The Head Historian

**Frunk** · February 21, 2017, 06:34 AM

The Decision & Amendment to formalise the existence and function (in its most basic sense) of TWC's Living History Forum has passed, and now that forum is a sub-forum here in the CVRIA.

As the proposer of that Amendment, I did not include any stipulation regarding a Head Historian role to manage the project going forward, but there has been some encouraging interest in formally creating that position via another Amendment.

Hence, I'm creating this thread to let us flesh out and try and develop a consensus regarding the role of Head Historian, and any other considerations of the project.

Here are some questions I've come up for you all to consider. I've tried to be exhaustive, but I'm sure there are other things that need to be considered, so please share any other questions you feel need answering, and I'll add them to the list.

1. Should Head Historian become an elected position?

2. If yes, should the Head Historian serve a 3-month term?

3. If no (to question 2), how long a term should the Head Historian serve? 6 months? Longer?

4. What, if any, should be the minimum requirements for applicants for the role of Head Historian?

5. What, exactly, should the role of Head Historian pertain to?

6. Would the Head Historian be able to, and expected to, create their own agenda and objectives?

7. What would be expected of the Head Historian in one complete term?

8. Would the Head Historian be expected to prepare a report at the completion of their term?

9. If yes, what type of information should be included in that report?

10. Should the Head Historian be allowed to appoint assistants, or a team/committee?

11. Should the Head Historian be allowed to appoint non-Citizens as assistants, or as team/committee members?

12. If the Head Historian can appoint assistants, or a team/committee, how many could they appoint?

13. Would assistants or team/committee members be able to continue in their role after the Head Historian vacates the office?

14. Should the Head Historian receive a badge, like those for Curators, Censors and Magistrates?

15. Should it be called "Head Historian", or something else?

16. Instead of one Head Historian, should there be multiple "Head Historians" at any one time?

You can respond to all the questions one by one, if you like, but mostly they are just food for thought, from which you can develop your own opinions and ideas. I am yet to decide exactly what I think, though I did lay out some ideas at the bottom of this post, which may also be interesting or useful to consider.

**Iskar** · February 21, 2017, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Frunk

1. Should Head Historian become an elected position?

Yes.

2. If yes, should the Head Historian serve a 3-month term?

No.

3. If no (to question 2), how long a term should the Head Historian serve? 6 months? Longer?

6 months or 1 year, although the latter is probably too long in internet terms, so 6 months.

4. What, if any, should be the minimum requirements for applicants for the role of Head Historian?

Same as for other Curial officers, sufficiently clear record should be enough.

5. What, exactly, should the role of Head Historian pertain to?

Collect information/check threads for elgibility to be copied/stored in the LHF, with assistance perhaps compile "historical records" of current site development.

6. Would the Head Historian be able to, and expected to, create their own agenda and objectives?

Sure, why not. If they are elected they can announce their agenda/objectives beforehand, people can vote on that and gross misbehaviour/disregard for promises can lead to a VonC anyway.

7. What would be expected of the Head Historian in one complete term?

Nothing specific. Would be up to them.

8. Would the Head Historian be expected to prepare a report at the completion of their term?

Probably, see "historical records" at #6.

9. If yes, what type of information should be included in that report?

Rough technical data (not too much) like membership development, observations on forum activity, administrative developments as they become apparent and extraordinary events, of course.

10. Should the Head Historian be allowed to appoint assistants, or a team/committee?

Yes, at their discretion with supervision from the Curator (i.e. the Curator can reject an appointee if they deem them unfit, e.g. due to previous gross misbehaviour)

11. Should the Head Historian be allowed to appoint non-Citizens as assistants, or as team/committee members?

Yes. Supervision by the Curator should be enough.

12. If the Head Historian can appoint assistants, or a team/committee, how many could they appoint?

As many as they wish, but inactive assistants should be removed without delay.

13. Would assistants or team/committee members be able to continue in their role after the Head Historian vacates the office?

Nope.

