New Patronage Measures

[Bokks]

So, as many of you may know, Hotspur has recently shown that he has had some issues with the sheer anonymity of the patronization proceedures currently in place.

That whole discussion (at least one of them) can be seen here.

Later in that discussion I made a suggestion, which has since then been suggested by me, that it may be made into an amendment.

A possible remedy for this without actually telling us who the citizen's to be are themselves is to have a more public posting area from the patrons themselves, something like a ">patron name here< holds a peregrinus up for citizenship" in a more public location. Then as you look throught the CdeC pages and notice that a patron is missing you'll know something scurvy has happened.

This measure keeps the anonymity of the potential citizen in case their clientship fails--thus stoping any possible embarassment--while still putting a relatively public view on the citizenship preceedings, thus erasing any possibility that such a problem may arise again, since, I have said in my quote, the curator then simply has to look at the lists made by patrons, look at the preceedings occuring in the CdeC, and from there easily see if the numbers simply don't add up.

I also believe that this measure, should it pass and be added to the constitution, would not erase any measures previously added to said document but would instead be an "add-on" to the patronization clauses.

...
I'm not quite sure how to end this, so... there's my proposal.

[Senno]

Support.

[Aradan]

Support.

[B. Ward]

As a member of the CdeC, I support also.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I support it.

[Bokks]

Ok, so I've never done this before, but would this go something like this?




Article 2 - PatronisationAny 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 Citizen 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 CdeC member.
3. The Patron adds a post to the "Patronage Thread" in which he/she makes a simple post in the following format ">patrons name here< hold up a Peregrinus for citizenship" to be reviewed by the Curator and other non-CdeC members can check on the process and. This format is to remain confidential as to the name of the Peregrinus, and is not to include any other specifics or information.
4. The CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed for two days.
5. After the two day discussion period has passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
7. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.
8. The Speaker of the House or the Curator promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.




So, do I contact Hotspur now and put this to vote? I have at least three members and outside CdeC support for this. Any discussions on how this may need to be changed?

I suppose that this would also require there to be a sticky thread named something along the lines of "Patronage Thread"

[Gaius Baltar]

I suggest we add a point of contact for the CDeC. This would route all contact via the Curator, making communication more reliable and transparent.

Article 2 - 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 Citizen 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 CdeC member. to the Curator.
3. The Patron adds a post to the "Patronage Thread" in which he/she makes a simple post in the following format ">patrons name here< hold up a Peregrinus for citizenship" to be reviewed by the Curator and other non-CdeC members can check on the process and. This format is to remain confidential as to the name of the Peregrinus, and is not to include any other specifics or information.
4. The CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed for two days.
5. After the two day discussion period has passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
7. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.
8. The Speaker of the House or the Curator promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

[A.P]

I support.

[Senno]

That looks good. The "Patronage Thread" can be a sticky in the main Curia forum?

[Bokks]

We discuss for three days before it can be moved to vote I believe.

Oh yeah, that's right. Thanks B. Ward, it seemed wierd to me to have a proposal and have it voted on within a ten minute period!

That looks good. The "Patronage Thread" can be a sticky in the main Curia forum?

Yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea. Although Peregrini can't post in it, they could check up on it, and this thread wouldn't be a common discussion forum anyway, just something for patrons to post in whenever they patronize a new member.
Theoretically this would probably be the driest part of TWC, with every single post looking almost the same except with different patrons (of course, some members may have the exact same post time and again!)
Because of this I think measures should be made to have multiple posts made ok for this thread.

Since there may be some members who have several clients in a relatively short amount of time, numbering them may also cut back on confusion, so it would be ">patrons name< holds a Peregrinus up for citizenship. Client # 1 on October 1st, 2007" or whatever.

[B. Ward]

We discuss for three days before it can be moved to vote I believe.

[Senno]

Yeah, but we can't post or view that area. So, a bit of transparency on the outside is what we are after, basically. Your deliberations should remain private.

[Senno]

I recommend the following changes to the language. Forgive me, as I have reformatted it a bit, and not done the usual strike-out type change.

