One of Calvin's ambitions on this site was to see effective Curial reform, meaning that it would become a much more active body in helping not just the citizenry but the whole body. While he never elaborated on what his plans were, at least to me, if indeed he had a plan beyond the goal he wanted to accomplish. I think it would be a fitting tribute to him to see at least some kind of reform, so that the Curia becomes something for the whole site, and not just for the few regulars.
There is no proposition or plan yet, this is merely a kind of think tank. The way I see it, the best way to achieve our goal, is to lay out exactly what that is, what the reality is now, and how can we make our plan come true.
The Curia was imagined as a place where people with a large investment in the community could come together and help run it better. It was imagined as a consultative body working under the Hexagon council, even though the Curia is older than Hex. I'm not saying that that is a bad thing, and I am not looking for more power for the Curia, at least not administrative power. Instead of focusing on working up the ladder, as it were, maybe we should focus our attention to the lower rungs of the membership.
So, the first question I want to ask is this. How can the Curia work among the lower ranks of the members, while not granting them membership, at least making the site a better place for them? Part of this may be in recognising what is wrong with the initial user experience, and seeing how the Curia can come to help on this. A selection of committees, unlike the previous ones, working with and for lower class members to help them do what they want to do would be in order, I believe.
A second way to make the Curia more effective is to have a two tiered voting system. Right now there is a 60% (or 2/3) voting majority for legislation to pass. I propose that we reorganised the Constitution into two different documents. A Constitution will remain, detailing members rights, basic operations of the site, how things are done, etc.. A separate Codex will deal in details. Forming new subforums, granting awards and other 'day to day' things will be placed here. The Constitution will still require a 60% majority to have amendments passed, while the Codex will only require a simple majority.
Thoughts, ideas, comments?
Proud to be under the patronage of Calvin.
Patron of Lysimachus
His desire was to see a Curia that is more capable of participating in administration, and he said that my workshop type format is probably the most practical way of going about it. Someone has an idea, they look for volunteers to help implement that idea, then they use a thread to discuss and display their progress. Start with an objective, see what resources there are available, then use those resources and whatever else comes to hand to achieve that objective. Votes and electoral matters don't come into this, as they do nothing to help achieve the objective. All that matters is a mindset that the volunteers will work as hard as they need to towards that end.
That kind of mindset is most prevalent among modders, who work in that way and tend to disdain the talking shop the Curia tends to be. What the Curia needs is number of citizens with drive to do things. Not just legislate or elect, or anything that involves just the odd mouse click. Within staff itself, there is some discussion until there's a modicum of consensus, but what drives things is the willingness of individual staffers to show initiative and go out and do things.
Perhaps to give the Peregrini of TWC a voice, the Curia could elect representatives who would listen to any ideas made by non-citizens in a new sub forum in the Q&S specifically created for the purpose of giving the plebs a voice. Maybe we could call the new Curial officials "Speakers" and the new sub forum "The Lower house" .
The Speaker of the House used to be an official of the Total War Center forums and a Hexagon Council Officer. His purpose was to represent the Curia in all Council discussions. The office had a personalised badge, and access to all areas of the site.
The Speaker used to be elected from the Citizens by the Citizens on a three-month basis (assuming no resignations) and could hold the office any number of times. The Speaker was charged to represent the Curia's interests in Hex, as well as do a variety of administrative duties of varying importance, from promotion of citizens to beginning the ratifications of various members of Staff. The Speaker could also be charged by Hex with communicating various proposals or statements of fact to the Curia, although this happened only seldomly.
Having a Citizen elected by his fellow Citizens to represent the Curia on Hex seems like a good idea to have the Curia's position on site issues and the like heard by Hex.
Perhaps to give the Peregrini of TWC a voice, the Curia could elect representatives who would listen to any ideas made by non-citizens in a new sub forum in the Q&S specifically created for the purpose of giving the plebs a voice. Maybe we could call the new Curial officials "Speakers" and the new sub forum "The Lower house" .
Having a Citizen elected by his fellow Citizens to represent the Curia on Hex seems like a good idea to have the Curia's position on site issues and the like heard by Hex.
