[Amendment] Curator

[Desperado †]

Proposer: Desperado †
Supporters: *tumbleweed*

<snip>
Where the election is for the vacant position of Curator, all candidates must meet the requirements of CdeC applications. Where the election is for the position of Curator or for CdeC membership, a debate thread shall be opened at the same time as the application thread in the main Curia by the Curator for Curia members to question candidates on their election. A collective group of Citizens may run for the office of Curator, in which case one Citizen should stand as representative and announce the other Citizens in the application post, answer for the other Citizens in the debate thread and hold the Curator badge should the group win the election. All Citizens running for the position, collectively or individually, are to be listed on the poll, representative first in the former.</snip>

<snip>

The following are permanent Curial Officers:

• The Curator - The Curator is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks get done. Upon entering office the Curator must officially appoint at least one Citizen to fulfill the Curator's role on a planned or unplanned absence, and should the Curator wish, to assist him on day to day tasks.
  
  No matter who carries out the tasks assigned to the Curator, the Curator is the one responsible for seeing that they are done promptly and correctly.

Further Permanent Officers may be created by amendment. Any member of Citizen rank may apply unless otherwise stated.</snip>

Lets cut the crap. No more assistants, no more pro-Curators, no more substitutes, no more ambiguity. 'Curator' now refers to those in office (think of it like 'the man', or 'the administration'). A VoNC on the 'Curator' is a VoNC on everybody in office. Anybody running the Curia will have been listed in the application thread, named in the poll and voted on by the Citizens of the Curia. If a collective group runs for the position it is up to them how they share power, though ultimately they all have local moderator rights and one wears the badge.If somebody runs individually then they must be prepared to fulfill their term individually, or face VoNC. Assistants or substitutes aren't compulsory, but they must be elected.

Anybody running the Curia will be voted on by the Curia.

[Elrond]

That doesn't really make any sense.

If your going to go down those lines then a US presidentially style ticket with a Curator and deputy Curator would be best. Even that would get pretty complicated.

[Desperado †]

That doesn't really make any sense.

A statement without a reason makes even less so.

If your going to go down those lines then a US presidentially style ticket with a Curator and deputy Curator would be best. Even that would get pretty complicated.

Why would it be best? This is not the US, this is an Internet forum. Just leave it up to those applying. If multiple peoples apply, they sort it out amongst themselves. If they up, we VoNC, they all leave office together, just like when individual Curators apply. Why clad the system with ambiguity and rules when we can just make it that

1) Anybody running the Curia is elected by the Curia.
2) If an administration (individual or collective) messes up, it can be VoNCed.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Besides the fact that the Curator job should nominally only take one person to perform, this has other difficulties. For instance, everyone on the ballot runs with 1-3 others, so each vote is for 2-4 people. Now say I dislike the notion of granting office to one of the users on the collective ballot. I end up having to vote for the least terrible ballot as opposed to the best ballot(or Abstain). This can still happen in a normal Curator election, but it isn't quite as convoluted.

The system is used elsewhere because the job being appointed has enough work for thousands of people to do. Even still a bad VP or a good VP can sway a vote, and in the case of Curator the good parts of a ticket won't necessarily be the ones doing the work. You just don't know. With 1 man elections you know who is going to be doing the work with minimal involvement of associated staff.

[Desperado †]

Besides the fact that the Curator job should nominally only take one person to perform, this has other difficulties. For instance, everyone on the ballot runs with 1-3 others, so each vote is for 2-4 people. Now say I dislike the notion of granting office to one of the users on the collective ballot. I end up having to vote for the least terrible ballot as opposed to the best ballot(or Abstain). This can still happen in a normal Curator election, but it isn't quite as convoluted.

Isn't it fairer that you know entirely who will be running the Curia and who you are voting to run the Curia when voting, rather than letting a Curator choose a Citizen who could completely run the Curia post the vote? I thought the whole idea of a vote was to let us choose, a system in which we choose somebody to choose is a bit silly. Also, I doubt that the concept of collective running will be popular.

