[Amendment] Partial CdeC Transparency

[Soulghast]

Proposer: Ludwig Van Beethoven
Supporters: Macky, PowerWizard, Chim

Overview

This amendment allows patrons to be able to see their nominees votes, and CdeC comments, without breaking CdeC confidentiality. The patron will only be able to see the thread he started.

Benefits:

• Patrons will be able to watch the progress of their proposed nominees, knowing how they are doing at any moment.
• Should a nominee go on to fail, he will know the exact reasons on why he was voted down, and will be able to improve on certain aspects, when they try again.

The permissions for the patrons will be the same as in Scorch's CdeC Patronization Forum amendment, so that the thread opener will only be able to see his own threads.

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 posts the name of the nominee in a new thread in the Patronization forum.
3. A CdeC member informs the other members of the CdeC that there is a new citizenship application. Then, a date when the patron can post the application is decided.
4. The CdeC member who took the application to the CdeC, responds to the corresponding thread in the Patronization forum, announcing the date when the patron will be able to post the Citizenship application inside the CdeC. This must be no longer than a week after the application.
5. The patron opens a new thread in the CdeC, posting the paragraph of the nominee, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member. The nominee is then discussed for 2 days between the members of the CdeC. After the 2 day discussion period has passed, the Curator adds a poll lasting 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 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. The patron has no posting or voting rights within his nominee's thread. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

Original Article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Patronization forum.
3. A CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum and the proposed nominee is discussed for two days.
4. The CdeC member who opened the thread, responds to the corresponding thread in the Patronization forum, denoting that the proposition has been moved to discussion.
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 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.

The CdeC Forum Permissions For Patrons:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Viewing Rights:

Can View Forum - Yes

Can View Thread Content -Yes

Can View Other's Threads - No

Posting rights:

Can Post Threads - Yes

Can Reply to Own Threads - No

Can Reply to Others' Threads - No

Follow Forum Moderation Rules - Yes

Polling rights:

Can Post Polls - No
Can Vote on Polls - No

[Father Jack]

Support. I like the idea of feedback and added transparency.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

There's only a small typo:
Then, a date where when the patron can post the application is decided.

[Soulghast]

I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

There's only a small typo:
Then, a date where when the patron can post the application is decided.

Thank you for pointing this out. Fixed.

Oppose because the mechanics of the proposal make no sense.

You have a patron posting the application twice, you have an announcement about a thread that all CdeC members can already see, you have a date requirement that serves no purpose, you have the patron having posting (and thus viewing) rights inside the CdeC while simultaneously not having posting and viewing rights to a thread that he himself is supposed to start.

You seem not to have read this carefully. The application is only posted once, inside the CdeC.

2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community. The patron posts the name of the nominee in a new thread in the Patronization forum.

The date requirement so that the CdeC won't have to start voting on a case, whenever the patron sees fit to post it. The CdeC might have many nominees going on at the same time, so it would be wise to inform first, and then get the permission to post the application.

The patron will technically have posting rights, but he will not be allowed to exercise them.

[Mímirswell]

If you were going to do this, you would remove the patronization forum entirely and grant the rights in the patronization forum to the CDC discussion area. That eliminates all the additional steps you have. If the CDC is swamped with nominees, they can post in the thread they are delaying deliberations for X days.

That said, I oppose. An individual getting a single snapshot of the CDC is not sufficient as oversight and does nothing beyond insuring that the CDC members do not overtly offend the patron in their deliberations. It does nothing to actually improve the quality of said deliberations or allow CDC members to be deposed with any effectiveness (the vote of a single patron is not enough to VonC).

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

If you were going to do this, you would remove the patronization forum entirely and grant the rights in the patronization forum to the CDC discussion area. That eliminates all the additional steps you have. If the CDC is swamped with nominees, they can post in the thread they are delaying deliberations for X days.

Wait, is this true? The Patronization forum has just been implemented, and it's a great idea!

[Soulghast]

Wait, is this true? The Patronization forum has just been implemented, and it's a great idea!

No. Read the amendment carefully. The patronization forum is still retained and put into use, according to this amendment.

[Mímirswell]

Wait, is this true? The Patronization forum has just been implemented, and it's a great idea!