The speaker is a bad idea in concept because the MO of Curia and Hex are fundamentally different. Hex works in the way I describe above, objective-oriented and with people going off and implementing projects to do with their specialisation on their own initiative. There is discussion to get some kind of consensus, but there is no discussion of theoretical scenarios of the kind beloved of the Curia - everything is goal-based. I was always going to be the last speaker, since the previous speakers had tried to abolish the position but hadn't managed to, and I was more willing than most to phase out my positions, but I tried to introduce the same goal-based approach to the Curia, in case something could be made of the Curia's role. As it was, people were far more interested in politics and offices than discussing how a citizen body might practically work - every one of my many posts on how to get the Curia working ended the thread where I posted, meaning there was no facing the issues, with Calvin being the only person to show interest.
There is absolutely no point in looking for more elected offices, votes, etc. They don't solve the fundamental problem, which is that the Curia needs people to show initiative to go out and do things, if it's to gain any trust from staff to devolve more responsibility. The recent awards committee is a good example of how to go about it. Within the boundaries set by the administration, and without protests about rights and stuff, it set off and did things quickly and decisively.
The speaker is a bad idea in concept because the MO of Curia and Hex are fundamentally different. Hex works in the way I describe above, objective-oriented and with people going off and implementing projects to do with their specialisation on their own initiative. There is discussion to get some kind of consensus, but there is no discussion of theoretical scenarios of the kind beloved of the Curia - everything is goal-based. I was always going to be the last speaker, since the previous speakers had tried to abolish the position but hadn't managed to, and I was more willing than most to phase out my positions, but I tried to introduce the same goal-based approach to the Curia, in case something could be made of the Curia's role. As it was, people were far more interested in politics and offices than discussing how a citizen body might practically work - every one of my many posts on how to get the Curia working ended the thread where I posted, meaning there was no facing the issues, with Calvin being the only person to show interest.
Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't around when the Speaker rank was active so I wasn't aware why it was repealed, I can see now it was basically a useless position.
There is absolutely no point in looking for more elected offices, votes, etc. They don't solve the fundamental problem, which is that the Curia needs people to show initiative to go out and do things, if it's to gain any trust from staff to devolve more responsibility. The recent awards committee is a good example of how to go about it. Within the boundaries set by the administration, and without protests about rights and stuff, it set off and did things quickly and decisively.
Yes, I agree. Less "revolutions" and martyrs, and more action. We on the awards committee tried our best to get things done as quickly and efficiently as possible. And thanks for the compliment BTW,(not just for myself but for the whole committee) counting up those nominations was tiring work!
People start and join mods because of one or more of the following: they want to play the game they make, they want to allow other people to play the game they make, they just enjoy doing whatever it is they contribute, and/or they want to receive some form of recognition. I'd posit a modders motivation rarely can't be classified as one or more of those four broad distinctions. Most probably are comprised of a varying combination of all four. Clearly I have no statistics to back these assertions besides my own experience, but it seems logically obvious.
With the Curia, I see the problem as comprised of various parts.
1) Lacking authority of purpose
2) Lacking motivational components
3) Lacking supportive procedures
4) Diminishing practical remit
5) Shifting active base
When I say the Curia lacks authority of purpose, what I mean is that it has an ambiguously defined role in the everyday operation of the site. The moderation branch maintains order, the technical branch maintains stability, the content branch maintains information, the tribunal maintains moderation integrity, and the hexagon council maintains all of the operative bodies on the site. Within the Curia the CdeC maintains Citizen standards, and the Curator maintains the legislative procedures. But what does the Curia maintain? The answer is nothing directly. Indirectly the Curia has the ability to affect any and every area of the site, but directly the Curia has no authority to independently approve or demand these initiatives. This is not to say that Hex has a habit of stepping on toes, or that the Curia should necessarily have independent authority, it's simply the state of affairs.