The Patron shall add a post to the "Patronage Thread" which shall be established as a Sticky thread in the Curia. The post shall not reveal the name of the Peregrinus, or other information about the Peregrinus unless he/she agrees. The following format is suggested: "I <patron name> hold up a Peregrinus for Citizenship."

It appears some change to item 4 would be needed:

4: The Curator or a CDeC member shall then open a thread in the CDeC forum and the Peregrinus' nomination discussed for three days.

I'm not so great at the formatting, lol.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I support the way Gaius has it written, with one small change. He changed one part from CdeC member to Curator, they should be the same throughout. Also theres an extra "and" in there.

Article 2 - 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 Citizen 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 CdeC member. to the Curator.
3. The Patron adds a post to the "Patronage Thread" in which he/she makes a simple post in the following format ">patrons name here< hold up a Peregrinus for citizenship" to be reviewed by the Curator and other non-CdeC members can check on the process and. This format is to remain confidential as to the name of the Peregrinus, and is not to include any other specifics or information.
4. The CdeC member Curator opens a thread in the CdeC Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed for two days.
5. After the two day discussion period has passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
7. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.
8. The Speaker of the House or the Curator promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

[Bokks]

Also theres an extra "and" in there.

Oh, well, I see we always need to have it just so!!!

Anyway,
I do like the idea about the changes as to the constitution for the curator taking all of this instead of any member of the CdeC, however I think that it's a different issue, one that if I remember correctly went on to vote during Ferrets' term and failed. I could be wrong, but I do remember something along those lines.

The fact also remains that if the Curator was given the sole authority to put a Peregrinus up to vote in the CdeC there would be no need for the measures of a separate sticky thread. While it would have the added benefit of allowing the patron and client see some form of progress while now we're left in the dark for up to a week, the whole reason I came up with these measures was because it reached Hotspurs attention that some members of the CdeC, given the responcibility of putting these measures on the floor for vote, may have neglected to do so, and Hotspur had no idea bout it. If he was the one who was put in charge of getting the votes of citizenship to the floor then he wouldn't be left in the dark... obviously.

Therefore if we should move to make the Curator the sole person responcible to this job, then I think it should be put in a separate Prothalamos venture, as--while they are similar--these are really two completely different issues.

[Bokks]

Well, technically this is double posting, but it's been something like 24 hours since anyone has added anything to this and it's been four or five days since it's been proposed. In an effort to get this on the voting floor (yay! my first proposal is going to grow up into a bill!!) and get this issue resolved, I think we should re-evaluate what version of my original proposal people favor.

Article 2 - PatronisationAny 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 Citizen 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 CdeC member.
3. That there be a new, stickied thread entitled the "Patronage Thread" designed so as to be visible in the Curia and Symposium, visible to all members of the Total War Center community.
4. The Patron adds a post to the "Patronage Thread" in which he/she makes a simple post in the following format ">patrons name here< hold up a Peregrinus for citizenship" to be reviewed by the Curator and other non-CdeC members can check on the process.
5. This format is to remain confidential as to the name of the Peregrinus, and is not to include any other specifics or information about the patronization process.
6. The CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed for two days.
7. After the two day discussion period has passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
8. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
9. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.
10. The Speaker of the House or the Curator promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

This is the bill that I propose... the original version, which was the first one I made, is available if you want to link to the arrow thingy after my name. Basically I changed it from one additional bullet to three, I think it sounds better this way and allows every aspect of what I propose to be easily seen. It is important to note--in my opinion--that this is an additonal provisions amendment (if that's not the technical name I think it should be); in other words, I have not deleted anything (well, I deleted a useless "and" but I didn't delete anything from the original amendment text) but have added to the original text of the TWC Constitution in order to rectify a recent problem.

These last few days of the discussion has led to a different version of my original proposal, it was originally proposed by Gaius Baltar although I have used the ersion written by GrnEyedDvl since he took the extra time to clean up the entire proposal, including my additional "and".

