Award Reform Bill

[Simetrical]

Very rough draft, not really a serious proposal yet. The major change is that people are now awarded for administrative service (in staff, Curia, etc.) with one medal overall per three to six months, with the type of medal depending on the service. So for instance, someone who's been part of any staff branch for nine months will have three medals, regardless of how many staff branches they're in.

I think this has a couple of advantages. First of all, it's fairer: someone who spends all their time on, say, moderation will be given the same awards as someone who splits their time between multiple staff branches. Second of all, it makes it much clearer who had the really long-time commitments to the site. Someone who served a year as a moderator literally has four times as many medals as someone who served for three months, as opposed to now where there's only a slight difference in color.

This shouldn't clutter people's posts if we're thoughtful. I'd aim for something like four to eight icons per row, with icons not being very tall, so you could fit three rows comfortably for the tiny number who need that. They should be of uniform dimensions, unlike the current ones, so they stack nicely. Divus/Opifex/Phalera get listed above the site administration awards, and minor awards (site awards, AAR, etc.) below.

I've also added lots of extra medals. There are now eight medals for service in administration: for service as Hex member, moderator, content staff, tech staff, CdC member, Tribune, Curator, and wiki contributor. (There's also one special medal for anyone who was site dictator for at least a month. I think that's only Sulla, Archer, and maybe Paul or someone.) The exact lists are open for debate, this is just a rough draft.

I haven't changed Divus/Opifex/Phalera at all, except to say that they come first. The "minor" awards I've adjusted a bit: now, like the administration awards, you get multiples for more accomplishments, not different versions of the same.

This draft doesn't include Asterix's Loincloth. I don't see any place to fit it, and honestly I always thought it was a silly award. It doesn't include a Senatorii award (having six maces or whatever should be quite sufficient), but it includes all the other awards currently being contemplated, plus others (Hexagonal Amulet and Imperial Scepter).

There are some other minor tweaks, too, like I officially recognize that Hex can grant minor medals.

Section 5, Article 2 (Community Medals) is replaced by the following:

There are three types of medals that users may be awarded: Exceptional Service Awards, for remarkable and unique contributions to the site; Site Administration Awards, for prolonged contributions to the administration of the site (including the Curia); and Minor Awards, for specific minor accomplishments.

All three varieties of award are displayed in every post. Exceptional Service Awards are displayed first and most prominently; almost no member will have more than one, and it is unlikely that anyone will have three. Site Administration Awards are displayed second and should be of medium size; a long-time staff member may have ten or more such awards. Minor Awards are displayed last and should be small and unobtrusive; some members are eventually expected to have a very large number of minor awards, and they do not represent major contributions to the site.

Exceptional Service Awards

There are three awards provided for exceptional service to the site: Divus, Opifex, and Phalera. Exceptional Service Awards are only granted after deliberation and a general vote of the Curia. Each member may only hold a specific Exceptional Service Award one time, with at most one Divus award, one Opifex award, and one Phalera award.

Divus: To achieve apotheosis and Curia vote, the nominee must be supported by three fourths of non abstaining elected members of the Consilium de Civitate. The nominee must have served as a Council Officer (or previous equivalents), made a clear and distinguished contribution to the community and provided exceptional service to TWC in their capacity as an administrator. They cannot be nominated within three months of resigning their Officer Position.

Any Citizen can nominate a former Council Officer and does so by PMing a Consilium de Civitate member. The Consilium de Civitate will contact the nominee and ask if he or she will accept the nomination. If the nominee should decline, or fails to respond within one month, no further action need be taken and the nomination declared null and void.

If the nominee should accept, the Consilium de Civitate will create a thread within the Consilium de Civitate Forum to investigate the legitimacy of the nominee’s accolades. The Consilium de Civitate has the right to request any and all relevant material from the Staff Officers to ascertain this, with the approval of the Council. The Consilium de Civitate will discuss the nominee and his qualifications for at least a week before the vote is held.

Should the nominee receive the support of three fourths of non abstaining Consilium de Civitate members, the Curator shall create a discussion in the Prothalamos lasting at least three days and then move the nomination to vote as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 3. The vote shall last one week and the nominee shall require a two-third majority of non-abstaining votes to become Divus. A nominee who fails the vote is not eligible to be nominated again for a six month period.