Were the Curia to completely disappear and all memory of it be erased tomorrow, it couldn't be said that it would have an appreciable effect on the operation of the site. This is due largely to the strong transfer of power to staff organs over the last few years, which has given the curia a diminishing practical remit. The result has been greater efficiency in day-to-day tasks, though consequently less enthusiasm from the Citizen body. When any Curial involvement in matters now relegated to a staff body are considered meddling, it doesn't take a genius to realize the result will be and has been stagnation. There are obviously many decentralized operations on the site that give it character, such as mods or competitions. But these are either outside Curial remit -- for example, even if every Citizen voted to add the Jedi Council faction to RTR, it isn't going to happen -- or have proven to be better accomplished through grassroots movements.
Part of the reason why things like the Picture of the Week competition or mods are better accomplished by the community at large than the Curia is due to a shifting active base. We have anywhere from 5,000 to 7,500 active members on a given day, and not even 100 active voters on Curial proposals(with one exception, the average is probably around 55). I'd guess that less than 50 people have volunteered to serve a Curial role such as CdeC, Magistrate, or Curator in the last year. This is due to the fundamental nature of the Citizen body, which is one of accolade and not of utility. There is no obligation to participate in Curial matters, nor should there be, and there is no regulation of membership to achieve a constant level of activity, nor should there be.
So it falls to the active Citizens at any given time to carve out a niche in the functioning of the site to help facilitate. The methods available to the Curia are lacking in supportive procedures to achieve either the same effectiveness of staff or the same initiative of the community at large. It wouldn't be an understatement to suggest that many staffers and modders are jaded by the seeming bureaucratic inefficiency the Curia operates under as a legislature. This has never been the fault of the Curia, since given the circumstances of Curial membership and the site as operating under a benevolent oligarchy, majority votes are the simplest and most plausible way to bring about consensus for change. I've yet to see a single opponent of the voting or inclusion methods become an adjutant of a more efficient means that works for the Curia.
So what we're stuck with then is a reasonably inefficient means to achieve ends, but the best means available to us without radical reform, which has never been proposed with any substantial plan of action. That leaves us with a somewhat disenchanted Citizen body which lacks the motivational components to produce desire and induce action. People always say that the Curia has become a medal factory, and that's likely the result of an inherent desire to furnish accolades. What are any Citizens here for at all if they didn't wish to be recognized for their contributions to the site? There's very few that can say they're woefully indifferent to the Citizen rank as an accolade and had entirely different motivations in applying.
We complain about this function of the Curia, and yet we're completely oblivious to the fact that without radical reform it's one feasible way we can harness the Curia to be a mover. If the Curia is disposed to accolades, why not utilize that disposition to bridge operational shortcomings in forwarding Curial initiatives? We have a medal for serving on every site body with the exception of the Tribunal(which I could not be more confused about), and involvement in the two main sectors of the site(Opifex/Phalera) and staff(Novus). What have we for Curialists? This post or any others I might make in the Curia, or any initiatives I may join, bring goodwill and maybe some rep as their recognition. Personally I don't have a problem with that, I have more than my fair share of accolades and simply enjoy participating.
Just the same, accolades are a motivating factor for many people, and it's not at all shallow to desire recognition, it's a basic human want(we could argue virtual semantics, but as any who post here have dedicated quite a bit of time to the site, I don't think any of us are in a position to play the 'get a life' card). Now, in addition to the approach of developing ways to recognize Curial involvement, it would be imperative that a better means be developed. The committees have the potential to serve this function, though a committee gives the impression of debate not action. Perhaps a more apt categorization would be 'task forces', since the function of such permanent or temporary organs would be to get certain things done.
With that in mind, Hex will need to play a part in emboldening the Curia if it's to play any significant role on the site ever again, rather than rebuking it for inefficiency. The Curia doesn't have the liberties Hex has, so obviously it will not operate as smoothly or get as much done; whenever that's brought up I want to bust out the dunce hat and Captain Obvious uniform. The Citizens will obviously need to be on board as well, in at least some capacity, or all we end up with is a procedure for something that is never invoked and becomes about as useful as filibuster.