The system is used elsewhere because the job being appointed has enough work for thousands of people to do.

The system of a collective administration is in place now, this just means that the Curia decides who runs the Curia, rather than decide on a Curator who could then decide on who runs the Curia. If you think the job doesn't require more than one person, change the constitution. This proposal means that whoever's running the Curia is voted on by the Curia, end of.

Even still a bad VP or a good VP can sway a vote, and in the case of Curator the good parts of a ticket won't necessarily be the ones doing the work. You just don't know. With 1 man elections you know who is going to be doing the work with minimal involvement of associated staff.

If this is the case then one man applicants will have a greater chance than collective applicants, meaning your situation wouldn't arise and is irrelevant.

[Augustus Lucifer]

If that's the intent behind this proposal, then we'll just have to hope one of the other proposals on the floor to institute more stringent sanctions on the Curator takes effect. The power for the Curator to have someone do his job for him should be removed, not provided for by a vote. Assistant or Pro or whatever you want to call it should fall in the cracks and be only a failsafe.

[Calvin]

A simpler proposal than this would be to abolish the Curia along with its titles, offices and committees and stick to the Q&A.

[Viking Prince]

This will be a massive vote failure. No debate is needed. No debate will help.

Oppose.

[the Black Prince]

oh good gods above

oppose

[Bokks]

We'd be replacing the singular authority with a committee?
For any issues we have from a singular person, there'd be a lot more with a committee.

I don't even see a cap on this, are we talking about three citizens or fifteen? Who would they be running against? There wouldn't be an election, it would be an acknowledged appointment.

And if there was an election, who would say who would be in what committee? There were issues with the possibility of a pro-Curator being the reason for the failure of a Curatorial election. Would not a committee fail under the same guise?

[Desperado †]

Just to be clear, I do agree with you that anyone who assumes the full powers of Curator should be elected. I just think there's better ways to insure that remains the case. I think we've belabored all the points, anyhow.

Aye. I just see this as the most foolproof and democratic way to do it.

This will be a massive vote failure. No debate is needed. No debate will help.

Oppose.

oh good gods above

oppose

Ah, once again excellent reasoning in opposition to a bill. I also pray that you, VP, aren't once again presenting the fact that this bill is likely to fail as a reason not to support it.

We'd be replacing the singular authority with a committee?
For any issues we have from a singular person, there'd be a lot more with a committee.

No. It's already possible for Curia to be run by a committee. A curator could appoint all the active Citizens as pro-Curators if he wishes, under the current system. This bill makes sure that anybody running the curia is elected by the curia.

I don't even see a cap on this, are we talking about three citizens or fifteen? Who would they be running against? There wouldn't be an election, it would be an acknowledged appointment.

That would be totally up to the Citizens running and Citizens voting, as all elections are. I doubt 15 would run together, and I doubt the Curia would ever choose a collective administration of more than 5.

And if there was an election, who would say who would be in what committee? There were issues with the possibility of a pro-Curator being the reason for the failure of a Curatorial election. Would not a committee fail under the same guise?

Pardon?

That's the point of this bill. As already stated, the Curia, if the Curator wishes, can be a collective administrative body, a committee. The reasoning for this bill is that anybody running the Curia will be announced in the application thread, and on the poll. Anybody running the Curia will be elected by the Curia.

This doesn't make it possible for the Curia to be ran by a committee or several Citizens - this has always the case. Many of you seem to have misinterpreted my minor point that the word 'Curator' would now refer to everybody running the Curia, rather than the one wearing the badge.

[Viking Prince]

@Desperado †

I predict a massive fail because other than presentint the proposal, the supporters of the bill hae not given any reason or logic as to why a group curator is needed. What problem will be solved by a group? In the case of VONC are all responsible for the acts of one? I can go on, but the point is that the supporters are obligated to make the case. I in opposition need do nothing but remain not convinced.