14. Should the Head Historian receive a badge, like those for Curators, Censors and Magistrates?

Yes. And yes, I'm looking at you, Lifth

15. Should it be called "Head Historian", or something else?

It is nice and self explanatory. Could make it Historicus or Archivarian (Armarius in Latin), but the love for Latin seems to have waned on the site anyway with the change of audience of the games. Might as well call him Archivaaagh.

16. Instead of one Head Historian, should there be multiple "Head Historians" at any one time?

No, one to determine the objectives. Assistants are sufficient to deal with workload.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**♔atthias♔** · February 21, 2017, 07:11 AM

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

12. If the Head Historian can appoint assistants, or a team/committee, how many could they appoint?

2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

sorry for the lazy copy pasting iskar but I agree whit most of what you said
also LOL at that archvaaaaaagh

+rep

**Frunk** · February 21, 2017, 07:27 AM

Thanks guys. atthias, why 2 assistants/team members, out of curiosity?

Also, I've added a spoiler for your shamelessly-copied answers, to allow for easy reading. I hope you don't mind.

**♔atthias♔** · February 21, 2017, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Frunk

Thanks guys. atthias, why 2 assistants/team members, out of curiosity?

Also, I've added a spoiler for your shamelessly-copied answers, to allow for easy reading. I hope you don't mind.

well simply first I like the number 3 and I was going by the curator/censors trio
it looked a good idea to me to base it of on that since we know that that system works

how could I mind something from my patron

**b0Gia de Bodemloze** · February 21, 2017, 05:19 PM

Agree to these:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

13. Would assistants or team/committee members be able to continue in their role after the Head Historian vacates the office?

The next Head Historian may decide if he wants to keep one or/and all of them if he thinks they will continue to help him too/they are useful.

15. Should it be called "Head Historian", or something else?

I like this term. If anyone is pro with a hellenic title we could use : "Protos Historikos" (Main Historian/First Historian) or Epikephales Historikos (Main Historian/Head Historian)

**Sir Adrian** · February 21, 2017, 05:46 PM

Gentlemen might I propose an alternative.

The Scriptorium has long since been the site's official archive, going so far as creating a quasi living history of the modding being done on the site. Why not move the Living History forum there. Cataloguing the Curia would be a seemless extension of what we already do and as part of site staff we can guarantee infrastructure, admin support (unless we run out of virgins to sacrifice) and that the job will get done no matter what. Experience is not a problem as except for joerock22 we are all long time citizens and curialists. If Shankbot does not know the history of the Curia, nobody does

Also it would be a perfect opportunity for the Curia to further cooperate with site staff and maybe expand in new branches.

**b0Gia de Bodemloze** · February 21, 2017, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Settra

Gentlemen might I propose an alternative.

The Scriptorium has long since been the site's official archive, going so far as creating a quasi living history of the modding being done on the site. Why not move the Living History forum there. Cataloguing the Curia would be a seemless extension of what we already do and as part of site staff we can guarantee infrastructure, admin support (unless we run out of virgins to sacrifice) and that the job will get done no matter what. Experience is not a problem as except for joerock22 we are all long time citizens and curialists. If Shankbot does not know the history of the Curia, nobody does

Also it would be a perfect opportunity for the Curia to further cooperate with site staff and maybe expand in new branches.

Hmm i see new opportunities here, i think i could support such proposal.

**Lord William** · February 22, 2017, 03:05 AM

Can't say we need a head historian, to be honest I don't really know what he would do

**Finlander** · February 22, 2017, 07:19 AM

1. Should Head Historian become an elected position? No, but rather be appointed by the former Head Historian (upon retirement) and the Content Administrators - or Curator for that matter. It would be best if leadership is usually passed to an existing member of historians like content staff is doing.

2. If yes, should the Head Historian serve a 3-month term?

3. If no (to question 2), how long a term should the Head Historian serve? 6 months? Longer? The position should last until retirement. If someone is doing a good job at managing the team and setting up goals, I don’t think it matters how long one is keeping the position.

4. What, if any, should be the minimum requirements for applicants for the role of Head Historian?

5. What, exactly, should the role of Head Historian pertain to? The primary role would be acting as a manager/director of historians. This would involve the typical tasks such as hiring enough team members, coaching up volunteers for their tasks, supporting them in their works and reviewing that goals are met, etc.