Opifex: To qualify for an Opifex award, the nominee must have made exceptional input to TW sections of the boards, either by modding or other contributions related to TW section. A member of any Rank is eligible to receive an Opifex award, but must also meet the criteria to become a Citizen. His nomination must also be seconded by an elected member of the Consilium de Civitate.

Qualifying nominees shall have their nomination posted in the Prothalamos and will be moved to vote as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 3. Once moved to they shall be voted upon for a period of one week and require a two-third majority of non-abstaining votes to achieve the award. If the nominee was not already a Citizen, this Rank shall also be conferred upon them if they pass. A nominee who fails to pass his vote is not eligible to re-nominated until three months have passed.

Phalera: To qualify for a Phalera's award, the nominee must have made exceptional input or otherwise made significant contributions inside the CC sections of the boards. A member of any Rank is eligible to receive an Phalera award, but must also meet the criteria to become a Citizen. His nomination must also be seconded by an elected member of the Consilium de Civitate.

Qualifying nominees shall have their nomination posted in the Prothalamos and will be moved to vote as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 3. Once moved to they shall be voted upon for a period of one week and require a two-third majority of non-abstaining votes to achieve the award. If the nominee was not already a Citizen, this Rank shall also be conferred upon them if they pass. A nominee who fails to pass his vote is not eligible to re-nominated until three months have passed.

Site Administration Awards

A variety of awards are granted for routine but valuable service in administering the site. Members are rewarded for administration because it requires effort and provides value above and beyond that of ordinary posting. There are many ways to contribute to the site, and correspondingly many different site administration awards. Some are given more readily than others, because some areas of contribution are more valuable or difficult than others.

Each site administration award (except one) represents three months or more of service. A member who serves in multiple roles at once may only receive an award for one of those roles, of their choice ― for instance, someone who serves as six months in both moderating and content staff at the same time may choose to have two moderating awards, two content awards, or one of each, but may not have any particular month counted toward two different awards. When an award is given, the specific time period it's being given for must be recorded, so that conflicts can be detected.

The awards and their requirements are as follows. When a time limit is given for service, only time spent in active and honorable service should be counted, and the limit is only a guideline unless otherwise stated. The body granting the award (if any) may use its discretion to give out more or fewer awards than would be merited by strict adherence to the guideline: particular diligence may be awarded more generously, and inactivity or misuse of privilege may result in fewer or no awards being given. It also has the sole right to determine who meets the award's criteria.

Imperial Scepter: For one month's service as the sole individual with de facto absolute control over site policymaking. Unlike the other site administration awards, an individual may hold only one Imperial Scepter. (This award is of historical significance only, because no such position exists on the site today.) Granted by the Hexagon Council.

Hexagonal Amulet: For three months' active service (or equivalent) in the Hexagon Council. This is to include any version of the Hexagon Council in history in which the final authority was a vote of the entire body, i.e., excluding periods where an Imperator was in control. In the periods where an Imperator controlled the site, only the administrators are eligible for the Hexagonal Amulets; senior moderators may only accept a Moderator's Mace for the time they served on it then. Granted by the Hexagon Council.

Moderator's Mace: For three months' service in the capacity of a site moderator or Chief of Moderation, or equivalent position before that rank existed. Granted by the Chief of Moderation.

Scribe's Quill: For three months' service in the capacity of content staff, or equivalent position before that rank existed. Granted by the Chief of Content.

Technician's Screwdriver: For three months' service in the capacity of technical staff, or equivalent position before that rank existed. Granted by the Chief Technician.

Wiki Contributor Medal: For three months' service in diligent management of the wiki. Granted by the Chief of Content in consultation with the Wiki Editor.

Tribune's Gavel: For six months' service as a Tribune, since the time that the Tribunal became independent of staff. (Tribunes serving before that time may apply for a Hexagonal Amulet.) Granted by the Hexagon Council.

Consilium de Civitate Medal: For two full terms (six months) honorably completed as a full, elected member of the Consilium de Civitate. This award is granted automatically: no body has the right to use its discretion in granting it.

Curator Medal: For two full terms (six months) honorably completed as an elected Curator. (Curators and Pro-Curators serving before this time may apply for a Hexagonal Amulet or Moderator's Mace, as appropriate.) This award is granted automatically: no body has the right to use its discretion in granting it.

Minor Awards

Minor awards are granted for participation in particular site activities. They are relatively small and inconspicuous, and some members should be expected to accumulate a large number of them. As with site administration awards, a member may receive multiples of the same award.

