Concilium Domorum (Discussion)

[PikeStance]

ASSEMBLY OF HOUSES (Concilium Domorum)

Radical Idea, but it has some merits.

Purpose:
1. Add some fun
2. Increase patronage
3. Increase the importance of the houses. (see #1)

There are two ideas, one or both may be adopted.

1. Any decision or amendment that passes the Curia goes to the Houses Assembly. If passes, then Decision become official and amendment adopted.
2. In citizenship application, all members of the house in which the patron is members must vote in favor or abstain, as well as, meet the current requirement. Essentially, house members can "blackball" applicants.

There are 7 "Great Houses;" Wild Bill Kelso, Siblesz, wilpuri, the Black Prince, GodEmperor Nicholas, Manji, and Rububula. The smallest have under 60 while the larges have just over 250. Most are not active members. There are a few very small houses numbering one or two generations. Smoke actually has 6 generations with at least three currently active members. I would group these together. However, out of the 6, 4 are clearly "extinct." The other two have possible 4 members still active on the forum. You can see them here. Most independent members or members with no known affiliation are not active or post very occasionally. You can view the list using the link for the for the smaller houses. Just scroll down.

In the case of Decisions and Amendments;
Basically, each house would have one vote. A propositional system can be developed to encourage participation. The more members of the house that vote then the greater the number of votes.

Advantages
Encouraging members to vote in the Houses' Assembly could bring members back to vote.
This could encourage pride in houses and the voting may increase patronization has houses try to get more active members.

Disadvantages
In the case of Decisions and Amendments, it will slow down passing another 5 days to allow for a second vote. However, it could be done simultaneously.
It could not work; but hey, it just might liven up the place.


Some Essential Questions
If not in a political capacity how can the House system be best used? Competition seems only useful if there is already broad base appeal. So how do we do that?
More importantly, can the house system be used to appeal to more citizens to participate more? The corollary issue is site activity? Is it better to first concentrate there first and then increase the appeal of citizenship?

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

There is the kernel of something good here, but I'm not sure this is the best way forward. Having citizens come together to represent the interests of their house is an awesome idea, but just tacking an arbitrary vote on top of what we have now doesn't seem to be particularly useful; especially as it will be the same people voting in the same way anyway. It wouldn't function as an impartial assembly to vet Curial decisions, which is what an additional political institution such as this typically does, and Hex can vet decisions anyway, so we don't really need this. The main point though, is that we probably don't know what the interests or identities of our houses are anymore at this point, so we'll have to figure that out again before we assign them any authority (if we even agree that houses should have authority - that's quite a controversial point). I think we should have some fun, non-political events where people can interact with their houses on a social level first, then we can use that as a foundation to go forward.

[Commissar Caligula_]

1: You listed seven "Great Houses".
2: I agree with Hitai that the Houses don't really have "identities" at the moment. The only reason I'm in the House of Wild Bill Kelso is because you patronised me. I think if we did start something like this, new Houses should be allowed to form as Citizens re-organise their interests based on their current acquaintances. For example, I reckon the Duffers are the closest thing to an actual functioning House at the moment. It has a broad range of users who are active and share a common mindset (or at least have fun together). I don't know what the Citizen to non-Citizen ratio is in the Duffers.
3: I think the Houses could have a bigger role, but there just aren't enough active Citizens to support it and we need to address that first.

In terms of what is proposed, I don't like the idea that in effect there would only be six (or seven?) votes effectively.
a) Because if a large portion of a House is inactive, they've still got the same voting power and a small group could monopolise them
b) People could be consistently overruled by the others in their House and have no say
c) It would require a large portion of the Citizenship base to be active and constantly check whether anything is happening

[Tango12345]

Having the houses back in some form could be quite fun/interesting. I do not however agree with much of what is proposed above.

I don't agree with giving houses a vote and adding more beurocracy over the top of the existing voting system.