6. Would the Head Historian be able to, and expected to, create their own agenda and objectives? They should be able to find what works best for the team and pursue their strengths. I would believe that etting the objectives by themselves comes probably quite naturally to those who do it actively (kind of flow). I doubt that having outsides, such as Curia, directing them at how to do their work would be any fruitful for the job being done. Trying to change too hard something that already works would probably just confuse and halt the progress altogether.

7. What would be expected of the Head Historian in one complete term?

8. Would the Head Historian be expected to prepare a report at the completion of their term? If the group is organised, there already would have to be records and to-do lists on the goals. These records are of use when members come and go in the group. IMO public reports on what was done and why aren’t necessary.

9. If yes, what type of information should be included in that report?

10. Should the Head Historian be allowed to appoint assistants, or a team/committee? Yes.

11. Should the Head Historian be allowed to appoint non-Citizens as assistants, or as team/committee members? Yes.

12. If the Head Historian can appoint assistants, or a team/committee, how many could they appoint? As many as needed or wanted, I don’t think there ought to be a roof set for this. After all, they all are volunteers so hiring up people cost nothing. It is easy to get rid of bad apples who cause more harm than good to the team.

13. Would assistants or team/committee members be able to continue in their role after the Head Historian vacates the office? Yup. When the Head Historian abdicates the position, the existing members quite probably would be good fit for becoming the new Head Historian.

14. Should the Head Historian receive a badge, like those for Curators, Censors and Magistrates? They should. If it was up to me, Scriptorium would be handling the entire business by themselves.

15. Should it be called "Head Historian", or something else?

**Iskar** · February 22, 2017, 08:13 AM

It seems the fundamental question here would be:

We have a not really fleshed out position/office/function at hand and want to give it more structure. Do we want to curialise it (elected position, assistants leave office alongside) or professionalise it (move to Scriptorium, appointed position, assistants remain as staffers on change of office)?

I can see good arguments for both sides and haven't really decided yet (although I intuitively tended towards the Curial option).

**Sir Adrian** · February 22, 2017, 08:25 AM

There is no reason you cannot have both. Details would have to be discussed with content hex, but staff and the curia could work together here very easily. Kinda like how magistrates and tribunes work together.

**Shankbot de Bodemloze** · February 22, 2017, 11:55 AM

Settra makes a good point, you could have a core Staff branch as part of the Script that oversees it and keeps thing moving forward, and then have X number of elected positions for X month terms so other people can give it go (heck I would say they wouldn't even need to be Citizens) and provide different perspectives and ideas alongside Staff. This has a number of benefits including getting people involved who might not want to commit to a full-time Staff role due and introducing new people to some Staff work who might be unsure about it and give practical experience.<br>

**Finlander** · February 22, 2017, 01:06 PM

To be frank, having votes so that people may come in seems unnecessary to me. While the elected Magistrates serve the needs for an impartial review for cases in Tribunal, organising votes to elect Historians appears highly superfluous in comparison. We shouldn’t make it more complicated than needed; instead, it would be better if people genuinely wanting to contribute can join if otherwise qualified for the position. The staff position doesn’t necessarily be a full-time job either, one could easily say that they’re interested in writing but cannot submit more than one article here and then. I’m thinking of Freelancers and the likes; I also think that one could easily ask Head Historian if they could contribute an article without officially joining staff. At least those new members could follow the work of others and be familiar with the work process even without being actively writing at the time. All these cases could be discussed with Head Historian privately and I'm sure all kind of arrangements can be made.

**Iskar** · February 22, 2017, 01:40 PM

I agree with Finlander. The election procedure for Magistrates has its reasons in a need for impartiality - something that is not an issue for historians, as no infractions are at stake there. If the Scriptorium is already well in the business of what a head historian would be doing, I see no reason not to officially establish that postion. Volunteers to help them can be hired as the Scriptorium's discretion.

If such were come to pass, I would also advocate moving the LHF to the Scriptorium to have it all neatly in one place.

**Frunk** · February 22, 2017, 07:18 PM

I thought of a 17th question yesterday based on the feedback here: Would you be interested in fulfilling the role of Head Historian?

