(Moved to Vote) Amendment: Elected Tribounoi

[Tom Paine]

Proposal: That the Constitution be amended to make Tribounoi elected.
Legislation: That the following sections be amended;

Article 2: Moderation Staff

Staff Officers - Tribounos

The Staff Moderators form the front line moderation force on the Forum. They are drawn from the Citizens and appointed and fired by the Senior Moderators, but each appointment must be ratified by the Curia as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 2. A Staff Moderator who fails his ratification is removed from his position.elected by the Curia as per the specific procedure in Section 2 Article 2, though the Council reserves the right to appoint Tribounoi as required in times of emergency; in such cases, they will be ratified by the Curia as per the procedure outlined in Section 2 Article 2.

The total number of Staff Moderators, along with individual assignments and powers are set by the Senior Moderators.

That the following section be inserted into the Constitution;

Article 2: Elections

Tribounos Elections

When a new Tribounos is required, as deemed necessary by the Chief Moderator, the Curator shall open a qualification thread in the Curia and the Speaker of the House shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the role must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the Qualification thread. Any posts other than applications shall be deleted. The thread shall remain open for one week.

After this period, the Council shall have a period of consideration to select 3 applicants from the list to go forward into the elections; the criteria they select these three on need not be disclosed. The decision of the Council on this shortlist is final and may not be appealed. Should three or more Tribounoi be required, additional ballots will be held.

Once these stages are complete, the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected. There shall also be included in this poll a "None of the Above" option; should this receive a plurality, Hex shall put forward another list of 3 wholly new candidates, and the election shall continue as previously. This option will remain on the poll for the second election. Should it again receive plurality, Hex shall again put forward another wholly new list, but there shall be no "None of the Above" option.

Where more than one of the same position is vacant, the procedure is the same, and the members with the highest votes are elected. In the case of ties, a run off vote is held between the tied members lasting 3 days.

[NB: The above new section is based on the existing election procedures, with major departures from the present situation highlighted in red]
That the following rule be applied by the Curia;

The method of election as outlined in this Bill shall not be eligible for further amendments until 2 months or 2 elections using it have passed, whichever occurs later, except if initiated by the Council or with the full support of the Council

Rationale: This is an age-old debate - but then again, there's a good reason for that; debate has raged back and forth and on all matters, and round and round too. This one, I think those who have argued for it - such as the one who posted this treatise - have lost but for no particularly good reason.

Now, some members of the site and Curia have a problem with front-line moderators being elected. Now, I'd just like to point out some facts - some of the best moderators have been elected by the Curia, and remained moderators and good-standing, effective ones at that. Some of the worst have been appointed. The argument that appointment creates the best moderators is mooted by the origins of some of the best; I have never heard a complaint about our dear leader imb39's moderation, and he was elected, albeit to Quaestor rather than Urbanis Legio; whereas the dear boy who put the site in its present position (however good that may be), Honor&Glory, whose moderation caused more problems than anyone else's, was appointed.

Now, elections. Well we have the treatise linked above about them, by a well respected member of the forums. We also have the facts of various past elections - while some mistakes have been made, the successes far outweigh these. Add in the safety measures of veto powers and emergency powers to appoint moderators as needed, with a need to undergo a proper election process when the emergency is over, and the "slow" factor (if I may so phrase it) is removed, as well as the idea of electing potentially dangerous members to the moderation staff - the benefit of Hex experience in selection added to Curial election.

Supporters: Patricians: Shaun (Post 82); Fabolous (Post 84)
Supporters: Citizens: Leonidas the Lion (Post 83); Scorch (Post 86)

Note: This proposal has the support of the executive body, the Council, as required by the Preamble to the Constitution:

Section 1 of this document and the procedure for a vote of No Confidence lie outside the remit of the Curia to modify or amend, unless such amendment is commenced and wholly authorised by the executive.

