[Amendment] Representation of the Plebs Bill 1832

[Каие]

Proposer: [user]Яome kb8[/user]
Supporters:

Gentlemen (and lady) the time has come to allow the plebs a little part to play in the grand scheming place of scheming. Not too much of course, as they are not of blue blood and noble birth (I mean most of them are French for gods sake), but still serve as a soap box in the corner of Hyde Park for the Plebeians to petition this House.

Representation of the Plebs Bill 1831

Article III. Legislative Procedure

Any Citizen may table a bill for discussion by posting a thread in the Prothalamos. This citizen will remain the sole proposer for this thread. Citizen Bills can take two forms:

• Amendments - A proposal to alter the text of the Constitution. Amendments can alter or remove existing text and add entirely new text.
• Decisions - A proposal for the creation of an official Decision of the Curia on any topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. Such a Decision is not binding, but the Curator should ensure (to the best of his ability) that the Hexagon Council promptly either implements the Decision, or gives an official reason for not having implemented all or part of it.

Each version of the bill requires named support from three Citizens. The final draft of the bill must be debated for at least three days in the Prothalamos before the proposer can request the bill be moved to vote. When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the Proposer, the Bill's three named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Curia Votes forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

Where a Decision requires the Curia to choose between multiple options, two polls shall be run concurrently. The first poll shall be as a normal decision, the second poll shall outline the various options to choose from if the decision passes. Whichever option receives the plurality of votes shall be implemented, but only if the Decision also passes in the usual manner. Both polls shall run for one week.

All citizens are honour bound to not view the results of Curia Votes until they have themselves voted, unless necessary for the execution of any other duty to the site.


In addition a third form of bill is available. Any non-citizen may table a bill for discussion by posting a thread in the Question and Suggestions forum. This non-citizen will remain the sole proposer for this thread. The Plebeian Bill can only take one form:

• Plebeian Petition - A proposal to change any part of the forum relevant to the functioning of TWC.
  
  The Plebeian petition must gather 30 non-citizen signatures of support within the thread. When the relevant signatures are collected, the petition will automatically be considered in the Curia, as any other citizens bill, to be debated then voted on by the Citizens. The Curator will post it up in the Prothalmos as a [Petition] to be debated for three days amongst the citizens then voted on.
  
  The bill is not binding, but the Curator should ensure (to the best of his ability) that the Hexagon Council promptly either implements the bill, or gives an official reason for not having implemented all or part of it in the original Q&S thread.

<< snip >>

Should this Great Reform Bill be vetoed by the Lords I will ask, his grace, King William IV to create 300 additional Liberal peers to vote the House of Lords out of existence.

[Gaius Baltar]

No, let them eat cake.

[Каие]

[Desperado †]

Hmmm.

I'd support:

Plebeian Petition - A proposal to change any part of the forum relevant to the functioning of TWC. The Plebeian bill must gather 30 plebeian signatures including at least 3 citizens Each version of the bill requires named support from 30 peregrini*. The final draft of the bill must be debated for at least three days in the Q&S before the proposer can request the bill be moved to vote. [del]When it does this bill will automatically be considered in the Curia as any other citizens bill to be debated then voted on by the Citizens like any other bill Plebeian bills are voted on by the Citizens of the Curia in the Curia vote. The bill is not binding, but the Curator should ensure (to the best of his ability) that the Hexagon Council promptly either implements the bill, or gives an official reason for not having implemented all or part of it in the original Q&S thread.

I think the plebeian to perigrinus bit is vital whatever you do, to stop alt accounts. I think the bill needing the support of 3 Citizens defeats the point a bit. I don't see why it should be debated further in the Curia if it's already been debated in the Q&S. I'd support lowering the amount of perigrinus required as well, but I doubt the rest of the Curia would.

I love the idea.

*What's the plural of perigrinus?

[Heinz Guderian]

I oppose. Just kidding! I SUPPORT.