In summation, if we want the Curia to be a mover then we need to: a) devise recognition/accolades for curial involvement and involvement in task initiatives, and b) come up with a means that ties in well with the existing equilibrium. I have some ideas concerning both of these, but I'll save that for a future post as this one is already pretty massive.
Last edited by Augustus Lucifer; November 10, 2009 at 07:22 AM.
AL's very in depth and informative post hits on many of the issues which hold back the Curia. I think the main reason, which AL high lighted, was the lack of clarity of purpose of the Curia. Just what exactly does it do? Nominally it is an advisory body, distilling the many opinions and desires of the citizenry and presenting a single opinion to the admins. De jure, it has become an aesthetic body, in two ways. One, it only seems to discuss and vote on aesthetics things about the site, i.e. presenting medals, changing default skin, changing the style of badges and separating or unifying certain forums.
I don't need to go over the reasons for the creation of the Curia, if you're posting here you already know why, but it seems that it has moved away from that being the representative body of those who have contributed to the site to one of merely symbolic importance. It has become the House of Lords. While it holds symbolic value, there is no real contribution made to the site by the institution. All of it's members have won election to it by contributions previously made. While it is important to recognise those, and thus create a more dedicated body from which to draw on for CdeC positions, staff positions and other positions, that does not justify the existence of the Curia.
I am becoming increasingly aware of the lack of purpose and power which the Curia has, and unless it can become an effective body, it seems to act as a dead weight on some reforms. I think I'll continue to push for a simple majority for decisions and amendments to pass, or failing that, the dissolution of the Curia and the passing of it's powers to the CdeC. As has been pointed out in the thread concerning political parties, the Curia hardly represents the wishes of the Citizens, especially considering that a tiny minority of them, sufficiently organised, can hold any vote to ransom. You may disagree with what I think will fix this horrid state of affairs, but it is impossible to argue that they don't exist, or that it doesn't need fixing.
Proud to be under the patronage of Calvin.
Patron of Lysimachus
This was, of course, always the main thing that motivated the majority of people to be active in the curia. New civitates would use it as a chance to get noticed, and old ones built up fairly large bases of support for any future elections.
I think you were promoted soley by election weren't you?
Elected Quaestor --> Elected Praetor (?) --> Elected Republican Consul
whereas I was:
Appointed Urbanis Legio --> Appointed Quaestor --> Appointed Praetor --> Appointed Imperial Consul
So we may have our biases.
But I don't think the Curia need have the same role in choosing who leads the site, now. When Sulla, and to a lesser extent Archer, were in charge, the Curia was a great way of representing the views of the active members to the distant admins, and the still more distant OgresNet. But now TWC is in the safe hands of Garb (and has been in the safe hands of imb) the benefits of Curial elections are small, and only their bad points remain - i.e. that civitates can't possibly know as much of the needs of the staff as the staff do themselves.
I think you were promoted soley by election weren't you?
Elected Quaestor --> Elected Praetor (?) --> Elected Republican Consul
I was, indeed. So I am biased.
I was actually not kidding though. The only thing that gave the Curia any responsibility, which would become self-perpetuating responsibility, was mod elections. There really isn't anything else for the Curia to do, is there? I think people are tired of handing out medals.
I was actually not kidding though. The only thing that gave the Curia any responsibility, which would become self-perpetuating responsibility, was mod elections. There really isn't anything else for the Curia to do, is there? I think people are tired of handing out medals.
The Curia can indeed offer advice on moderation forum rules and general moderation policies. I made a brief and botched attempt at it myself. I have not seen any interest in this sort of activity by the Curia though. Why would elected moderation be a better solution if there is no interest in what the posting rules even are?
Rather than moderation, I would have thought a periodic vote of retention as is often done with judges would be more appropriate than election. This is probably a bad idea though.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
I think the next person to use Calvin's name to justify something should have his account permabanned and his computer set on fire.
It was something he was interested in, to see the Curia make itself useful in a constructive way. See some of my old posts, either in the Curia main or the Proth (I can't remember where), where we discussed the practicalities of such.
