Amendment on Ratification

[the Black Prince]

Proposer: the Black Prince
Supporters: Scorch, Fabolous, Hotspur

Section 2 Article 2 - Ratification Votes

When a member has been duly appointed as a Staff Officer, and where required, ratified by his branch, the Speaker of the House shall post a poll in the Curia Votes forum. The Speaker shall state which position the member has been appointed to, and that they have been ratified by their colleagues if appropriate. The vote shall last for one week, and the member shall be ratified if they receive a simpletwo-thirds majority of non abstaining votes.

Since we decided not to elect staff, i think its time to take another look at this.

My two points are pretty simple really... first of all, a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes is the standard in the Curia, its used in every other vote i can think of off the top of my head, for ranks, for bills, for awards etc why not this?

Second, If a person doesn't have the support of more than a third of the citizens, i think there's probably some kind of very good reason for that, that should be paid attention to.

[Tom Paine]

Its more akin to elections in requiring not a set number, but a simple majority - replacing the plurality required in all elections currently carried out. I think that if over half of the members of the Curia agree to the selection of a moderator, that is fully sufficient, myself.

[Hotspur]

Its more akin to elections in requiring not a set number, but a simple majority - replacing the plurality required in all elections currently carried out. I think that if over half of the members of the Curia agree to the selection of a moderator, that is fully sufficient, myself.

Interesting how opinions change once someone gains access to the Hex forums...

Anyways. I support; 1/3 is a rather large number, and if that substantial a proportion of people disagree with someone holding a rank, especially the Council, one really needs to stop and think, in all cases. (I better check what I got, eh?)

Support.

[imb39]

Interesting how opinions change once someone gains access to the Hex forums...

When discussing with others it is quite natural to alter your own view point and to alter other view points too. You might want everything to remain static, but life is seldom like that.

Of course, it is easy to make an insidious comment that has no bearing on the debate in an effort to detract from the argument, not the merits of the argument itself but from the person who suggested it.

I suppose we've all done it, but it still doesn't make it any more pleasant to see, especially when it was totally unprovoked.

I have already mentioned that in my mind's eye, a 2/3 majority was desirable, but then I look at the fact that some like Manji or Shaun were 'rejected' according to that criteria. I would like to know why as Manji was an excellent moderator and someone I admire tremendously and Shaun has proved to be solid in his early days of contributing to the site in a new way.

It saddens me to think that those two would have been denied the chance to perform a service to the site. My big worry is that ratification as it stands depends upon the apparent popularity of a candidate rather than their capability. Both Shaun and Manji prove that the current system is is not perfect, I am forced to the conclusion that this amendment will only damage the site as popular members are pushed forward by the Curia at the expense of those who do not, for example, share in the same Curial vision as the majority of those who vote. In this sense, the Curia might not be voting for the good of the site overall but for the good of the Curia. That is not necessarily the best road forward.

[Muizer]

It saddens me to think that those two would have been denied the chance to perform a service to the site. My big worry is that ratification as it stands depends upon the apparent popularity of a candidate rather than their capability.

I don't think Curial ratifications/elections are about popularity. Not exactly anyway. You could say they are about impopularity. I mean, having no reputation either way in the Curia does not appear to harm candidates. Having an outspoken opinion that goes against the "mos maiorum" does. And who determine the "mos maiorum"? Ordinary citizens? I don't think so! Staff and ex-staff more likely. After all, they are the ones doing most of the posting in the Curia.

[Hotspur]

When discussing with others it is quite natural to alter your own view point and to alter other view points too. You might want everything to remain static, but life is seldom like that.

Of course, it is easy to make an insidious comment that has no bearing on the debate in an effort to detract from the argument, not the merits of the argument itself but from the person who suggested it.

I suppose we've all done it, but it still doesn't make it any more pleasant to see, especially when it was totally unprovoked.

I have already mentioned that in my mind's eye, a 2/3 majority was desirable, but then I look at the fact that some like Manji or Shaun were 'rejected' according to that criteria. I would like to know why as Manji was an excellent moderator and someone I admire tremendously and Shaun has proved to be solid in his early days of contributing to the site in a new way.