[Augustus Lucifer]

*What's the plural of perigrinus?

I don't see why we need to use either Peregrinus or Plebeian. Why not just say non-Citizen? That's all it is, being a member without a rank or a member with a rank who doesn't also hold the rank of Citizen is just a non-Citizen with regards to Curial matters.

[Desperado †]

I don't see why we need to use either Peregrinus or Plebeian. Why not just say non-Citizen? That's all it is, being a member without a rank or a member with a rank who doesn't also hold the rank of Citizen is just a non-Citizen with regards to Curial matters.

Wait, don't peregrinus have 50+ posts (and can vote in polls, unlike users with less than 50 posts) or is peregrinus the rank for all new users? (I thought it was the former, and so suggested using peregrinus to avoid alt complications)

My bad.

Edit: Oh, and support the latest version now you've removed the need for any Citizens before the voting.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Wait, don't peregrinus have 50+ posts (and can vote in polls, unlike users with less than 50 posts) or is peregrinus the rank for all new users? (I thought it was the former, and so suggested using peregrinus to avoid alt complications)

My bad.

Edit: Oh, and support the latest version now you've removed the need for any Citizens before the voting.

The pre-50 post classification is called "Member". The post-50 is called "Full Member". That's all there is to it, it isn't a rank, just a wall put up for certain site mechanisms.

[the Black Prince]

I oppose.

For all the reasons oft stated many times before every time some form of this issue arises. The ability to affect site policy, the right to have a say is the reward and privilege of citizenship. It is the ability that makes citizenship something worthy to strive for. The citizens of this site have contrbiuted substantially to the community, have shaped it, forged it and helped it grow into the glorious edifice of internet excellence that it is today, and their ability to have a say in how the site they have developed is run is something that should only ever be reserved to them. Why should some person who's shown up only 2 weeks ago and spammed the ETW forums be able to have a say in the policy and direction of this site and forum? What has that member done to deserve that immense privilege? Citizenship does not require much, it is not overly hard, you merely have to demonstrate that you aren't some ordinary person along for the ride but are willing to go that bit further to improve this place, not merely reside here.


Should such a lessoning of Citizen's rights be enacted, one would surely expect some equal proposal be enacted that preserves the unique ability of citizens to have a say over how their community is run.... direct elections of all administrators and senior staff with the exception of the owner for example.

[Каие]

I oppose.

For all the reasons oft stated many times before every time some form of this issue arises. The ability to affect site policy, the right to have a say is the reward and privilege of citizenship. It is the ability that makes citizenship something worthy to strive for. The citizens of this site have contrbiuted substantially to the community, have shaped it, forged it and helped it grow into the glorious edifice of internet excellence that it is today, and their ability to have a say in how the site they have developed is run is something that should only ever be reserved to them. Why should some person who's shown up only 2 weeks ago and spammed the ETW forums be able to have a say in the policy and direction of this site and forum? What has that member done to deserve that immense privilege? Citizenship does not require much, it is not overly hard, you merely have to demonstrate that you aren't some ordinary person along for the ride but are willing to go that bit further to improve this place, not merely reside here.


Should such a lessoning of Citizen's rights be enacted, one would surely expect some equal proposal be enacted that preserves the unique ability of citizens to have a say over how their community is run.... direct elections of all administrators and senior staff with the exception of the owner for example.

I disagree Prince, this doesn't at all downgrade the role or privilege of citizens. It is not correct that making suggestions that affect site policy is monopolised by the citizenry, already non-citizens can suggest things in the Q&S. All my bill does is introduce a formal element to a non-citizen suggesting something. Currently, they are easily ignored. By introducing a formal process for them, in petition form, it allows non-citizens to make suggestions, not demands.

As the bill states it's merely a glorified petition, if getting a very large number (30 !) of signatures, it automatically must be considered by the legislature, the Curia. I believe the Tory Party is proposing a policy that any petition which gathers 1,000,000 signatures is automatically considered by the relevant committee, could even be the Cabinet. It's a similar thing to that.