I really don't agree with other members of the House having an effective veto on a citizenship applicant/blackballing/whatever. Thats counter-productive, unfair, and far too open to abuse.

[Sir Adrian]

House veto on applications is a no go.

[Iskar]

Fundamentally opposed to making houses anything like political parties or houses acting like a second tier of legislation that is determined rather by partisanship and coincidence of patronisation than by the individual choices of citizens. This would mean that patronising more people would increase the political power of one's house which would be an extremely detrimental concept.

Also, please leave the poor Latin language alone. Comitia is a plural-word meaning "electoral committees" and domibus is dative, so Comitia Domibus means Electoral Committees for the Houses. If you must use a Latin term it would be Concilium Domorum.

[♔atthias♔]

as long as this in the proposal I am against
In citizenship application, all members of the house in which the patron is members must vote in favor or abstain, as well as, meet the current requirement. Essentially, house members can "blackball" applicants.
I want to decide for or against or abstain not have that forced upon me

as for the rest I dont see the point but I am neither for or against

[Aikanár]

Or Concilium Gentum, ... however, I'm with my Cyber-son, I think it's definitely not a good idea to give any sort of power to the houses.

[Belthasar Bolton]

I think this would make the curia needlessly more bureaucratic. The current system of individual voting works well so I see no reason to change it. Also, I think it is infeasible to try and get every member of a house to vote let alone have them all vote yes or abstain for a citizen to be approved.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I think this looks good in theory.

[La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham]

Houses you say?, well I'm a Bungalow.........Nothing upstairs!
As for the proposal, I'm with B.Bolton on this.

[PikeStance]

Also, please leave the poor Latin language alone. Comitia is a plural-word meaning "electoral committees" and domibus is dative, so Comitia Domibus means Electoral Committees for the Houses. If you must use a Latin term it would be Concilium Domorum.

I was making a play off of the "Tribal Assembly." According to wikipedia, it was called Comitia Tributa. I looked up the word for houses and that is what I came up with. The term makes sense within the function of the tribal Assembly, but not so much so here. I meant to have a bit fun, but I will change it to your suggestion.

House veto on applications is a no go.

Having the houses back in some form could be quite fun/interesting. I do not however agree with much of what is proposed above.
I don't agree with giving houses a vote and adding more beurocracy over the top of the existing voting system.
I really don't agree with other members of the House having an effective veto on a citizenship applicant/blackballing/whatever. Thats counter-productive, unfair, and far too open to abuse.

Why would the "blackball" be a no go? It makes perfect sense if someone is being patronized and they are going to be a member of a house that the house has their say. If one no vote is too low of a standard, then maybe three.

Fundamentally opposed to making houses anything like political parties or houses acting like a second tier of legislation that is determined rather by partisanship and coincidence of patronisation than by the individual choices of citizens. This would mean that patronising more people would increase the political power of one's house which would be an extremely detrimental concept.

Houses could not function as a political party of any kind in the proposed system.In votes, they will vote within the houses. Given rules implemented, they will have one vote (if proportional two or three votes). That would be the extent of their influence. Therefore, increasing patronization would increase political power within the Concilium Domorum, not the Curia. There are no guarantees that increase membership would mean a greater number of votes within Curia vote whether in support or opposition. It would increase the number of voters within the house would increase the results in the Concilium Domorum.

1: You listed seven "Great Houses".
2: I agree with Hitai that the Houses don't really have "identities" at the moment.

The is precisely why I proposed this.

The only reason I'm in the House of Wild Bill Kelso is because you patronised me. I think if we did start something like this, new Houses should be allowed to form as Citizens re-organise their interests based on their current acquaintances. For example, I reckon the Duffers are the closest thing to an actual functioning House at the moment.

I would be absolutely opposed to this. We do not want political parties. The Duffer's are like a house in that they represent a wide range of members with maybe different ideas about how to implement its goals. To put it another way, the Duffers have a mission statement but no clear objectives. A political party will have clear objectives in mind. Allowing members to form their own houses would fractionalize the system since they would act like political parties which the pesent system would not be conducive to doing.