[the Black Prince]

no


there's any number of reasons why, not least of which because just like last time, i have no doubt that the staff will appoint people whenever they want, and elect only when they can be bothered. At least with the current system, we have a final say on ALL moderators. with this system, we would have no say at all on those who would be appointed. unless you have a solid definition of what an emergency is, so that it can only be used for an actual emergency, this is removing power from the curia, not giving it.

[enoch]

Ozy, while you are a Great Speaker of the Council, tBP's arguments need addressing. Particularly the nature of what constitutes "an emergency".

For instance, if I am logged on, is that an emergency.
What if Bel is logged on?

If 420 is posting in the non modding areas, is that an emergency?

etc. so on and so forth

[Tom Paine]

The current Constitution may be suspended in such nebulously defined "emergencies". Its already got that problem.

I might add that a ratified moderator must effectively pander to the Curial mood of the moment at the time of his appointment to the time of his ratification if he wishes to retain his position; an elected moderator has no such requirement put upon him, and therefore is more effective in administering the ToS.

Finally, it is important to note that you are associating the present administration with previous administrations with very different styles, ethics, and Curial relations. No previous administration has had an office that is elected directly from the Curia without the effective strong vetting procedures applied to Republican Consuls. The previous administrations you refer to did not go through the Curia to change those parts of the Constitution they felt needed changing as we did (cf Tribunal). And so on. The current administration has a good working relationship with the Curia, and therefore, when there is an emergency situation, it'll be pretty obvious what said emergency is - and the term emergency does not mean "something annoying" (we'd have the Constitution permanently suspended if it did ) but an actual, well, emergency. A clear definition thereof cannot be had for obvious reasons: it will exclude unforseen circumstances that may crop up, and to do so would, as governments down the ages have known or discovered to their costs, be intensely negative.

[Belisarius]

This reminds me of the UL system we had.

I support.

Well done Ozy, you know why.

[the Black Prince]

there's no need for pandering, because ratification should really begin immediately, there's no need to delay it.

suspending the constitution for an emergency is a very different kettle of fish to appointing a moderator... its more significant action and would attract greater adverse comment where it used in circumstances not strictly necessary.

No previous administration has had an office that is elected directly from the Curia without the effective strong vetting procedures applied to Republican Consuls

there's no need to veto the speaker, he has no power. the republican consul wielded actually power on the forum, the staff needed to make sure he wasn't a revolutionary...

that in itself is a sign of where we stand on curial relations.... and now the same staff propose a bill that removes a group of moderators from curial oversight. no thanks. why would we allow the staff to appoint whoever, whenever, just for the privilege of electing someone whenever the staff let us?

Jot to mention that these are the precise sham elections we had before. its not an election, its a selection from a pre-determined shortlist. the precise same pointless perpetrated by the last administration that you seek to distance yourself from.

if this were a real election you were offering us there would be two significant differences.

1/it would say emergency appointments can ONLY be used in times of emergency, clearly indicating that all normal appointments were by an election

2/ any candidate not clearly vetoed by the staff for clearly stated reasons would be on the ballot. nor could candidates be vetoed after the vote has started to prevent staff doing what they did on at least one occasion previously, where a candidate only got vetoed when it looked like he was going to win a position.



i'll happily support a bill that gives us proper elections of staff. but this staff team will not propose it, because they don't want to lose that much control over staff. I'll certainly not support an amendment that gives us less than we currently have

[deRougemont]

After this period, the Council shall have a period of consideration to select 6 applicants from the list to go forward into the elections; the criteria they select these six on need not be disclosed. The decision of the Council on this shortlist is final and may not be appealed.

Ozy's one-man-fifth-column marches on. Everyone get ready your rubber stamps...

I do find this all very humouros in a macabre way.

[imb39]

Ozy's one-man-fifth-column marches on. Everyone get ready your rubber stamps...

I do find this all very humouros in a macabre way.

Pardon?