I support the way Gaius has it written, with one small change. He changed one part from CdeC member to Curator, they should be the same throughout. Also theres an extra "and" in there. (I fixed that part...~Bokks)

Article 2 - 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 Citizen 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 CdeC member. to the Curator.
3. The Patron adds a post to the "Patronage Thread" in which he/she makes a simple post in the following format ">patrons name here< hold up a Peregrinus for citizenship" to be reviewed by the Curator and other non-CdeC members can check on the process and. This format is to remain confidential as to the name of the Peregrinus, and is not to include any other specifics or information.
4. The CdeC member Curator opens a thread in the CdeC Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed for two days.
5. After the two day discussion period has passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
7. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.
8. The Speaker of the House or the Curator promotes the member to Citizen, with a Citizen badge.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

I haven't changed all that much of anything (just added a comment about that darned "and"...) but I would think that if this is chosen to be the better version it would have the same wording only different in terms of the Curator point.

Which leads us to an important decision: what version is going to make it to the floor? Only one of these, clearly, can be voted on, and I need to know which one to PM Hotspur about.

MY PERSONAL OPINION: (... being the original proposer...)

Gaius Baltar's proposal of my proposal modifications certainly has its merits. It would certainly make everyone well aware of who they should send a PM to informing about an inclement patronization. However, it would also make much of the rest of this bill obsolete, since this entire venture is intended on making the Curator primarily aware of when a voting proceedure should be taken to the CdeC floor, and then the fact that everyone else would be aware whether or not we should expect a new citizen is a cool secondary bonus. I also feel that this adds undo work to the position of the Curator, Elrond said--if not here the somewhere else about something else entirely but it works well in my opinion--that this sort of change in legislation would cause undo work requiring the Curators personal touch. He may be able to deal with PMing citizens after their nomination is passed by the CdeC, but putting it on the CdeC and being involved from the very beginning is far too much work, even if Hotspur in his grand ability to be Curator can deal with it a future Curator may not be so able. (and my apologies go to Elrond if I had quoted you incorrectly)
I also think this removes undo responcibility from the CdeC members as well. People can already PM the Curator about this, as I remember correctly, but being available to recieve a PM and then put it on the floor is in my opinion one of the reason we elect the CdeC members every time we elect them in the first place.
Not to mention that i'm still fairly certain that this proposal has gone on the floor before and failed. Since my original proposal is fresh and new, should it fail it would be due to its own merits (or lack thereof). Should the revisal fail...

In conclusion, the decision is up to you, as always, on what version of this bill should actually make it to the floor. Since this is of course the Prothalamos and opinion polls are expressely forbidden, I would recommend that you submit a post stating that you support "legislation A" for my proposal and "legislation B" for Gaius Baltar's and GrnEyedDvl's.
Since it has been more than the requisite days for this to be moved to the floor, I would prefer that we just specify which proposal we prefer--if any--however since this is the Prothalamos (and I can't stop you anyway) if you still have some suggestions that you think would help this proposal or if I have erred in some terrifying way, I would not only be happy but would prefer that you post a reply... since as I have said this is still the Prothalamos.

So, that came out a bit long, I'm sorry, but there you go.

[Gaius Baltar]

I support.

[Senno]

I like GeD's additions to your idea actually, and don't see them as separate in light of recent events.

[Bokks]

I like GeD's additions to your idea actually, and don't see them as separate in light of recent events.

Mmm, but if I'm right and this was put on the floor before, that one detail might make the bill fail.
I mean, I like the changes too (one would wonder of Hotspur would, especially with B. Ward around...:hmmm:) but it really is a separate issue that deserves its own discussion and vote.

Besides, it effectively--as I have said before--nullifies the whole need for my original idea.

edit-- Actually, Visigothe has made some excellent points too...

[vizi]

The poor Curator...this is a democracy...or pretends to be one. The members of the CdeC are like Senate Sub-Committee members. They should have every right to put forth an application. Not to mention it allows the workload to be spread more evenly. The Curator doesn't need to be pestered by everything little thing to do with everything.

Besides the people you vote into the CdeC are suppose to be responsible members of the site anyway. A little trust should be in order.