The awards mandated by the Curia are as follows. The Hexagon Council may issue further minor awards at its discretion for particular services that it wishes to recognize.

Site Awards: At regular periods, site-wide award votes are held, in which the general membership votes on various categories of award winners. One Site Award is given for every vote that a member wins.

Graduate's Diploma: For successfully completing a course within the Total War Center University, as determined by the University Chancellor.

Professor's Robes: For successfully instructing a course within the Total War Center University, as determined by the University Chancellor.

Picture of the Week Medal: For four wins in the Picture of the Week contest.

After-Action Report Contribution Medal: For earning 6 points in the Monthly After-Action Report Competition (MAARC). For each contest, points will be awarded as follows:

• 4 points for the winner
• 3 points for the runner-up
• 2 point for the third one
• 1 point for a category win (awarded by a jury)
• 1 point for a Tale of the Week win

I'd consider this an early draft and would greatly appreciate comments on the concept and particulars. Some details that should also be addressed:

• Where to fit the Loincloth? I personally wouldn't mind ditching it, but I wouldn't want anyone to oppose on those grounds, so I'd like to keep that as a separate bill if it gets done at all. I guess I could add an extra mention of that somewhere as a fourth, sui generis award.
• Wiki Contributor, CdC, and Curator medals all need nice names.
• How about something for "site owner"? We could make that a fourth major award. (And exclude Ogre. Say "from the community" or something.)
• Any other areas of the site I've missed? Anything else that should be recognized? I don't want to open the floodgates of allowing non-administrative awards to sneak in here, like awards for modding or posting, but any role in site administration not already covered would be fine to add. I don't think local moderators would be a good idea to include. Maybe game moderators, if the game is popular and requires active moderation?
• Have I inadvertently changed anything I didn't intend to?

I'm not going to be able to comment much on this during the week, with real life nearing the end of term, but I'll get back to all comments eventually.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I agree in principle.

The graduates in the Uni currently have 3 levels I think? Maybe only 2. Bachelors and Master. Those should probably stay. They wont clutter things up as one replaces the other.

Something for regular contribution to the Helios and other articles?

I see you removed the levels, bronze, silver, and gold, from items like Technicians Screwdriver. Was that intentional?

I like having better organization for the medals, and reducing clutter on profiles. But I see no real problem with having some of the levels put in as long as one medal replaces the one below it.

[Mímirswell]

Imperial Scepter seems arbitrary given anyone who would get it is already a Divus. The owner award also unnecessary since I cannot imagine a situation where an owner wouldn't eventually become a Divus. Further, eventually someone with the aspirations could get every single other award but the two above. That said, I know you have a fascination with the dictators (I do recall how the original Divus award was intended afterall).

Those two issues aside, I support the idea.

[Justinian]

This looks like a really good idea, Sim. I support.

I think Imperial Scepter should be changed, though. HorseArcher and Sulla are the only people eligible for it to the best of my knowledge.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Ok, this sounds pretty well planned, but just to clear things up...

I have been a librarian for six months (rounding down), so I get two quills?

[Justinian]

For two full terms (six months) honorably completed as an elected Curator. (Curators and Pro-Curators serving before this time may apply for a Hexagonal Amulet or Moderator's Mace, as appropriate.)

I don't get this ... it seems I would get this medal because I was an elected Curator, but not by the current rules. So that means I'd end up with like ... five or six mace medals... I don't know that replacing all those medals with moderator's medals is a good idea.

[Simetrical]

The graduates in the Uni currently have 3 levels I think? Maybe only 2. Bachelors and Master. Those should probably stay. They wont clutter things up as one replaces the other.

They also won't clutter things up if they're small enough. Then you have an incentive to complete more than three courses, and teach more than one.

Something for regular contribution to the Helios and other articles?

Isn't that a Scribe's Quill?

I see you removed the levels, bronze, silver, and gold, from items like Technicians Screwdriver. Was that intentional?

Yes. You get multiples instead of different colors. This makes the difference clearer (size instead of color, much easier to distinguish). It's like stripes on military uniforms, more meaning you've served longer.

Imperial Scepter seems arbitrary given anyone who would get it is already a Divus. The owner award also unnecessary since I cannot imagine a situation where an owner wouldn't eventually become a Divus. Further, eventually someone with the aspirations could get every single other award but the two above. That said, I know you have a fascination with the dictators (I do recall how the original Divus award was intended afterall).