Care to explain that comment? Of course, mud slinging might be de rigueur in some parts of the world but unseemly here. Do you object? If so, why... If you cannot formulate a coherent response then my suggestion is that you simply vote against it. From what I can see, you simply want status quo. That's fine. I'd rather you simply stated that, though. It is rather hard when the above post is all we have to work with.

As it happens I have been fond of this form of elections, devised by Tac many months ago and highly effective. One of the many objections to unrestricted elections was that when there were numerous candidates the vote tended to be spread out and the results were less than conclusive and could hardly be viewed as a reflection of the Curia's view. The primary purpose is to narrow the field.

tBP's objections are rather facile. How on earth this removes power from the Curia has yet to be demonstrated, it gives the Curia much more say than the current system.

Originally I wanted this system in place but did not want people to become obsessed with elections. I thank Ozymandias for bringing this up in Hex and discussing it. This was exclusively his initiative and not something that has been asked of him.

Finally, there are many points of view as to how the site should be run and the direction it should go in. For one part of the Community to impugn another and claim that it holds the Holy Grail of the Community's views is somewhat disingenuous at best. Conceited at worst.

[deRougemont]

Care to explain that comment?

I can be verbose when necessary. The statement I highlighted presented one of those rare moments when such commentary would be redundant.

Of course, mud slinging might be de rigueur in some parts of the world but unseemly here.

Where there is no mudslinging, there is no conviction.

Do you object? If so, why... If you cannot formulate a coherent response then my suggestion is that you simply vote against it. From what I can see, you simply want status quo. That's fine. I'd rather you simply stated that, though. It is rather hard when the above post is all we have to work with.

Again, Ozy saved me the trouble. All that was left for me to do was to heap on the redicule that it invited.

Originally I wanted this system in place but did not want people to become obsessed with elections. I thank Ozymandias for bringing this up in Hex and discussing it. This was exclusively his initiative and not something that has been asked of him.

This I don't doubt at all.

Finally, there are many points of view as to how the site should be run and the direction it should go in. For one part of the Community to impugn another and claim that it holds the Holy Grail of the Community's views is somewhat disingenuous at best. Conceited at worst.

I don't claim the holy grail. I've only stated my opinion. Sorry that makes "one part of the community" uncomfortable. I've never been one for rubber-stamping.

At the very least, I quote Gaius Baltar:

I fail to see a compelling need for this legislation.

Do what you will; I depart the discussion, adieu...

[Tom Paine]

Um... the right is reserved to appoint Tribounoi in times of emergency; not to appoint emergency Tribounoi. It includes the precise matter you wish it to include, the exact safeguard you want, tBP, interestingly enough.

The second point you note is simply illogical. We may wish to veto a candidate for reasons we cannot state for matters of privacy; let us say the (hopefully fictional, so he can't call me a flamer!) member Joe Bloggs has privately expressed to Hex the want to ban all people who disagree with him; we do not wish to reveal private communications, and therefore cannot veto him and state the reasons, and yet clearly we should veto him, no?

As to the rest, presently, staff may repeatedly propose the same member for ratification, giving him a week each time of moderation; nothing prevents this, as far as I know. Furthermore, the Curia is little more than a rubberstamp for staff decisions, and this is common knowledge, in this regard; to create elections gives the Curia more choice than it presently has - currently it allows or rejects a single Hex candidate. Here, it has far wider choice than in the past, with a selection of Hex candidates.

So overall your objections are, pretty much, moot.

[the Black Prince]

as to yoyur third paragraph, i refer you to your above post about how this staff team isn't the same as the old one. make your mind up.


may i suggest something

1/ all appointed staff must be ratified in accordance with the current terms
2/ the 7th option on the poll for election is an option to reject all of the above, keeping the curias ability to say no, and forcing staff to reconsider their shortlist.

[Tom Paine]

As to the third, it was a hypothetical, not a statement of current practice - it was demonstrating that under the Staff you postulated, you would receive no actual protection at present.