This does not do this but it should because the purpose of the Patronization forum is entirely to circumvent the ability of a Patron to see the deliberations. The entire point of this proposal is to allow him to do so. Ergo, it's superfluous and should be removed. A more concise proposal that accomplishes the same goals is:

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.
3. The patron opens a new thread in the CdeC, posting the paragraph of the nominee, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member. The nominee is then discussed for 2 days between the members of the CdeC. After the 2 day discussion period has passed, the Curator adds a poll lasting five days.
4. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes, he becomes a Citizen.
5. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result.
6. 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. The patron has no posting or voting rights within his nominee's thread. All CdeC votes must be concluded within seven days of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

[Hotspur]

The date requirement so that the CdeC won't have to start voting on a case, whenever the patron sees fit to post it. The CdeC might have many nominees going on at the same time, so it would be wise to inform first, and then get the permission to post the application.

The CdeC always has more then one application pending. There are five active right now. Recently we had as many as 11. Adding a layer of bureaucratic procedure is unnecessary.

The patron will technically have posting rights, but he will not be allowed to exercise them.

That makes no sense:

The patron opens a new thread in the CdeC,

The patron has no posting or voting rights within his nominee's thread.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

[Soulghast]

The CdeC always has more then one application pending. There are five active right now. Recently we had as many as 11. Adding a layer of bureaucratic procedure is unnecessary.

The less, the best in my opinion. CdeC will not be able to examine all applications in depth, if there are 10-11 in a week.

That bureaucratic procedure will ensure that nominee applications stay at logical numbers.

That makes no sense:

It is the only way, technically.

[Hotspur]

The less, the best in my opinion. CdeC will not be able to examine all applications in depth, if there are 10-11 in a week.

I never said we examine 10 to 11 a week. I said that it has been as high as 11.

That bureaucratic procedure will ensure that nominee applications stay at logical numbers.

What's a logical number? This smells like a quota, something I would vehemently oppose.

This is a layer of bureaucracy to fix a non-existent problem.

It is the only way, technically.

Then there is something fundamentally flawed with your proposal. You can not simultaneous have forum permissions and not have forum permissions.

[Hotspur]

Oppose because the mechanics of the proposal make no sense.

You have a patron posting the application twice, you have an announcement about a thread that all CdeC members can already see, you have a date requirement that serves no purpose, you have the patron having posting (and thus viewing) rights inside the CdeC while simultaneously not having posting and viewing rights to a thread that he himself is supposed to start.

[Calvin]

Oppose. If the CDeC needs to be opened up, then it must be in a better and less round-a-bout way than this.

[Chim]

This (The part that shows CdeC posts) is ridiculous and should not be possible for the CdeC to do. You cannot judge a nominee on it's patron.

the CdeC should be objective.

I support.

[Desperado †]

But this means the patron would be allowed to see who did not vote for his nominee (even if the votes aren't public, its obvious by what they post), and that could cause tension in the forum. CdeC members should be confidential on whether they vote or not, incase this person is a friend e.t.c.

Perhaps, after the patronisation, a PM could be sent to the one being patronised, with quotes from the discussion on why he was not chosen, but taking all names out of the quotes or something.

[Soulghast]

But this means the patron would be allowed to see who did not vote for his nominee (even if the votes aren't public, its obvious by what they post), and that could cause tension in the forum. CdeC members should be confidential on whether they vote or not, incase this person is a friend e.t.c.

Perhaps, after the patronisation, a PM could be sent to the one being patronised, with quotes from the discussion on why he was not chosen, but taking all names out of the quotes or something.

Tension in the forums? With that logic, the same members should always serve in the CdeC, so that other members aren't "offended" by comments made in the past, by former CdeC members.

Also, check the link Chim provided. The patron seeing the discussion also prevents such behaviors being exhibited by the CdeC.

[Desperado †]

But this means the patron would be allowed to see who did not vote for his nominee (even if the votes aren't public, its obvious by what they post), and that could cause tension in the forum. CdeC members should be confidential on whether they vote or not, incase this person is a friend e.t.c.

Perhaps, after the patronisation, a PM could be sent to the one being patronised, with quotes from the discussion on why he was not chosen, but taking all names out of the quotes or something.

After a discussion with Ludwig I have changed my mind on the matter. I now think that if someone wants to become a CdeC member they should be ready to not be afraid of what their views are on certain people becoming citizens, even if these people are their friends. They should remain proffesional in the matter.

In fact, having changed my mind on that issue, I now support.

[Hotspur]

For the record, CdeC votes are public. Anyone with access to the thread can see exactly who voted for what.

[Pontifex Maximus]

...and someone said this would decrease the workload?

[Hotspur]

Amendment failed - 25:24:7