I guess I do, don't I? The Scepter can probably be scrapped. The owner award would be unnecessary if Divus hadn't become so watered down.

Ok, this sounds pretty well planned, but just to clear things up...

I have been a librarian for six months (rounding down), so I get two quills?

If you've been a staff member for six months total, you get two medals (one for each three months). You could choose to have them both be quills; or alternatively, since for three months of that period you've also been a moderator, you could have one be a quill and one a mace.

I don't get this ... it seems I would get this medal because I was an elected Curator, but not by the current rules.

I might have been misremembering the history of the rank. My recollection is that for a long time it was held by moderators, and eventually it became an elected rank in its current form. I meant to award all elected Curators, under whatever system.

So that means I'd end up with like ... five or six mace medals... I don't know that replacing all those medals with moderator's medals is a good idea.

I think a mockup would be really useful here. Unfortunately, my artistic skills suck, but I can try. When I have time, which is not now ― I'm off to bed.

[Mímirswell]

The owner award would be unnecessary if Divus hadn't become so watered down.

I can only think of three Divus that I would classify as undeserving and only one of them is active at all. That's not particularly watered down.

I'm fairly certain that you believe the rest were all deserving. Lusted probably didn't accomplish enough during his rather short time as administrator but he was awarded more for his contributions while not an administrator, particularly his activities when H&G was made imperator. I'm not particularly concerned though, he's definitely a deity in his own way, having become an employee of CA and all.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That makes more sense, thanks. I will have to think about this. On the one hand it makes awards a bit more even, but then again it kind of short changes those that serve in multiple capacities. If in a three month period a member becomes a moderator and a librarian, instead of receiving a quill and a mace after three months, the member will have to choose between the two.

[Augustus Lucifer]

I like the re-classification into Exception Service, Site Administration, and Minor awards, the rest of it I'm not so sure about. Perhaps it would be nice to know more of what this proposal seeks to alleviate as wrong in the current procedure.

Is it trying to change the value of the medals? The value would not be changed by this proposal in a good way. It would simply be subjective to how many users choose a certain medal. If you have someone working as moderator and content staff and the mace naturally looks cooler, you'll probably have more mace choices. That wouldn't mean that if all the members double-branched the quill is worth more, but it might seem like it due to lack of choosing it. It actually decreases the value of individual medals, because you could serve for 2 years as a moderator and end up with one mace like someone who served for 3 months if you decided to get other awards. Or you could have 6 maces and then people would think they were being given out like candy.

Is it trying to reduce the number of medals? It doesn't really effectively do that. It removes multiple types of one medal, but then you have 2-4 medals instead of 1 in the forum display, and I for one think 4 maces under a post will just look plain silly as opposed to a gold one. It decreases the number of medals in the Admin Panel and the Award case, but I don't think anyone feels that area is overcrowded due to the separation of Bronze/Silver/Gold, and definitely not enough to warrant pushing that overcrowded feel onto every profile that serves some time on staff.

Is it as suggested intended to be 'fair'? We can't judge that for ourselves what is fair and what is not without voting on each and every medal. You could have a moderator who spends less than an hour a day for 3 months moderating. And you could have someone who spends 2 hours a day moderating, writes a Helios article each month, and spends another hour a day researching candidates for the CdeC. Now where is it fair to the latter candidate to receive the same recognition as the former? It isn't. It would only be 'fair' if the former candidate moderated for the combined time the latter did their multitude of jobs, which is the splitting you're referring to. If the single-minded candidate spends not the same cumulative amount, there is no comparative fairness. And since the time spent on the site and such is extremely open-ended, we have absolutely no way to gauge this.

You also suggested it makes it clear who has long-time commitments. But it does the opposite. If you served for 2 years as Moderator and Content Writer and dedicated the average time single-branched people do to both tasks, you only end up if split evenly with recognition for one year of each, or if lumped into one, no recognition for service to one branch. If we want to show people above 1 year of service more accurately, then make more levels of the current awards, Platinum for 1.5 years, Diamond for 2 years, Jade for 3 years, whatever. That way a user could have a Jade Mace if they served 3 years as a moderator, but would not have 0 quills if they also wrote 36 articles for the Helios during that time. It might make it more obvious the quantity rather than color if that is what we're referring to, but if that is the case and the goal, then just abolish the need to choose one of the awards, and you still get quantity instead of color but you don't have the above situation.

