally moderator actions are appealable, usually with decent chances of success. If referrals are handled publicly who will you apeal to in case of unfair treatment? The same public who treated you unfairly?

Or we can just drop the pretense of a higher standard altogether, it's not like it's working anyway.

[Aikanár]

Personally, I agree with Iskar in that staff referrals should be removed entirely. Other than that, the most substantive reform isn't a structural one, but one of attitude. If the administration wants help with something, what's the most effective way of finding volunteers? This doesn't mean names signing up, but people actually putting in time to do something. Everything else is moot, if this central issue isn't solved. That's why the issue I've pressed the most in staff is to remove inactives and promote actives. The citizenry doesn't remove inactives, but how do you promote actives (and not merely in terms of rank)?

How to promote actives? And I can't believe I'm going to say this, but actives could be promoted by bringing back the senatorii, along with a badge, and again I can't believe I just wrote that. It wouldn't have any additional perks other than a new badge for being active in curial initiatives or in the curia itself. My concern would be that people will do the minimal of whatever the criteria is just to become a senatorii. A second concern is what is there to be active with other than applications and any bills that are proposed, you'd need to have stuff, in addition to the regular curia stuff, for people to be involved in.

These are just some quick thoughts. The above two could be combined, I think. Recognize people for what they do for the site with citizenship, when they become inactive in some sort, move them to a citizen emeritus group you name like you want to. Move those who are curial regulars to the senatorii group. Let the Curator or more than one handle this process on a fluent case by case basis i.e. by Curator discretion. Tie different access rights for the blog, article and other sections to the different user groups. Get rid of staff referrals. Create a code of conduct, strengthen citizen referrals based on this code of conduct - imagine a more chivalrous behavior of citizens outside the D&D and sort of things. Spend some thought on what benefits the site in total, like projects, conduct, activity too. Simplify the Capitol structure without making it appear for dummies. Open up Curia main.

Just some thoughts. Forgive me not explaining them in proper paragraphs, I'm still pretty busy and occupied with off the web Life.

[HigoChumbo]

More 'modern' names were discussed recentlyish and I am all for that, an example being the Symp to Citizen's Forum to reflect what it does. The Curia name is a key part of TWC history and works well enough for naming a part of the site that needs a name, however sub-forum name changes could work in a move away from things like Proth to Proposal Forum etc. However, I don't think the current set-up in terms of number of sub-forums is that confusing and they fulfil the tasks needed. Plus, the changes to the Citizen nomination process mentioned in the OP would remove the QP forum anyway so that's one down.

I think the descriptions are more the issue here. The latin/greek names give the forum flavour, but they need to be accompanied with clear descriptions in order to avoid confussion. Right now we have:

• CVRIA: Come to discuss matters of the republic, complaints, grievances, and nominations. Citizens only!
• SYMPOSIUM: A privileged few rise above the mire. Citizens only!
• Forum Magnum: A place for Citizens and other members to propose ideas for the betterment of the site.

Looking at that there is really nothing that indicates that those three could not fit into just one forum, the descriptions about what the purpose of each forum is meant for are not clear. A person who is not familiar with the section comes in and what does he think? "What the hell is the Symposium for?, how does proposing new ideas for the site not count as discussing matters of the republic?, why are complaints and proposals in different sections?". Ok so it's just 3 forums, not a big deal for that user to just open them all to check... and the moment he does he is bombarded with Questiones Perpetuae, Prothalamos, Rostra and a ton of other subforums (many of which being even empty or containing just another one further pointless subforum and nothing else). Even for someone who wants to participate, that's just daunting, and unnecessarily so, I'd say.