Now, I have no doubt that there are Citizens who would be, but when I ask myself that, I'm unsure I'd be willing to take on the burden, mainly because this would be a role and a team created, essentially, from scratch. There's only a vague mould to follow from previous Head Historians.

Therefore, I'm inclined to agree that if there is an organisation already existing which is capable of taking this project and running with it, that is a much more practical solution.

So, I'd be happy for the LHF to become a Scriptorium project. I'd like to clarify that this project, if it was/is to remain a Curial project, would not only be interested in Curial history, but the wider history of TWC, which it already does to a degree, thanks to Shank. I wouldn't expect the Scriptorium to take up a project that simply catalogues the history of the Curia!

It would be nice if the Curia was still able to contribute to the Scriptorium-led project in some direct way (elected members; Curator helping choose a new HH; etc.), but I think we need to be careful to ensure that such processes aren't simply created "for the sake of it" (basically, I share Finlander's concerns). If the Curia is going to directly contribute, it needs to be in a meaningful way. Otherwise, I think it would be best to leave the organisation to the Scriptorium, and that they may recruit members whenever, however and whomever they see fit (and, for the record, I'd be more than happy to be involved on such a committee).

That said, I still wouldn't oppose a Curially-elected role (obviously not necessarily "Head" Historian, if the Scriptorium is running the show). The upside, aside from what Shank already said, of this would be routinely providing exposure for the project (which may or may not be needed anyway) and rotating fresh people in and out, while the downside is that such elections would be redundant since, presumably, anybody could be appointed to the team at any time. Would regular elections make the project less (or more) likely to stagnate?

I'm keen to see more input, but the LHF could yet prove to be one of the most short-lived "official" projects in Curia history.

**Finlander** · February 23, 2017, 04:36 AM

I still prefer taking the steps to making this a professional staff type of effort, but I can see if people want to keep the Living History Forum a more Curial thing than organizing it under Scriptorium. An idea came to my mind for the case we keep it to Curia. Briefly, the Living History Forum could be an open sub-forum under CVRIA and accessible to all Citizens. Thread could be made about specific historical topics to be discussed, participating Citizens could recall the past, writing their point of view on what happened and how they feel about it. Not making it all too serious, we might get quite a lot of interesting reading material that are distinctively dramatized memoirs. As TWC LHF has already been moved, it is true that not much would change from what we already had in place – would it be used as little? I don’t know. There could be the Historians Go Team that could be trying to pick up interesting topics to be discussed, equip the new thread with a short introduction and trying to make us share how we remember what happened. It could be anything really, exaggerated and nostalgic pub talk most likely. Historians could then try to make a collection of these and write a finished article to be shared on TWC.

It could work as a TWC publication where a dedicated team is writing an article for the public entertainment, serve the purpose of collecting events that matter. The editors would do the major work but the community would ideally have their sway on it, too. Or maybe no one wants to join or care to browse CVRIA to find such a thing existing, then its another dead project.

**PikeStance** · February 26, 2017, 12:26 AM

1. I am 100% against removing the forum from the Curia forum. It is a curia matter, not site content.

2. I have been doing and reporting on historical matters of the Curia without any badge or title, nor do I desire to have such an official distinction for what I am doing.
The Curator can accept any historical matters submitted by other members on a case by case basis. An assistant can be appointed specifically to handle when such matters are brought to the attention of the Curator. One of the task of the Curator is to archive all actions taken by the Curia. Events can easily be added as an official task.

**lolIsuck** · February 26, 2017, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by PikeStance

1. I am 100% against removing the forum from the Curia forum. It is a curia matter, not site content.

But why? I fail to see why compiling parts of the site's history is a Curial task. I'd say it suits the content staff more, it seems somewhat similar to what the Script does.

**Sir Adrian** · February 26, 2017, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by PikeStance

1. I am 100% against removing the forum from the Curia forum. It is a curia matter, not site content.

Actually it's not. The last head historian was appointed by hex and worked completely outside the curia.

Thread: The Head Historian

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Re: The Head Historian

Posting Permissions