Overall I think if this passed it would be counter-productive to awarding contribution and recognizing time served. There are some interesting points, most specifically that maybe we need to re-color the awards so they are blatantly obvious or change them entirely from progression to progression. But this proposal won't alleviate those points.

[Justinian]

I might have been misremembering the history of the rank. My recollection is that for a long time it was held by moderators, and eventually it became an elected rank in its current form. I meant to award all elected Curators, under whatever system.

When we ran Curator and administrator had been solidifed into Republican Consul, which was voted on by the Curia, and thus an elected Curator, no?

[Hotspur]

I find it hard to believe that the Wiki editor does twice the work of the Curator. Or a librarian for that matter.

[the Black Prince]

I'm puzzled as to why Curator in particular, and CdeC to a lesser extent only reward medals for 2 terms service. Any curator who completes a term is more than deserving...

Is there an upper limit on how many maces can be served? Currently, based on the colour system, its 3 maces, and taking my quill for example, i'm at a gold quill level, but have actually served over a year on the Helios, plus podcasts and must be coming up to about 5 quills...

For me, i calculate 5 quills, probably 5 maces, maybe more, at least 1 hexagonal amulet, divus, CdeC medal plus site award. There are certainly members who have served in staff longer than I have, so this could get very crowded.

I think for longer service, maybe a greater variety of colours could be used... as suggested above
bronze, silver, gold, platinum, jade adds you some extra time.

Incidentally,
Curator's Rod. (Reference to the Parliamentary Rods used as a simple of authority for Parliamentary Officers, also to Roman Vine Staffs and other such rods of authority)

Curator was originally an administrator for a long time, becoming under Sulla the elected Republican Consul, then being appointed admin, before eventually becoming a Curial position. The Pro-Curator (created during a certain Curator's long absence) was usually of global mod rank (whatever that title was) and therefore also a Hex member at the time.

CdeC Sash - To be honest, in a British reward system, CdeC service would be rewarded with a low ranking knighthood, symbolised by a medal So, a sash to hang all the other medals on perhaps?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I support this proposal, with the following changes.

I'd like to ask you to close up the AAR medal text (to make it shorter):

After-Action Report Contribution Medal: For earning 6 points in the Monthly After-Action Report Competition (MAARC). For each contest, points will be awarded as follows: 4 points for the winner, 3 points for the runner-up, 2 point for the third one, 1 point for a category win (awarded by a jury), 1 point for a Tale of the Week win

On another note:

Have I inadvertently changed anything I didn't intend to?

Yes, the Picture of the Week section was originally this:

Winners of the Picture of the Week contest (POTW) qualify for the POTW medal. The medal will be awarded according to the following schedule;

3-8 wins - bronze medal

9-14 wins - silver medal

15+ wins - gold medal

I propose these changes in the first paragraph of the Minor Awards section, to avoid confusion.

Minor awards are granted for participation in particular site activities. Any member, peregrinus or higher, can qualify for these awards. They are relatively small and inconspicuous, and some members should be expected to accumulate a large number of them. however they clearly show a certain level of contribution to the site.

If this wording is not correct, please help me correct it, I'm not a native English speaker.

[Soulghast]

I don't really see how this is any better than the current system. So to value someone's contributions, you stuff them up with countless awards? One big award is better. Also, the thing about having a new award for each month seems unnecessary to me. The same old bronze, silver, gold system is preferable.

[Simetrical]

That makes more sense, thanks. I will have to think about this. On the one hand it makes awards a bit more even, but then again it kind of short changes those that serve in multiple capacities. If in a three month period a member becomes a moderator and a librarian, instead of receiving a quill and a mace after three months, the member will have to choose between the two.

Yes, but I think that's fair. After all, such a person has probably not done any more work than someone who's been just a moderator for three months: the moderator may have just put twice the time into moderating.

I can only think of three Divus that I would classify as undeserving and only one of them is active at all. That's not particularly watered down.

Compared to my original plans (~2 awardees, maybe 5 at the most) it is.

When we ran Curator and administrator had been solidifed into Republican Consul, which was voted on by the Curia, and thus an elected Curator, no?