[the Black Prince]

irrelevant then, since you claim our current staff are not like that


thats not the issue though

may i suggest something

1/ all appointed staff must be ratified in accordance with the current terms
2/ the 7th option on the poll for election is an option to reject all of the above, keeping the curias ability to say no, and forcing staff to reconsider their shortlist.

[enoch]

The Curia is voting on candidates it has no say over, and not all qualified candidates have the right to run for the offices.
In the modern world we call such things Rigged Elections.

I do not think the current HEX would ever do this, but they can pad the list with five people they know no one is going to vote for, eh?

I am not schooled enough in Curial intricacies to judge whether this will be better or worse for the overall "success" of the site.

But I am not blind and this clearly takes power from the Curia (Congressional Approval of Candidates), and gives it to HEX (ability to Force candidates onto the Curia).

This would never go down in the American Political system.
Possible sham elections aside, this goes against the basic principles of American and surely British democracy.

[Tom Paine]

Who the Curia has no say over, and is stuck with.
Not I think the current HEX would ever do this, but they can pad the list with five people they know no one is going to vote for, eh?

I am not schooled enough in Curial intricacies to judge whether this will be better or worse for the overall "success" of the site.

But I am not blind and this clearly takes power from the Curia (Congressional Approval of Candidates), and gives it to HEX (ability to FORCE candidates onto the Curia).

This would never go down in the American Political system.
Possible sham elections aside, this goes against the basic principles of American and surely British democracy.

See post 8 - the Curia presently can be ****ed over, if Hex were as manipulative as you seem to think. Apparently no one in the Curia has a good thought for the Hex that bought the site and defended the Curia, but hey!

[the Black Prince]

put it this way Ian. Right now, you can propose 6 appointees, and if we wanted, we could say no to all 6.

under ozy's proposal, as it stands, we would be forced to say yes to at least one, possibly to all.

thats a loss of power, we can no longer say no to the people the staff choose to run the site.



also, i've just noticed, that under the current procedure, if there are 6 places to be filled, all 6 shortlisted people automatically get in, since the 6 people with the highest votes would be elected, and there are only 6 people in the poll.

[imb39]

put it this way Ian. Right now, you can propose 6 appointees, and if we wanted, we could say no to all 6.

under ozy's proposal, as it stands, we would be forced to say yes to at least one, possibly to all.

thats a loss of power, we can no longer say no to the people the staff choose to run the site.



also, i've just noticed, that under the current procedure, if there are 6 places to be filled, all 6 shortlisted people automatically get in, since the 6 people with the highest votes would be elected, and there are only 6 people in the poll.

And what you seem to forget, tBP, is that if we get into such a situation then the Constitution wouldn't be worth a damn...

[enoch]

HEX has been very good to me, particularly the portion that bought the site. They have been understanding and helpful and given me more chances than I likely deserve.

I, however, do not believe this HEX will remain static and unchanging, and considering the past history of drastic and phenomenal sudden staff free for alls, I think it is likely to change again, regardless of whatever argument you will put forward saying things are different this time.

I don't not support your proposal. I am not an idiot though, it makes HEX more powerful, while taking away one of the Few Actual Powers the Curia has over the TWC.
That is a fact, a cogent and clear political reality, and that is all I am saying.

[imb39]

I don't not support your proposal. I am not an idiot though, it makes HEX more powerful, while taking away one of the Few Actual Powers the Curia has over the TWC.
That is a fact, a cogent and clear political reality, and that is all I am saying.

I am clearly highly stupid...

[Francisco Montana]

Well, I guess this is a little late as the vote has already begun.

I do not support this amendment for the simple reason that being 'popular' is not sufficient for being a good moderator.

If we turn the moderation selection process into a popularity contest (and let's not fool ourselves, that's what most of these elections are) I fear the quality of the staff will suffer.

That's not to offend anyone but the staff do take the time to look at who is best qualified and then they are ratified.

I think the current system works just fine.