(Moved to vote) Amending CdeC Requirements

[jimkatalanos]

Proposer: jimkatalanos


Supporters: =Eclipse=, Scorch, Trax, R.I, Shaun, Ragabash

Article 5 - Consilium de Civitates

The Consilium de Civitates manages the granting and removal of all Curia Ranks by voting. The Consilium de Civitates may also function as an advisory body to the staff of TWC in matters concerning the Curia and its Citizens.

Membership

The full membership comprises of:

• Twelve elected Citizens, who may discuss and vote on all matters within the Consilium de Civitates Forum
• Council Officers, who may discuss all matters within the Consilium de Civitates Forum, but have no vote.
• The Curator, who may take part in all Consilium de Civitates discussions, and has the deciding vote only in the case of a tie. The Curator has veto powers over any Consilium de Civitates decision.

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitates and the Curator must actively participate in discussions and votes, Council Officers participation is optional.

Elections

Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article 2 of this Section - with the added requirements that candidates have no Staff warnings at the time of election and hold their rank for three months. Each elected Consilium de Civitates member has a term of three months starting from their date of election. When their term expires, new elections will be held for membership to the Consilium de Civitates.

If a member of the Consilium de Civitates resigns during their term, or if during elections less than twelve eligible Citizens apply in the candidates thread, the vacant positions may be filled by a volunteering Staff Officer with at least Citizen rank.

[the Black Prince]

i think this is a good idea. i certainly feel we need something to replace the patrician rank here. If nothing else, Patrician counted for experience. Time served isn't the best method of measuring that, but its about as good as we're going to get.

[Simetrical]

I don't think this is necessary. If people aren't known and trusted quantities, surely they'll fail in the elections.

[iudas]

As long as you can't patronise right from the beginning of your citizenship (which, it seems, you won't be able to after the 12th of August either), being able to candidate for the CdeC as soon as you want feels a bit... out of place. But no, I don't think this is necessary.

[Enemy of the State]

I don't think this is needed. It's highly unlikely that you will get voted in anyway if your a fresh citizen.

[Silver Guard]

I think its a good idea. tBP is right, above all Patrician showed experience and dedication (well... most of them) and so having a little more experience in the candidates cannot be a bad thing.

[sapi]

I honestly don't think that this is necessary.

If the popular vote elects someone who is new to the site, and has not yet served three months; well, good luck to them - they must be very good!

[jimkatalanos]

Something should change,
we can't have a requirement ,3 months holding of the rank, to patronize
and no requirement for the CdeC.

[sapi]

Something should change,
we can't have a requirement ,3 months holding of the rank, to patronize
and no requirement for the CdeC.

To put it simply, why not?

CdeC membership is already in the hands of the many though the election system; there is no reason for an artificial prohibition on those who may stand for office when people who are not suited will simply not get elected.

[Scorch]

To put it simply, why not?

CdeC membership is already in the hands of the many though the election system; there is no reason for an artificial prohibition on those who may stand for office when people who are not suited will simply not get elected.

You deny that votes are more of a popularity contest than anything?

The Curia's attitude is the problem, and there was a reason it was patricians, in that case. The 3 months is a necessity, and I support this bill.

[jimkatalanos]

people who are not suited will simply not get elected.

There is always a chance that someone new and unexperienced,and generally someone who is not suited, will be elected.
It's better to eliminate that chance.
Also, most citizens vote the popularity not the skills and experience.

[iudas]

There is always a chance that someone new and unexperienced,and generally someone who is not suited, will be elected.
It's better to eliminate that chance.

No, there isn't.

Remember that citizens vote the members of the CdeC. They won't vote a total noob. I can guarantee that.

[sapi]

There is always a chance that someone new and unexperienced,and generally someone who is not suited, will be elected.
It's better to eliminate that chance.
Also, most citizens vote the popularity not the skills and experience.

...which would not change with this bill, and is thus irrelevant.

Simply put, a new member, even taking your popularity ethos (which is probably quite correct) will not have the votes to get into a CdeC position within three months, thanks to not having made an impression, and will not pose a problem.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Legislating for legislation's sake is not what this Curia is supposed to be about.

[jimkatalanos]

Most of the citizens vote the popularity, not the skills.
There is a good chance that someone unexperienced will be voted because he is
popular.

[Perikles]

No need, the popular elections can select well enough, no need for further restrictions.

[Scorch]

It's possible. But the fact is, skills as a CdeC member are not easily measurable. Now if they're not even allowed to patronise members, why should they be allowed on the CdeC.

[iudas]

If votes are just popularity contests, why not simply select the members of the CdeC out of the citizens with most rep?

[Scorch]

If votes are just popularity contests, why not simply select the members of the CdeC out of the citizens with most rep?

That's not what I meant. I mean that when it comes to this kind of thing, the Curia are expert at finding ways to scratch each other's backs and such, and are not necessarily concentrated 100% on finding the best candidate.

It's also just common sense, I think we should open patronisation to any citizen, but if only 3 month+ citizens can patronise, then we shouldn't let just any citizen into the CdeC. The CdeC is one of the checks that makes patronisation effective.

[jimkatalanos]

Because they must have experience, and rep is not important.

[iudas]

If we are to think of it this way, I can apply for the CdeC next time applications are open, and fail the vote. How in the world would you know I'm not the perfect man for the job? You can say you haven't had the occasion of seeing my leet skillz, but that doesn't mean I'm not perfect.

On the other hand, if I'm voted, it means I have won the respect of citizens. It means I'm fairly good CdeC material. Citizens are not total noobs so they know at least part of what they are voting.

So, to conclude, I think it should stay as it is.