Removal of patronisation time limit

[iudas]

Since Rhinosaur's thread is gone due to the loss of data, I decided to repost it myself.

Proposer: [user]Rhinosaur[/user]
Supporters: [user]SirPaladin[/user], [user]jimkatalanos[/user], [user]Serious Samurai[/user], [user]-BulletproofTurban-[/user]

Article 3 - Patronisation

Any Citizens 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.

My own argument (and most likely everyone else's) is the fact that the CdeC can decide whether the candidate is worthy, so if many more candidates appear, some, without merit, the CdeC can decide who of them deserve the rank by itself, seeing that its members are all senior members with mostly accurate opinions. Besides, a bigger number of citizens can do no harm to the site as long as they are all approved by the CdeC.

[jimkatalanos]

I support.

[Serious Spamurai]

I support.

[Perikles]

You cannot (as far as I am aware) propose something in someone else's name. I would wait for the actual proposer to repost this as I am sure he will.

(I support by the way )

[RZZZA]

well, i support in the meantime anyway

[iudas]

But this time there was a data loss. I don't think there should be a problem. I haven't found any mention of this being prohibited, and no one can state that Rhinosaur never proposed this. If it is, though, and I haven't paid enough attention, I would like someone to explain to me.

[Shaun]

Support!

[imb39]

Support.

[Simetrical]

I support, as I have for like two years plus. It seems to swing back and forth, back and forth . . .

[the Black Prince]

there is nothing to say this cannot be posted, but obviously, it cannot go to vote until rhinosaur confirms this bill is what he is actually proposes. if that is not the case SirPaladin would become the proposer and this bill would need... umm... nothing.. since a bill only needs 3 supporters now.

[Tom Paine]

If it became SirPaladin's Bill it would still have 4 supporters - at present, it retains by my count 5. Sorry... 8. Heh.

Anyways... There has been previous debate on this, like so much else; I would suggest those debating it find the previous debate and read through the arguments therefore, before each side repeats them. Come up with new arguments for the same proposal, people; I have faith that you can!

[the Black Prince]

sometimes the repeat arguments are repeated because they have the greater meaning.

[Tom Paine]

Yes, I know, but may as well make sure everyone knows which are the repeats

[Hotspur]

support

[Elric von Rabenfels]

I oppose this bill.

[Hotspur]

And the reason would be....

[Elric von Rabenfels]

And the reason would be....

Cut it.

I've only seen "I support" without any reasons why they would support.
Of course they could mean that they agree with the bill-maker, but I could simply mean that I disagree with the bill.

Bring you arguments why we need this bill, as I don't see any reasons.

[Miraj]

Support.

[the Black Prince]

well, some arguments from the last time this failed

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? 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.

Okay, my argument is this; why does making more people able to patronise make more people patronise? It doesn't. Those who can, simply don't - incentivise them to, and you might have a more logical way of dealing with a flagging Curia, but simply opening patronisation up to more members does little.

I oppose it - three months of waiting isn't that long and may be sufficient to cool down members who are overly excited by obtaining citizenship.

In that momentum, members may be overly enthusiastic and willing to patronize too many people without giving enough thought about it.

Nothing prevents a new citizen to try persuading e.g. his own patron to patronize the member via PM.

Fine, here's the argument; a citizen just entering the Curia does not know what the qualities looked for in a citizen are, only the qualities looked for in them. These are two different things. Exposure to the Curia for even a month gives a far greater understanding of the nature of citizenship and the natures of those eligible for it. The existence of the patron requirement, means it should be meaningful - if we make it meaningless, as you propose, then we might as well abolish it in favour of self proposal.

You ask for reasons to disagree with the proposal, well, last time when we lowered the requirements main reason was high amount of failed candinates. This might happen again, larger amount of failed candinates proposed by new citizens might lead to direction I want to evade much as possible.

Second, what would be benefits from the proposal, more accepted candinates? I doubt that, these people are being proposed sooner or later, it's just good to have some buffer for not exhausting CdeC members. And believe me, it takes some time to investigate is candinate worthy enough, I know, I have served couple times inside the body.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101633
tbh, the original debate is well worth reading, not for the arguments, just for amusements sake lol...


as Raven states though


why do we defend this? I'm a conservative, i'm sticking with the tried and tested method that i know works, its down to you to convince me to vote for it. A bunch of people saying i support doesn't do it for me...

[RZZZA]

well the reason I support is because I've long thought that too many people who deserve to be citizens are being patronized too slowly or never at all, maybe this'll speed things up a bit.

I stress however that more pressure will be placed on the CdeC, in order to prevent future ostrakon threads from popping up, as they have in the past.