This reminds me of the couple decade passion at university for collective executives for student government under the assumption that a popular group will garner more votes than a single individual. The problem is that the leadership by its very collective nature is not capable of delagating authority to others. The collective is already diluted and weakened due to delegation within the collective.

Give me one real example where collective executives do indeed work in real life. Just one example will help your cause.

Then, show where such a collective executive is superior over the current arrangment of one curator and delegation powers to assistants.

I think you can now inderstand why I believe that this proposal is headed for oblivion.

[Desperado †]

@Desperado †

I predict a massive fail because other than presentint the proposal, the supporters of the bill hae not given any reason or logic

Excuse me? This bill has no supporters.

as to why a group curator is needed.

Please read my previous posts and the original post. This proposal does mean the Curia may now be run by a group - this is currently the case. It simply means that anybody running the Curia will be elected by the Curia. The minor difference this proposal makes apart from this is that the word Curator will now refer to all those running the Curia - as to whether they are running joint, or Boss/Assistant, Boss/Substitute or in whatever form they run it.

What problem will be solved by a group?

Again, see above.

In the case of VONC are all responsible for the acts of one?

Yes. If they are elected as a joint group, they should be removed as a joint group. Besides, it's the same as the current system - if the current Curator is removed then so are his assistants, unless hex or CdeC deem it more logical for an assistant to continue as Curator to avoid unnecessary conundrums.

I can go on, but the point is that the supporters are obligated to make the case. I in opposition need do nothing but remain not convinced.

Please do go on, because your previous points are irrelevant as they are the current system. And no. This is a debate thread, we discuss and debate the proposal. If you disagree with the proposal though don't want to present your reasons for doing so or can't be bothered to debate there's little reason in posting in this thread. It is in fact the opposite of what you've said - supporters are compulsory for a proposal, so supporting a bill without joining in in the debate is reasonable. This, and when a supporter supports it's generally taken that they are supporting for the reasons provided in the original post. Posting oppose is completely pointless without any given reasons.

This reminds me of the couple decade passion at university for collective executives for student government under the assumption that a popular group will garner more votes than a single individual. The problem is that the leadership by its very collective nature is not capable of delagating authority to others. The collective is already diluted and weakened due to delegation within the collective.

If this is generally the case, Citizens will not vote for continuously vote for large groups over individuals (perhaps with a single assistant/substitute). Either way, your points are irrelevant as the system can already function as you mentioned - group administrations are perfectly possible under the current system, and thus so are they're weaknesses. This bill means that anybody running the Curia will be elected by the Curia.

Give me one real example where collective executives do indeed work in real life. Just one example will help your cause.

Then, show where such a collective executive is superior over the current arrangement of one curator and delegation powers to assistants.

These points are completely irrelevant! The Curia may already be run by collective executives!

This bill does not make a collective administrative body possible - it already is! This bill means that anybody running the Curia will be elected by the Curia. It,

1) Is more directly democratic
2) Is more transparent

Than the current system. These, I'm sure, are features you'd consider to be positive, in real life and on a forum government such as this. The fact that we vote on a Curator shows that the Curia thinks the first is a good feature, it's just that under the current system it could be loop holed - a Curator may then appoint several non-elected Citizens to run the curia after being elected. This, to me, is an unnacceptable system. That is the purpose of this bill.

I think you can now inderstand why I believe that this proposal is headed for oblivion.

No. I cannot inderstand why the fact that this bills supporters have not voiced their reasoning, or the fact that you believe this bill is creating a feature already in place as prediction that it is heading for oblivion. The fact that perhaps it has no supporters would be a better one. Either way, I never said you were incorrect in your assumption, I said that I was hoping you weren't using the fact that it's probably going to fail as a reason to not support it, as you did in another bill. I also criticised you lack of reasoning for opposing, but never the fact that probably will fail. I myself accept that.