As for a restructuring and opening up of general discussion, I can very well see myself supporting such a thing. Higo is very right in pointing out that the convoluted structure of the Capitol with a myriad of no longer needed threads and subfora is quite daunting and likely to keep people out and activity low. How about a tidy-up along these lines:

Move all discussion of proposals and nominations into the Rostra,
move the Curia (minus the Proth) into the FM as another subforum,
get rid of all the old, no longer needed subfora there,
clear up the Symposium and rename it to something less daunting (I like Greek but it tends to frighten people off.),
move the entire Capitol thingy more to the top,
abolish the Curial commentary in the Q&S and redirect anyone wanting to comment on curial things to a FM general discussion.

At this point, I believe that rethinking the whole thing would be more effective than rearranging the existing model, since that would be at the peril of just stirring the mess.


What I would do would be to create a list of functions that are expected of The Capitol, reduce it to the minimum number of items possible, and then accomodate those functions in the least number of forums, with a horizontal, accessible structure instead of having several depth layers. I think most of the stuff that is currently discussed here could perfectly fit in one general discussion forum.

So just think it like this. What do we need the Capitol for? (do point it out if I'm missing something major)

• Citizenship/offices: nominations, applications, etc.
• Legislation
• Voting
• Awards
• General betterment of the site.

And after having a functions list such as that, then we ask ourselves, how do we accomodate all that in the simplest, clearest way possible? Do we want/need some specific sections to be citizen only or do we keep everything open to the public? and so on. If you think of it, the whole Capitol (yes, all of it, not just the Cvria) could be reduced to something in the general lines of this thing below (I did this in a rush and I'm not sure about how the privacy settings for individual threads work, don't be too judgy )




* office/citizen proposals and awards would require their own subforums, fixing that. ~ Fixed.



I would personally get rid of the Symposium. While it's always nice to have a forum with more relaxed rules due to its mature public, I find it rather pointless, and the only thing it really achieves is to duplicate discussions that are already perfectly covered in other parts of the website and create some kind of elitist/classist vibe within the forum. I'd just remove it and maybe apply that relaxed approach to those areas which are meant for citizens only (should any be kept, I'm sure normal members would appreciate the maximum amount of transparency and the removal of all the unnecessary barriers which can end up being regarded as elitist).



That single forum could indeed be moved further up or even be made part of the Administrative section (there are questions&suggestions sections over there which are a bit confusingly redundant with parts of the current Capitol) and it would be a hell of a lot easier to check even on a dayly basis and to get involved, since citizens and members would see up-front where their attention is required, and notice some proposal/debate threads in the proccess that they might decide to participate in.

[PikeStance]

Mate, this whole thing has been just an award for well over 3-4 years now. Stop trying to prolong something that no longer exists.

I once had these thoughts, then on the way to Damascus,... There is nothing further from the truth. It is now still something more than award,.,..as it should be.

I still think that the issue of the lack of activity in the Capitol is related to its structure. It's way too complex, in my opinion, a myriad of subforums to keep track of. Moving it to the top is not going to change that significantly, I think.
I believe it needs to be either streamlined/simplified, or, at the very least, be given one main forum where all the important stuff that requires citizens' attention is posted so that it's easier to check it periodically without having to dive into a ocean of confusing subcategories.
Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd rebuild the whole thing from the ground up, trying to accomodate the essential functionality in the least possible number of forums/subforums, and making names/descriptions clearer.

I once suggested that we do not need a curia Vote forum. Polls can be added to pools and debate threads.

No point in being a Citizen? I would think the badge, the coloured username, access to the Symp (hopefully) and being recognised as a contributing member to the site would be a big attraction. It seems the majority aren't that fussed about the Curial side of things. This isn't about creating some new role with the Curia, it is just about allowing it to embrace its current roles better - awarding members for their contribution to the site, with the addition of being able to propose Decisions and being the home of the Citizenry. In the end, is it right that we expect, or we have a desire, for members who we award for contributing to take part in the Curia? This is the issue of Citizenship being an award or something more than that, if it is the latter then that side should be developed more whilst separating it from the award side of things. For the minute this proposal is taking a step back and just starting with a few things, nothing it proposes stops current/potential Citizens from taking initiative and Curially active, just a lack of any kind of 'perk' from it. .