The citizens still vote on it, and debate on it in the Curia, and can reject it outright if they wish. This bill of mine merely adds a provision so that the non-citizens can still be heard officially, the power still rests in the hands of citizens.

I also hope it raises awareness and participation in Curial affairs by more members, hopefully inspiring them to get in by contribute something.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Oh shoot, and I was feeling so progressive lately...

[Desperado †]

With 3 citizens required it's practically the same as a Curia bill (which requires 4 citizens, including proposer), except that 30 plebeians also support it. Any Citizen that supported the bill would probably post it straight in the Curia to save the bother of collecting 30 non-citizens signatures.

In the current system non-Citizens can only have a proposal debated in the Curia with the assistance of a Citizen. It will be the same if your proposal passes unless you remove the three citizens' signatures required part, and hence makes this bill kind of pointless.

[the Black Prince]

I think the general thrust of my post would be that there is no need for members to have an official voice. The voice they have already is sufficient for their needs. The official voice is the citizens voice.

The policy you refer to already exists here. Its the Curial decision, in which the collective decision of the citizens is referred for strong consideration to the executive, with Hex being the equivalent of the cabinet. Not everyone has a right to petition our government, even the most informal process, on the No.10 website requires you to demonstrate residence at least.

I invite you to think about and consider the definition of Citizen. Plenty of people reside in the site... or the country... or the empire, but only those who have been granted citizenship have the right to be considered part of that country, to vote or whatever. And always, there are limits and restrictions on who may become a citizen. As a forum, birth is not an option, so we chose contribution as an system of meritocracy. Why demean and debase that by allowing just anyone to have access in any form? Why devalue the already limited reward for those people who actually work to make this site and community better?

[Halie Satanus]

I like the idea, but it's a bit, umm, pointless. Any non-citizen can post a proposal in the Q&S and if it's a good idea Hex will implement it, subject to the usual blah de blah as any proposal.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I like the idea, but it's a bit, umm, pointless. Any non-citizen can post a proposal in the Q&S and if it's a good idea Hex will implement it, subject to the usual blah de blah as any proposal.

Seconded, with the correction that citizens can take up the case too by presenting it in the Curia. So this is fairly unnecessary.

EDIT: and I don't understand the part where it says you need "30 non-citizen signatures" to start a petition. What if I create 30 alts to do that? It doesn't make too much sense.

[Каие]

EDIT: and I don't understand the part where it says you need "30 non-citizen signatures" to start a petition. What if I create 30 alts to do that? It doesn't make too much sense.

You get banned. Cheating using alts is against the rules of the site. Check ToS.

If an idea is good enough to get 30 supporters, it will almost certainly be either brought to the Prothalamos or implemented by Hex. This bill would hardly affect anything.

Not necessarily, I.e. The citizens want to be able to post in the prothalmos now, no one has proposed that idea of theirs at all. Now with my bill, they can still get a petition going and if its something they feel strongly enough about to get 30 guys together we should consider it, and debate on it, and possibly even pass it.

Either way, before proceeding with trying to make the Curia more non-citizen friendly, I would wait to see exactly how much the non-citizens are interested in the Curia, by seeing the number of views and posts in the newly created Curial Commentary Thread in the Q&S.

Good Idea.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

You get banned. Cheating using alts is against the rules of the site. Check ToS.

Creating additional accounts isn't verboten per se. It will only get you in trouble, if you try to evade suspension with them. Here's the one and only relevant ToS rule:

Evading a Suspension (3 or 6 points)

Users whose right to post on the forums has been suspended or revoked must not create additional accounts to evade the ban. In addition to the normal penalties for warnings, the user's ban may be extended, and the additional account they made will be banned indefinitely

[Каие]

Made some changes, I've taken some peoples views into account, but I won't abandon the bill.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

No.

[B. Ward]

Are there 31 non-Citizens interested in the Curia to have a bill considered?