3: I think the Houses could have a bigger role, but there just aren't enough active Citizens to support it and we need to address that first.

That is the point fo the proposal; to encourage increased activity.

In terms of what is proposed, I don't like the idea that in effect there would only be six (or seven?) votes effectively.
a) Because if a large portion of a House is inactive, they've still got the same voting power and a small group could monopolise them
b) People could be consistently overruled by the others in their House and have no say
c) It would require a large portion of the Citizenship base to be active and constantly check whether anything is happening[/QUOTE]

That is why I suggested a proportional system based on the number of votes. Initially, this may be unfair to the houses with less active members, but that will encourage the house to encourage activity and more importantly patronize deserving members. If overruled in their house, they can still have their say within the Curia itself.

There is the kernel of something good here, but I'm not sure this is the best way forward. Having citizens come together to represent the interests of their house is an awesome idea, but just tacking an arbitrary vote on top of what we have now doesn't seem to be particularly useful; especially as it will be the same people voting in the same way anyway. It wouldn't function as an impartial assembly to vet Curial decisions, which is what an additional political institution such as this typically does, and Hex can vet decisions anyway, so we don't really need this. The main point though, is that we probably don't know what the interests or identities of our houses are anymore at this point, so we'll have to figure that out again before we assign them any authority (if we even agree that houses should have authority - that's quite a controversial point). I think we should have some fun, non-political events where people can interact with their houses on a social level first, then we can use that as a foundation to go forward.

I guess it would how you define identity. Many people more or less nonchalantly list their "house" in their signature, even people who seem disinterested in what that actually means. People are aware of their existence, but because of their lack of function, it is a curiosity. The best way to change that identity is to give them a meaningful function. Suddenly, your house because of a source of pride rather than a curious leftover from the Golden Age.

The function of the Houses would not to "vet" the Curia. In fact, I think the best solution would hold simultaneous votes. I would be in favor of a Curia overrule, something like 3/4 votes overrules the House vote. In this way, something that has wide support but the votes are distributed in such a way the house could block it, then the measure would still pass if it has 3/4 votes. Another alternative is to have a measure pass by simple majority and if 2/3 votes in favor it overrules the houses. There is a fine line here. You want to give Houses enough "power" so that you encourage patronization by its members.

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

I guess it would how you define identity. Many people more or less nonchalantly list their "house" in their signature, even people who seem disinterested in what that actually means. People are aware of their existence, but because of their lack of function, it is a curiosity. The best way to change that identity is to give them a meaningful function. Suddenly, your house because of a source of pride rather than a curious leftover from the Golden Age.

The function of the Houses would not to "vet" the Curia. In fact, I think the best solution would hold simultaneous votes. I would be in favor of a Curia overrule, something like 3/4 votes overrules the House vote. In this way, something that has wide support but the votes are distributed in such a way the house could block it, then the measure would still pass if it has 3/4 votes. Another alternative is to have a measure pass by simple majority and if 2/3 votes in favor it overrules the houses. There is a fine line here. You want to give Houses enough "power" so that you encourage patronization by its members.

As someone who is fervently proud of his house, I do understand; I have always considered the epithet 'de Bodemloze' to be the highest award and it will be the one I shall always be proudest of. Perhaps maybe that is because my house has a stronger identity than others, or perhaps it's just because I'm a bit odd. I would love it if others felt the same way about their own houses and I would like to see houses become relevant again. However, when we talk about having a meaningful function (which I agree houses need), my question is why does that function have to be political? Why can't it be social, or cultural?

Apologies if I misunderstood, vis a vis vetting. I had another look over the OP and your subsequent comments and I understand a bit better now.