It saddens me to think that those two would have been denied the chance to perform a service to the site. My big worry is that ratification as it stands depends upon the apparent popularity of a candidate rather than their capability. Both Shaun and Manji prove that the current system is is not perfect, I am forced to the conclusion that this amendment will only damage the site as popular members are pushed forward by the Curia at the expense of those who do not, for example, share in the same Curial vision as the majority of those who vote. In this sense, the Curia might not be voting for the good of the site overall but for the good of the Curia. That is not necessarily the best road forward.

I don't mind the altering of opinion because of experience. I do mind when that opinion is altered for the sake of political expediency. Here in the States, it's called 'flip-flopping'. Ozy's original position didn't date from some ancient, OGRE-shrouded past. It was from March of this year. So what could have possibly happened in such a short time-span? Oh yes, he became Speaker..

You may think it has no bearing on the debate and if I had taken the quotes out of context or from an irrelevant thread, I would agree with you. Ozy supported a nearly identical bill, gained entry into Hex, and now opposes this one. This startling transformation calls into question all of his arguments in opposition which is entirely relevant.

Clearly you see this as a personal attack against Ozy. I wonder why?

[imb39]

Just to note, it was discussed before.

[the Black Prince]

the amendment got a simple majority that time, but not a 2/3 majority needed - failed 21 in favour, 14 against.

[imb39]

I was simply stating it was debated before...

[the Black Prince]

yeah, i know, but since you posted a link to a "moved to vote" thread, i thought i'd post the voting stats from the tab too.... save people searching, if they felt inclined

[Shaun]

No, I do not support this. A simple majority is enough when deciding on ratifying moderators. I see no reason to up it to two thirds at all, as staff and the CVRIA are different things.

[Muizer]

I see no reason to up it to two thirds at all, as staff and the CVRIA are different things.

Are they? In all, staff have a sizable and steadily increasing share of the Curial vote.........

[Simetrical]

I rather strongly suspect that even if this were to gain sufficient support, which the previous bill did not, it would not be approved by the Council.

[Tom Paine]

It does not need Council approval. It needs Council non-veto. See the Preamble; this is not covered. Just a note.

[Simetrical]

I realize that. So to rephrase, I strongly suspect that this will meet with Council disapproval in the form of a veto even if it would otherwise pass, which judging by the last attempt it likely won't.

[Scorch]

I support it, nonetheless.

[Aristocrat]

I hope someone puts this into shredder and turns it on to pulverise.

(Don't support).

[Fabolous]

I support obviously... as I kind of proposed this before.


Seriously, who hasn't reached 2/3rds in a ratification? I believe only myself. Many range in the 90% stratosphere. Will anyone ever drop below 50%? They would have to be the likes of an H&G... would never be selected by staff anyways.

At present, there is simply no Curial check on staff selection. The inclusion of Curial ratification clearly shows an intent for there to be, and I support methods which allow for this. This is not some ridiculous hurdle placed for staff to leap. It is merely a simple confirmation.

[Tom Paine]

At present, there is simply no Curial check on staff selection. The inclusion of Curial ratification clearly shows an intent for there to be, and I support methods which allow for this. This is not some ridiculous hurdle placed for staff to leap. It is merely a simple confirmation.

At present the check is there, its just that staff hasn't selected anyone the Curia disagrees with. The fact that staff are in agreement with the Curia over the best candidates for staff does not mean that the process needs tightening up. To reiterate, just because no one has been rejected, doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

[Fabolous]

At present the check is there, its just that staff hasn't selected anyone the Curia disagrees with. The fact that staff are in agreement with the Curia over the best candidates for staff does not mean that the process needs tightening up. To reiterate, just because no one has been rejected, doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

Of course everyone passing doesn't mean the system is failing. But this prosposal is not a a proposal to make people fail. No one will ever fail at 50%. How many in the history would have failed at 2/3rds? Ermm, one. And you know what happened to him? He got kicked out of staff for not making it to 2/3rds... Brilliant!
To fail at 50%, the canidate would have to be terrible, and therefore staff will not select them anyways. So honestly, at this point, ratifications are just a waste of everyones time. Its rubber stamping at its finest.