My thoughts- it has been a long time since I posted anything in the Curia and longer since I have proposed any form of change. Since my retirement many moons ago I have taken the role of an observer and have taken note of shifting perspectives and the problems of the Curia. Having been here when the Curia was at the height of its power and usefulness I have an idea as to why the Curia is where it is today. In an age of stability the Curia has no one to fight against and its use as a rallying point against Ogres.net and indeed against some of its own creators has passed. In an age passed I argued that the power of the Curia was its ability to destroy as well as create, any administrator who attacked the Curia was running the real risk of intellectually damaging the site. When you take away the creative minds of the site then content and discussion go downhill. Without those TWC is doomed.
Some argue the Curia is not active enough and does not do enough for the site to merit power; some argue that it is not given a chance; others that it is too self serving to be given the chance. All are correct. What is clear, and always has to me, is that a constitution focused Curia is a useless one, the constitution serves only Civitates and one can propose amendment after amendment it will have no positive effect on the site. Until the Curia starts showing that it is actively trying to better the site then asking for power is selfish, irresponsible and unwise.
Thus I propose a change in direction; the Curia starts from scratch as a sort of workshop in all but name alone. It is allowed to keep its name and traditions, its self management and management of Citizens but this takes a backseat to its gradual aim of site improvement. We must look back to the requirement to become a Citizen that BorisPavlovGrozny put forward when he created the Curia and make that the foundation of our Identity. A Civitates is someone recognized and rewarded for providing a positive contribution to the site. Thus the Curia should be the engine, fuelled by the Civitates that churns out positive work for the site. Power is not something that is given, it is something earned. This leads me to my proposal.
The Hexagon, amongst themselves, formulate a report, every month they take a look at the site and see where things are going well and where things aren’t, they write these down and also include objectives which they think will make the site better. Every Hexagon member can write about their section. The Curia, being kept informed of how the site is doing, is responsible for carrying out those objectives and debating them in the thread. I will provide an example -
That’s a rough Draft, On December the 1st the Curator Publishes a report stating what the curia has achieved and does the same thing. The Curator and Pro Curator pool together all the ideas and criticisms brought forward in the Curia and formulate objectives. This is discussed in the prothalamus and published for Hexagon.
The Objectives on either end are non binding and serve only to, if fulfilled, make the relationship between Hexagon and the Curia productive and also serve to benefit the site and finally are a starting stone to increasing the Curias power, which it would have earned.
Last edited by Belisarius; November 14, 2009 at 06:35 AM.
Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
- Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54
My thoughts- it has been a long time since I posted anything in the Curia and longer since I have proposed any form of change. Since my retirement many moons ago I have taken the role of an observer and have taken note of shifting perspectives and the problems of the Curia. Having been here when the Curia was at the height of its power and usefulness I have an idea as to why the Curia is where it is today. In an age of stability the Curia has no one to fight against and its use as a rallying point against Ogres.net and indeed against some of its own creators has passed. In an age passed I argued that the power of the Curia was its ability to destroy as well as create, any administrator who attacked the Curia was running the real risk of intellectually damaging the site. When you take away the creative minds of the site then content and discussion go downhill. Without those TWC is doomed.
Some argue the Curia is not active enough and does not do enough for the site to merit power; some argue that it is not given a chance; others that it is too self serving to be given the chance. All are correct. What is clear, and always has to me, is that a constitution focused Curia is a useless one, the constitution serves only Civitates and one can propose amendment after amendment it will have no positive effect on the site. Until the Curia starts showing that it is actively trying to better the site then asking for power is selfish, irresponsible and unwise.
Thus I propose a change in direction; the Curia starts from scratch as a sort of workshop in all but name alone. It is allowed to keep its name and traditions, its self management and management of Citizens but this takes a backseat to its gradual aim of site improvement. We must look back to the requirement to become a Citizen that BorisPavlovGrozny put forward when he created the Curia and make that the foundation of our Identity. A Civitates is someone recognized and rewarded for providing a positive contribution to the site. Thus the Curia should be the engine, fuelled by the Civitates that churns out positive work for the site. Power is not something that is given, it is something earned. This leads me to my proposal.