Yes, but that position would be eligible for a Hexagonal Amulet. Would you really want to get a Curator's icon instead of an admin's icon? In fact, instead of two admin's icons?

Is it trying to change the value of the medals? The value would not be changed by this proposal in a good way. It would simply be subjective to how many users choose a certain medal. If you have someone working as moderator and content staff and the mace naturally looks cooler, you'll probably have more mace choices.

It's not trying to change the value of individual medals. It's trying to change the way medals are displayed so as to make it clearer who's done more service for the site, while being fair to people who choose to distribute their service in different ways.

Is it as suggested intended to be 'fair'? We can't judge that for ourselves what is fair and what is not without voting on each and every medal. You could have a moderator who spends less than an hour a day for 3 months moderating. And you could have someone who spends 2 hours a day moderating, writes a Helios article each month, and spends another hour a day researching candidates for the CdeC.

It's fairer than at present. Someone who was a moderator for two years has less recognition than someone who's been in moderating and content for three months total. Yes, his mace is gold, but that's a subtle point (bronze and gold look pretty similar). It's also fairer because it rewards someone with two years more than someone with one year, and rewards someone who spends the same amount of time equally whether they devote it all to one branch or split it among many.

While of course people might put in more or less time, there's no realistic way for us to account for that in the Constitution. Length of service is the best proxy for value of service available. But just to be clear, I did say that medals could be awarded for less time (or more time) than the guidelines given. A particularly worthy moderator could be given extra maces, like two months a mace, if the CoM decided that was appropriate. And someone who's inactive or was dishonorably discharged could be denied medals altogether.

You also suggested it makes it clear who has long-time commitments. But it does the opposite. If you served for 2 years as Moderator and Content Writer and dedicated the average time single-branched people do to both tasks, you only end up if split evenly with recognition for one year of each, or if lumped into one, no recognition for service to one branch.

But you have eight medals total, which makes it clear that your service is greater than that of someone who only served for one year, say. Currently that distinction doesn't exist. You could propose a whole hierarchy of precious medals and stones, but that would be completely opaque to anyone who hasn't memorized the Constitution. And it wouldn't address the other fairness issues I outlined.

I find it hard to believe that the Wiki editor does twice the work of the Curator. Or a librarian for that matter.

Well, frankly the wiki editor medal is a bit odd. I don't know if anyone would really qualify under the terms I set out. I wouldn't mind bumping it up to six months, say. I also wouldn't mind abolishing it (despite being one of the few recipients), but I don't want to make that part of this proposal.

I'm puzzled as to why Curator in particular, and CdeC to a lesser extent only reward medals for 2 terms service. Any curator who completes a term is more than deserving...

The Curator does a fair amount of work, but there are no checks on the medal. Someone could be an absolutely rotten and lazy Curator, but unless they do so poorly that they're successfully VoNCed or induced to resign, they'd get a medal for their service. Requiring two terms means that they have to have been reelected, which suggests that they actually did a good job. On the other hand, staff ranks are given out at the discretion of administrators, so they can be withheld if someone acted objectionably. Moderators who act up are a lot easier to remove than Curators, too.

It's also worth pointing out that the Curator only really affects the Curia. Moderators, content staff, tech staff, admins, and wiki editors all provide useful services to all viewers of the site. The Curator not only deals with just Citizens, but only the minority of Citizens who actively participate in the Curia. Likewise the CdC is only concerned with the minority of members who are patronized or patronizing. Staff ranks are, in that sense, more useful and important jobs, and should be encouraged more. (Plus CdC members, at least, do a lot less work than most staff, although the Curator does actually have to do a fair bit of work these days.)

I would encourage people not to be too concerned about the exact weighting used. Some weights have to be specified for the first draft, and inevitably some are going to be debatable, but they can be changed easily enough after the main proposal is passed. If there's enough dispute about it, I'll have a sub-vote on the relative weighting of the awards. That's not the important part.

Is there an upper limit on how many maces can be served? Currently, based on the colour system, its 3 maces, and taking my quill for example, i'm at a gold quill level, but have actually served over a year on the Helios, plus podcasts and must be coming up to about 5 quills...

For me, i calculate 5 quills, probably 5 maces, maybe more, at least 1 hexagonal amulet, divus, CdeC medal plus site award. There are certainly members who have served in staff longer than I have, so this could get very crowded.