You get no argument from me that Citizenship is more than award... I have seen the light already. Your inclusive proposal of non- citizens will not entice current citizens nor will int increase non-citizens, except a few minor member here and there.

It is a an issue with the system if it willingly allows for a flaw. I agree with everything else you came up with but public referrals need to go asap. Moderation is far more qualified to ensure citizens maintain a certain standard, for one all of them are of proven objectivity, and they're not prone towards petty vendettas or mob mentality - and the curia does certainly have a capacity for that - an finally moderator actions are appealable, usually with decent chances of success. If referrals are handled publicly who will you apeal to in case of unfair treatment? The same public who treated you unfairly?

Or we can just drop the pretense of a higher standard altogether, it's not like it's working anyway.

There is no such thing as a public referral. I assume you mean a referral initiated by a citizen. All referrals are private unless they are appealed.
Moderators are not necessary more qualified. There are cases where a member received an infraction and it has been rightfully dismissed. Moderators do not always make the right decisions and citizens do not always go through the trouble of appealing to the Tribunal. Contrary to belief higher standards do not mean no moderation history. It just means a lot less if any issues.

Once upon a time I made a suggestion to create a safeguard against abuse of the citizens' referrals. I was told then that citizen's referrals are super rare and even rarer to be a part of a vendetta. Also, all decisions can be appealed to the Curia.

These are just some quick thoughts. The above two could be combined, I think. Recognize people for what they do for the site with citizenship, when they become inactive in some sort, move them to a citizen emeritus group you name like you want to. Move those who are curial regulars to the senatorii group. Let the Curator or more than one handle this process on a fluent case by case basis i.e. by Curator discretion. Tie different access rights for the blog, article and other sections to the different user groups. Get rid of staff referrals. Create a code of conduct, strengthen citizen referrals based on this code of conduct - imagine a more chivalrous behavior of citizens outside the D&D and sort of things. Spend some thought on what benefits the site in total, like projects, conduct, activity too. Simplify the Capitol structure without making it appear for dummies. Open up Curia main.

Just some thoughts. Forgive me not explaining them in proper paragraphs, I'm still pretty busy and occupied with off the web Life.

I like the essence of what you wrote. It is more in line in the direction we should be going as opposed to the "just award" stuff.
The "emeritus idea has real merit (Kudos). What it would entail and how one is transferred to and from the group isa topic of discussion.
I am not sure we need to get rid of staff referrals. I think there is merit for remaining within the ToS. I do like the idea codifying the "higher standards." I would not mind increasing the number of Censors to act as "Moderators" with he Curator being a person to appeal their actions. I think it would make the positions more appealing as well. It will also add greater importance to the Curators position.

I would also like to consider the possibility of Hex providing for suggestions for the site of the formative nature to go through the Curia only allowing for suggestions of only minor or technical nature to exist in the Questions and Suggestion forum. This would add a greater premium and advantage to being a citizen. This being said, I would also provide that all votes have a quorum of active citizens if the emeritus idea take root. Tis would require "mail list" for impending votes on amendments and more important decisions. (This is in respect to Avxalon objections to the movement of subforums without being informed.). The nunber can be fairly low, but one should actually exist.

[Flinn]

I don't have much heart to follow up again a new thread about Curial reform, it's getting really tiring, anyhow I'll drop down few lines just to clarify my thoughts about:

- I really don't mind how you would re-organize Curial fora, as long as you make them clearer, less and get rid of those outdated latin names.
- GET RID of citizens' referrals once and for all; we do have a "minimum behaviour standard" set, which is the moderation requirement when you apply as a citizen, we don't need anything else IMO; I support an "automatic" system of citizen suspension/removal based exclusively on staff referalls, managed by moderation and with the possibility to appeal the single case in the tribunal like for any other member of TWC. Simple and clear, with no chance to generate grudge and acrimony amongst citizens.
- I will oppose and fight sternly against anything that will even only smell of elitarism
- make it a simpler and a clearer place; I don't doubt that we have people over here skilled with bureaucratic stuff and that properly uses the most technical terms, still the vast majority of the members/citizens aren't really interested in such stuff or in any case aren't english native speakers at all; it's boring and discouraging to not be able to understand.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Just some thoughts about this idea of another usergroup for project active Citizens:

