(Moved to vote) Slight change to partonization process 2: The Return

[Rhinosaur]

Proposer: Rhinosaur

Citizen Supporters: Scorch, Niccolo Machiavelli, Hotspur, Mirage41, SirPaladin, jimkatalanos, Serious Samurai, -BulletproofTurban-, imb39, Shaun, Simetrical


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.





Can't keep a good bill down. Originally I had a one month wait for the ability to patronization, as I figured supporting no waiting period would create unnecessary controversy and little real debate, but there seems to be plenty of support judging by the now lost thread for what I would like to see.

There is really no reason to deny Citizens of any length the right to patronize. As originally stated, some new Civs are old members , with a fairly good eye for good posting and behavior, on what basis should we deny them the right to add more quality members to our Curia. Additionally, we have the fine CdeC members to separate the great from the good, and they have proved themselves to be very capable in terms of selecting the right people at the right time for Citizenship.

We as a group should take quality members however we find them, whether patronized by a Divus, or a brand new Civ. The focus should be on the Perigrinus applicant, not on his sponsor.

[Scorch]

I support, we trust in the CdeC, so if the members are spotted, why does it matter who does the spotting?

In the end, it's not new citizens deciding who should be citizens, it's the CdeC.

Does it matter that it's a new citizen patronising the person? If the new citizen is right, the CdeC will surely pass the Citizen, if he's wrong, then the CdeC won't pass him. No harm done, but we may be missing out on or delaying the patronisation of some good posters.

[Hotspur]

Support..uh...again? Or would it be more?

[Rhinosaur]

It's double dog support then Hotspur?

[Miraj]

[Rhinosaur]

Mirage, is that support or just looking for a chance to whip out Borat? Either way, thanks for not going with the bikini Borat.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

What part of "I support" did you not get?

[Miraj]

Yes, I make supportings of proposal.s

[Scorch]

Erm, Rhinosaur, I'm sure our good and noble curator would have to agree that if a citizen supports SirPaladin's block of text, they would obviously support your block of text if it's exactly the same.

So add their names to your list.

[Rhinosaur]

Will do. Also, edited to include Mirage41.

[iudas]

I support.

For the third time, I still have to say it.

[Tom Paine]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=113007

(Now closed) other thread on the matter.

[iudas]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=113007

(Now closed) other thread on the matter.

Could you elaborate...?

[jimkatalanos]

Since the other thread is closed,
I support.

[Tom Paine]

Yes, I could. Rhinosaur proposed this Bill and in your thread is acknowledged as the proposer. once Rhinosaur posted the (same) Bill in his own thread, it makes logical sense to close the first instance and leave this instance open.

[iudas]

In this case, I openly declare that my logic is rusty.

Anyway, add imb39, Shaun and Simetrical to supporters.

[Garbarsardar]

I re-support.
Re-Garb.

[Shaun]

Support!

[Perikles]

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...





incidentally, you need 3 supporters only... any more will simply be ignored when the bill goes to vote...