The Hexagon, amongst themselves, formulate a report, every month they take a look at the site and see where things are going well and where things aren’t, they write these down and also include objectives which they think will make the site better. Every Hexagon member can write about their section. The Curia, being kept informed of how the site is doing, is responsible for carrying out those objectives and debating them in the thread. I will provide an example -
That’s a rough Draft, On December the 1st the Curator Publishes a report stating what the curia has achieved and does the same thing. The Curator and Pro Curator pool together all the ideas and criticisms brought forward in the Curia and formulate objectives. This is discussed in the prothalamus and published for Hexagon.
The Objectives on either end are non binding and serve only to, if fulfilled, make the relationship between Hexagon and the Curia productive and also serve to benefit the site and finally are a starting stone to increasing the Curias power, which it would have earned.
Let's be honest here, the number of citizens that would give a rats ass about this report I can probably count without having to use all my fingers and toes. Take a look at the one report that is prepared for the curia, the CdeC report. How many citizens actually read it? How many change who they vote for based on its content? I can tell you its practically no one. My first two months on CdeC I had no idea how to properly partake in the voting, so my first two reports had my participation at ~40% for a few weeks. Did anybody notice? No. Did I get fewer votes in my next CdeC election because I was a "non-participating" CdeC member? No, I was elected to my second term with an even higher percentage of votes, and not one question was asked about my attendance during those two months. This was the only report that tells the citizens anything about what CdeC does and can give non-CdeC citizens an insight into making sure the people who decide on who should be citizens are doing their jobs and no one gave a . If citizens aren't going to bothered to look after their own house, why should staff/hex make any effort to allow citizens to look after the neighbourhood?
The only thing this will accomplish is to create more work for hex/staff that is entirely and completely useless and a waste of staffs collective time.
Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan Click for my tools and tutorials
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein
Let's be honest here, the number of citizens that would give a rats ass about this report I can probably count without having to use all my fingers and toes. Take a look at the one report that is prepared for the curia, the CdeC report. How many citizens actually read it? How many change who they vote for based on its content? I can tell you its practically no one. My first two months on CdeC I had no idea how to properly partake in the voting, so my first two reports had my participation at ~40% for a few weeks. Did anybody notice? No. Did I get fewer votes in my next CdeC election because I was a "non-participating" CdeC member? No, I was elected to my second term with an even higher percentage of votes, and not one question was asked about my attendance during those two months. This was the only report that tells the citizens anything about what CdeC does and can give non-CdeC citizens an insight into making sure the people who decide on who should be citizens are doing their jobs and no one gave a . If citizens aren't going to bothered to look after their own house, why should staff/hex make any effort to allow citizens to look after the neighbourhood?
We have no way to appreciably show whether a voting record as displayed in the 'List of Reports' affects the votes. Empirically we can maybe see that a person gets reelected despite poor attendance and another with good attendance doesn't, but all that means is something else outweighed attendance. I'm on my fourth consecutive CdeC term now, and while I've had 100% attendance the last couple months and >80% I believe at all times, that doesn't really tell the whole story. For my part I think I've proven in the Antechamber and in the debate threads that I know my job and can perform it adequately, which I like to think has garnered me votes. On the other hand there's some who've had 100% voting records for a month or two, but don't get reelected, since that's not all it comes down to.
The issue of visibility is also important. Few enough people know we have an IRC Chat room, even though it has a spot on the toolbar which shows up on every page. Were the link to the list of reports included in the vote thread along with the link to the debate, it might receive more views. Just the same, more views doesn't mean we'll see a change in voting trend, since everything >75% attendance puts more weight on qualifications.
Originally Posted by Sqυιd
The only thing this will accomplish is to create more work for hex/staff that is entirely and completely useless and a waste of staffs collective time.
That all depends on the way it's handled and how big it's presented as. The example posted by Belisarius, even if doubled, would not be much to ask at all. In fact I'd venture that it would take less time to compile a report of that nature, especially if delegated properly, than it does to process a Tribunal or Praetorium appeal. And when it comes to appeals we need not even dwell on how massive a waste of time the vast majority are in every way except setting precedents or saving face. The nature of a report is that if it's delegated to the right person or people, it takes only as long to compile as it does to type the contained words.