-Kind of similar to the CAT, in terms of it being made up of members who intend to run a project, and that failed
-It would be made up of members willing to contribute to specific tasks/projects, but why have that when staff could simply recruit those people for a specific task? Or should this group be more of a showcase of the best members of the site i.e. held to a higher standard?

Thanks everyone for your comments, I'll get typing up a formatted version of my proposal incorporating people's thoughts and suggestions, but I'll leave out mention of creating a new group for now as I think it is a discussion worth having.

[pannonian]

I don't have much heart to follow up again a new thread about Curial reform, it's getting really tiring, anyhow I'll drop down few lines just to clarify my thoughts about:

- I really don't mind how you would re-organize Curial fora, as long as you make them clearer, less and get rid of those outdated latin names.
- GET RID of citizens' referrals once and for all; we do have a "minimum behaviour standard" set, which is the moderation requirement when you apply as a citizen, we don't need anything else IMO; I support an "automatic" system of citizen suspension/removal based exclusively on staff referalls, managed by moderation and with the possibility to appeal the single case in the tribunal like for any other member of TWC. Simple and clear, with no chance to generate grudge and acrimony amongst citizens.
- I will oppose and fight sternly against anything that will even only smell of elitarism
- make it a simpler and a clearer place; I don't doubt that we have people over here skilled with bureaucratic stuff and that properly uses the most technical terms, still the vast majority of the members/citizens aren't really interested in such stuff or in any case aren't english native speakers at all; it's boring and discouraging to not be able to understand.

I'd prefer to keep citizen's referrals and get rid of automatic (staff) referrals, simply because it provides for the outside possibility of a referral in cases of gross misconduct, but is so rare as to be practically non-existent. Staff referrals in practice punish twice for the same offence, and I'd rather it were punished once only, and that subject to an established independent body (Tribunal). Fewer sticks, think of more effective carrots. Or better still, have enough volunteers that carrots are virtually irrelevant. After I'd been in moderation for over a few months, the mace no longer mattered as much as the pressing need to keep the site going. Every time I promoted someone or got someone new into staff, it was far more satisfying to me than any kind of award.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Could a Hex/Curator post a copy of Constitution in a thread that isn't closed so I can quote it as a reply and then be able to edit it myself ready to post here? It's a pain having to type everything up again and format it again.

EDIT: Or just open it for like 5 minutes.

[PikeStance]

Just some thoughts about this idea of another usergroup for project active Citizens:

-Kind of similar to the CAT, in terms of it being made up of members who intend to run a project, and that failed
-It would be made up of members willing to contribute to specific tasks/projects, but why have that when staff could simply recruit those people for a specific task? Or should this group be more of a showcase of the best members of the site i.e. held to a higher standard?

I think it is something of the latter, but can potentially be something more.... needs discussion.

Thanks everyone for your comments, I'll get typing up a formatted version of my proposal incorporating people's thoughts and suggestions, but I'll leave out mention of creating a new group for now as I think it is a discussion worth having.

I think the most sensible suggestion is the streamlining of the number of forums. We do not need a separate forum to hold votes. Polls can be added to debate threads.
Another thing that could be created is a "mail list" Announcements do not work. Send out message tha a vote is taking place or applications for positions are now open.
You were asked to be a citizen because we not only thought you contributed, but that you are also a a good role model. There will still be a number of people who do not respond, but it certainly bring some who may not care.

[Squid]

I cannot see, though, Squid, how such a Senator badge could be made to work? Who would decide on who gets it? Would it not just cause people to create inane, meaningless pseudo-activity in the Curia to get it?

I had those same reservations about creating activity for activity's sake.