[PikeStance]

As someone who is fervently proud of his house, I do understand; I have always considered the epithet 'de Bodemloze' to be the highest award and it will be the one I shall always be proudest of. Perhaps maybe that is because my house has a stronger identity than others, or perhaps it's just because I'm a bit odd. I would love it if others felt the same way about their own houses and I would like to see houses become relevant again. However, when we talk about having a meaningful function (which I agree houses need), my question is why does that function have to be political? Why can't it be social, or cultural?

Apologies if I misunderstood, vis a vis vetting. I had another look over the OP and your subsequent comments and I understand a bit better now.

My apologies. I did not mean to come across as if my "proposal" is something "set in stone." It isn't. I started the thread because I want to "light the fire" for ideas. I am least favored to the political angle. I included it because I can see that as an obvious function. However, house best functions as a social network than anything else. I am in favor of the houses playing a larger role in citizen application. I think it is more than just your patron patronizing you, you are being introduced to a network (a house) as well. I would admit the one vote "no" may be a bit harsh. Three votes perhaps.

To make it fun, I would even entertain the notion that Houses can "cast out" members. The member can then become an "outcast citizen." To make it more fun, "outcast citizens" could be prohibited from voting, and holding a Curial office, This would provide an incentive to be a part of the house of network.

Another idea to sort of highlight houses is to create a postscript/ image to show membership in a given house. This might be worth considering if we can devise a tangible function.

When I think of Houses, my thoughts are really about the House System used by the British. In the school's I have worked in that uses the house system it is used for competition (academic, behavior, and sporting activities), and as a means t provide pastoral and academic support. How this could be translated into this setting is unclear.

[Gaius Baltar]

This idea was floated some time ago in regards to POTW and VOTW contests. This would have been a monthly vote by the houses with the winner being declared "House Favorite" for that month. There was disagreement on House representation which eventually sank the proposal.

[Halie Satanus]

Nope to 1. And 2.

[Lifthrasir]

Agree with Iskar and I also can't see the benefit by using an indirect vote system instead of a direct one
So all in all, definitively not a good idea/proposal.

[PikeStance]

This idea was floated some time ago in regards to POTW and VOTW contests. This would have been a monthly vote by the houses with the winner being declared "House Favorite" for that month. There was disagreement on House representation which eventually sank the proposal.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. It is always welcome for some of the "old guard" posting now and then.
I wonder if the issue was the result of the volatility of the houses at the time. I recently reorganized the houses according to pure patronization reducing that has an issue.

Agree with Iskar and I also can't see the benefit by using an indirect vote system instead of a direct one
So all in all, definitively not a good idea/proposal.

Iskar's objection was based on a false premise as I noted above.
It would be impossible for the houses to function as a political party. The voting takes place within the houses. The members will vote literally against themselves. The moreover the proportion of votes would be based on the number of total votes, not the number for or against. There isn't any incentive to vote according to the house. This is why I said it is impossible for the houses to ever function as a political party or interest group. Most houses are made up of a variety of members as well (e.g. modders, content, gaming, etc...) Having a larger number of voters count towards voting also negates finding anyone of similar background. The key would be to patronize anyone willing to participate if anything and that would not be a bad thing.

I am not sure what you mean by "indirect vs. direct voting." I am guessing you mean voting within the house and that counts for both, but you used the term "instead." The system in the OP has both. The point was to increase participation in both the houses, increase patronization, and overall participation in the site. The indirect voting is one suggestion in which that goal may be accomplished.

The point is to make TWC a fun place to interact. The staler the apparatus of interacting then the less appealing TWC is. This discussion is about making a stale toast, tasty.

[Lifthrasir]

That's very "cleaver" to say that after you've just edited the OP and I'm parroting if I want. Who are you to tell me such crap?

You are creating an imbalanced system in which major and/or most active houses would be priviledged. There's no fun in that imo and that won't bring more activity here or in the houses. There's nothing really to be discussed in your proposal actually.

[PikeStance]

I updated the links to the houses.
If it isn’t worth discussing, then why are you bothering to post?