A mock-up is crucial here. I'm envisioning this as being no more crowded than people with a lot of rep. I'd have three maces and eight Hexagonal amulets, plus site awards, so about as much as you except for Divus (were you double-counting time in content staff and CdC there?). As I noted, long-time staff members might have ten or more medals, but probably not too many more than that. Three years in staff would be a dozen medals, and that's about the peak of what anyone's reached so far. Someone who's served for five years or something large like that deserves to look like a Soviet general.

I think for longer service, maybe a greater variety of colours could be used... as suggested above
bronze, silver, gold, platinum, jade adds you some extra time.

Has all the fairness problems I've outlined above (see, e.g., my response to Augustus Lucifer above, or Ludwig von Beethoven below). Maybe I'll write these up in bullet points and put them in the first post.

Curator's Rod. (Reference to the Parliamentary Rods used as a simple of authority for Parliamentary Officers, also to Roman Vine Staffs and other such rods of authority)

. . .

CdeC Sash - To be honest, in a British reward system, CdeC service would be rewarded with a low ranking knighthood, symbolised by a medal So, a sash to hang all the other medals on perhaps?

Sounds reasonable.

I support this proposal on behalf of the AAR community, with the following changes.

I'd like to ask you to close up the AAR medal text (to make it shorter):

Will do in next draft.

On another note:



Yes, the Picture of the Week section was originally this:



I propose these changes in the first paragraph of the Minor Awards section, to avoid confusion.



If this wording is not correct, please help me correct it, I'm not a native English speaker.

Yeah, I paraphrased that for brevity. I think it's fairly clear that minor awards can go to anyone meeting the prerequisites, but maybe that can be clearer.

I don't really see how this is any better than the current system. So to value someone's contributions, you stuff them up with countless awards?

You stuff them up with awards proportional to time served. That way people are rewarded for long service. I mean, if I had resigned a year ago my medals would be no different from if I served for another ten years, under the current system.

This is also, as I say, more fair for people who serve in only one branch of staff. They currently get only one medal, ever, and it just changes color slightly. This would allow them to get as many medals as someone who dabbled in many areas of the site.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Yes, but I think that's fair. After all, such a person has probably not done any more work than someone who's been just a moderator for three months: the moderator may have just put twice the time into moderating.

This is subjective as you later assert, it could have been half the time, twice the time just serves the equation of fairness, it is not an accurate figure.

It's not trying to change the value of individual medals. It's trying to change the way medals are displayed so as to make it clearer who's done more service for the site, while being fair to people who choose to distribute their service in different ways.

The thing is, it isn't a competition. If someone has 10 quills, 10 maces, and 10 gavels, or whatever, and another has 10 maces, that does not make the one with 10 maces inferior or less recognized because they don't have 30 maces, since as you have stated, the time spent is subjective and the only proxy is tenure and affiliation. Regardless of how the system works, each individual is the determinant in how their medal is valued. The same bronze mace on one guy could be worth more than on another guy, depending on how they feel they've done their job. The same mace is, naturally, different on each person, even though that can't be displayed in any manner for others to see. However you can't judge an invisible amount, so if someone felt they did good work for the Helios and was a dedicated moderator, one would go unrecognized entirely for that time period. The need to choose one medal for each three month period only entertains the notion of fairness, borne of the consideration that it somehow equalizes the spectrum of possible contributions by maintaining a gold standard.

It's fairer than at present. Someone who was a moderator for two years has less recognition than someone who's been in moderating and content for three months total. Yes, his mace is gold, but that's a subtle point (bronze and gold look pretty similar). It's also fairer because it rewards someone with two years more than someone with one year, and rewards someone who spends the same amount of time equally whether they devote it all to one branch or split it among many.

I've known the difference for quite some time now before being interested in site politics, and it's in the Awards Case description as viewed when you click the picture in the profile, and listed as why it was given usually. I can also easily visually tell apart the Bronze and Gold medals, ironically the Gold one looks sort of like Silver though, so maybe that needs better definition. Or, we could just replace the current system with multiple medals like you suggest, if that is to alleviate the process. But in my eyes it would not even do that. Not only would I, if I was the same type of user who doesn't know what gold means, think that maces were candy and worthless if I saw someone with 12, I would also have to count them and do the math to get the contribution amount, and then factor in any possible times they didn't choose to take that award. That makes it harder for even those who know what they mean to determine the measure of contribution, whereas if I committed to memory what Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum/Jade/Ruby or whatever meant, I would know upon seeing the little (Ruby) after the award description exactly how long they served on that branch.

