(Moved to Vote)Patronization - recruitment

[enoch]

Proposer: enoch
Patrician Supporters: makanyane; Garbarsardar; Simetrical; Halie Satanus; Shaun
Citizen Supporters: Scorch; Leonidas The Lion


Article 3 - Patronisation
Any Citizen holding their rank for three months can patronise a Peregrinus for citizenship subject to the requirements in Article 1 above. The process of patronisation is as follows.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizens asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community. The patron forwards this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, to a Consilium de Civitates member.
3. The Consilium de Civitates member opens a thread in the Consilium de Civitates Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed and voted upon.
4. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
5. The Speaker of the House promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge, and contacts him as to whether he would like to remain a Citizen, or further self define as a Artifex or Civitate.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month. Members of the Consilium de Civitates must abstain from voting on members they patronise. All Consilium de Civitates votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the Consilium de Civitates.





See no reason not to do this considering the current political climate.
New citizens are far more likely to have large numbers of *friends* who are members.
Increases the size of the Curia. Patronage is also a nice thing overall, warm and community feelings wise.

[makanyane]

To change the habit of a lifetime (well a month or so) I actually agree with you - sign me up as Patrician supporter. I've tended towards other ideas not involving patronisation but don't think this can hurt in addition. I agree that newer members are more enthusiastic about system (you may at some stage want to consider why older members are less enthusiastic) and I can't see problem in newer members being given their head to bring others in.

Patronage is also a nice thing overall, warm and community feelings wise

Yep, my thoughts originally, sort of flattered and happy about idea of being picked out. No reflection on my patron, who I still respect enormously but it tends to wear off when you start wondering what system is about and what it achieves.

If CdeC are performing properly then they can deal with slightly increased numbers whatever exact method / timing of proposal. If they are not then that is entirely separate issue.

Btw, I don't think this stops need for other ideas, just in-case you have any other agenda.

Please forgive the amateur nature of the proposal, something we all might want to get used to anyway, eh?

and the point of that is? Some people manage to do Proth. proposals with immaculate style, others not, it hasn't so far correlated particularly with rank or status of those involved. Whether intent of proposal is sensible and heartfelt in the end means more.

[enoch]

Thank you Mak and congrats.

I also commonly agree with people when they put forward ideas I support, regardless of who they are, so I know how you feel.

Thank you again, I am honored, for I am old school, even if not here.

[the Black Prince]

so a citizen with no experience of what being a citizen is like is now a good judge of what it takes to make a citizen.

i think not

[enoch]

tBP
Won't the CdeC still determine who becomes citizens...

All I am asking is for any citizen to be able to put up potential candidates. The all patrician CdeC is still the judge and jury, and prosecutor, and defense lawyer, and......

[the Black Prince]

because you're styripping out half of a 2 part test to ensure citizen quality... and because it devalues the benefits of a peer review system... and because only those citizens who not only have been voted into the rank, but of proved themselves worthy of continuing to hold it should be able to offer patronage

[enoch]

but shouldn't we welcome in worthy citizens regardless of who finds them.....?

and isn't the CdeC grown up enough to be the only test needed?

me notwithstanding

[makanyane]

and isn't the CdeC grown up enough to be the only test needed?

me notwithstanding

so tempting but...

because you're stripping out half of a 2 part test to ensure citizen quality... and because it devalues the benefits of a peer review system... and because only those citizens who not only have been voted into the rank, but of proved themselves worthy of continuing to hold it should be able to offer patronage

It still requires someone else beyond CdeC to vouch for them - that someone having recently gone through CdeC vote. I also think a lot of change in whether people want to patronise others doesn't result from "Oh, no, in my now exulted 3 months + experienced position I realise 'x' isn't worthy of putting forward" but more "why would I want to persuade 'x' to indulge in this" or "I have no idea what CdeC is looking for so I now realise I don't want to subject 'x' to the ignomony". Or personally having now asked 'x' 'y' and 'z' and having heard their reasons for not being citizens sound better than why I originally thought they should be.... but still initial enthusiasm might conquer all....

[enoch]

downer

but good points.... anything against besides the defunct experience argument?

[Tom Paine]

Patronisation does nothing to aid anything - and especially since you are so virulently anti-mob, why do you espouse increasing the size of the "mob" in the Curia? You, sir, have an inconsistent, incoherent, and untenable position to defend, at this point!

[enoch]

I have no complaints about the size of the party,
It's how we go about inviting the guests that interests me.....

[Tom Paine]

I have no complaints about the size of the party,
It's how we go about inviting the guests that interests me.....

That is not what you have stated about mob politics before.

[enoch]

you, dear sir, are mistaken - a vetted mob is not the same sort of mob, is it.....

the same threats still exist (as they do now) but are not as easily played by those of us who can play

but please, show me what I stated that leads you down this path of deceit....

and call out your supporters in other places, who HAVE stated positions opposite and antithesis to what they have proposed before...

and maybe I will buy that you aren't just attacking me (because you sure aren't attacking my proposal) for the sake of it

If I am expected to act with more regard under my colors, sir
when you are wearing the purple, I expect more from you than this sad charade.

[Last Roman]

I say nay.

because I like my elitism

[Garbarsardar]

I don't think that this bill will bring an influx of "bad" candidates. In fact no measure that made candidacy easier ever brought an influx of bad candidates. In fact we never had such a thing as an influx of bad candidates. I am pretty sure this bill does not endanger our system; and then we have the CdeC...

I support.

[Tom Paine]

Sir, since you seem to find protracted inconsistency with some serious events in the interim period which were guaranteed to change perspective questionable, I ask how we cannot question your own charade of changing opinions, power politics, and attempts at mob manipulation with those who do know better...

[Simetrical]

Strongly support. The first part of patronization should not be relied on to ensure quality anyway.

[makanyane]

Sir, since you seem to find protracted inconsistency with some serious events in the interim period which were guaranteed to change perspective questionable, I ask how we cannot question your own charade of changing opinions, power politics, and attempts at mob manipulation with those who do know better...

well we can all spend a long while working out each others positions, possible ulterior positions, and double hidden motives etc, or just judge the proposal on its merits and vote for that or not as case may be - it may be we fall into hands of some duplicitous double player but I reached stage of wanting to ask for a wtf vote option on some votes a while ago and actually don't think this one on it's own stated merits is a bad idea...

though there is some personal antagonism in the intervening threads I'd prefer had been done without..

[enoch]

question everyone and everything ozy
always

but first make sure you can answer questions about yourself

now, please argue against my proposal
The Speaker should, at the very least, appear to be above tantrums and personal vendettas.

[Scorch]

I support. Stick my name on there.