Hell if you want, we could overlay the awards with writing like "3 mo.+" "6 mo.+" "1 yr.+" like we have the 2007 and 2008 member awards overlay the trophy. If the issue here is lack of representation of the exact contribution amount, that stresses it even more than multiplicity. It might look uglier though, but not nearly as ugly as 8 of them. And as well, the concept of being fair by making users choose is taken in the wrong vein. By making users choose, what do we achieve? We make it so the single-branch moderator knows that Mr. Multi-branch doesn't get more medals than them, and we insure Mr. Multi-Branch isn't recognized for service to all but one branch. We're essentially affirming an inferiority complex in people with less medals at the expense of recognition, which is kind of silly.

While of course people might put in more or less time, there's no realistic way for us to account for that in the Constitution. Length of service is the best proxy for value of service available. But just to be clear, I did say that medals could be awarded for less time (or more time) than the guidelines given. A particularly worthy moderator could be given extra maces, like two months a mace, if the CoM decided that was appropriate. And someone who's inactive or was dishonorably discharged could be denied medals altogether.

So we should not preference either way then. Making users choose a medal makes the presumption that those with only one responsibility dedicate the combined time of those with multiple. Just awarding multiple medals for multiple services does not make any such assumptions, and as the medals are on a tenure proxy, does not assume just due to quantity that the service of that user is more valuable than the one with one responsibility and award. It in fact stresses the opposite, that time accrued is all that matters, which is not a terrible indicator when all users multi-tasking obviously do enough to not be ousted from their responsibility.

But you have eight medals total, which makes it clear that your service is greater than that of someone who only served for one year, say. Currently that distinction doesn't exist. You could propose a whole hierarchy of precious medals and stones, but that would be completely opaque to anyone who hasn't memorized the Constitution. And it wouldn't address the other fairness issues I outlined.

It would not be opaque, it is entirely transparent to anyone who cares. Click on the award on the thread display and it takes you to the user's profile, where 9 out of 10 times it lists the time served requisite for the medal. Further click on it and you get the actual description of the award in the Awards Case. You need not even know the Constitution exists to get all of this information, and it is much more reliable than that textual document at any rate. In fact members who know the Constitution but not the Awards Case would not know what the Artist or Barbie Faerie awards were. If we wanted to add even more obviousness, we could find a way to add the award description to the mouseover text on the thread display, but I feel that's entirely unnecessary.

Well, frankly the wiki editor medal is a bit odd. I don't know if anyone would really qualify under the terms I set out. I wouldn't mind bumping it up to six months, say. I also wouldn't mind abolishing it (despite being one of the few recipients), but I don't want to make that part of this proposal.

Medals for the Wiki will always be odd. The Wiki Contributor medal is more akin to the Scribes Quill than to the Curator though, because it isn't for work as an editor but for work as a Wiki Staff. And the time spent is also very curious. A Bronze Quill is 3 articles of very moderate length on the Helios or ES, whichever is the monthly publication, 6 in the other. I've contributed maybe 700+ pages to the wiki but over a period of 2 weeks to 1 month. The nature of the wiki is it is a ton more work than the publications(perhaps excepting the Editorials, which I have more respect for since they don't borrow from the fora) if it is as suggested, maintained diligently.

[Soulghast]

You stuff them up with awards proportional to time served. That way people are rewarded for long service. I mean, if I had resigned a year ago my medals would be no different from if I served for another ten years, under the current system.

I agree that perhaps more recognition is needed. But adding multiple, similar, awards is not the way to reward contributions. It's just... lame to have multiple quills or maces. Also, I do not believe that multiple maces are any better than a "slight" change of color. I generally support quality over quantity in most things, so having few, but big awards for exceptional contributions seems more reasonable to me.

[Empress Meg]

I agree that perhaps more recognition is needed. But adding multiple, similar, awards is not the way to reward contributions. It's just... lame to have multiple quills or maces. Also, I do not believe that multiple maces are any better than a "slight" change of color. I generally support quality over quantity in most things, so having few, but big awards for exceptional contributions seems more reasonable to me.

I agree with this. More medals does not always mean quality of work or contributions.

Devoirs The Empress

[Senno]

No love for Magistrate's? /sigh