This is because the people speaking for their areas should always have an awareness of the exact things being asked of them, and know implicitly what to put in such a report. If each Hex member has too much work, such that the Head of Content is doing much more than acting as manager for content, then maybe Hex needs more manpower. If not, then the Head of Content should be more than well equipped to handle a 5 minute write-up on lackings in the publications he deals with every single day.
We have no way to appreciably show whether a voting record as displayed in the 'List of Reports' affects the votes. Empirically we can maybe see that a person gets reelected despite poor attendance and another with good attendance doesn't, but all that means is something else outweighed attendance. I'm on my fourth consecutive CdeC term now, and while I've had 100% attendance the last couple months and >80% I believe at all times, that doesn't really tell the whole story. For my part I think I've proven in the Antechamber and in the debate threads that I know my job and can perform it adequately, which I like to think has garnered me votes. On the other hand there's some who've had 100% voting records for a month or two, but don't get reelected, since that's not all it comes down to.
My point wasn't how accurate the information is, but more how little the report is cared about.
The issue of visibility is also important. Few enough people know we have an IRC Chat room, even though it has a spot on the toolbar which shows up on every page. Were the link to the list of reports included in the vote thread along with the link to the debate, it might receive more views. Just the same, more views doesn't mean we'll see a change in voting trend, since everything >75% attendance puts more weight on qualifications.
More weight on qualifications is as it should be. Looking at the qualifications of a candidate is vital to being able to determine if they should get a position.
That all depends on the way it's handled and how big it's presented as. The example posted by Belisarius, even if doubled, would not be much to ask at all. In fact I'd venture that it would take less time to compile a report of that nature, especially if delegated properly, than it does to process a Tribunal or Praetorium appeal. And when it comes to appeals we need not even dwell on how massive a waste of time the vast majority are in every way except setting precedents or saving face. The nature of a report is that if it's delegated to the right person or people, it takes only as long to compile as it does to type the contained words.
Any amount of effort that is devoted to making the curia feel useful is a waste of resources. All these positions and branches are volunteer positions, and asking for even more those that fill them is a bad policy, even if it only seems trivial to those asking.
This is because the people speaking for their areas should always have an awareness of the exact things being asked of them, and know implicitly what to put in such a report. If each Hex member has too much work, such that the Head of Content is doing much more than acting as manager for content, then maybe Hex needs more manpower. If not, then the Head of Content should be more than well equipped to handle a 5 minute write-up on lackings in the publications he deals with every single day.
I agree that anybody in a position on staff should know exactly what their job entails and I know that making them right a report that very few will read and even less will act on is pointless. If/when there's a need for more moderators I don't need to tell the curia that we need more moderators before I realize that we actually need more moderators. Similarly, hex will realize when they need more manpower to do things and expand accordingly, which they have in recent months, it did not take a report to the curia for them to realize this.
Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan Click for my tools and tutorials
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein
I like Belisarius' suggestion, using the Curia as an arm of Hex, using it's large user base to get content which is time heavy to produce done. If there is some way of bringing it to the Curia in a way which they'd accept it, I'd be all for it. However, the Curia seems to be a very conservative body, and with the current voting rules, any change opposed by even a minority will find it's difficult to pass.
In regards to Hotspur's criticism, I was not using Calvin's name as a justification of anything, and I'd be ashamed to think that anyone would. Calvin was merely the inspiration for this thread, it was something which he wanted, and it was unfortunate that it was his only his passing which got me to start this thread.
Proud to be under the patronage of Calvin.
Patron of Lysimachus
Junius what you say is true, the curia is very conservative but as politics goes there are many ways of getting something changed. I feel the Curia is conservative because a minority of the civitates actually vote, and a smaller fraction know what they are voting about. If the Curia rejects the proposal for no reason like it has many recently then what can be done is use the rights given to us to implement it in a gray area. Hex happens to use their civitates rights to open a thread and the curator happens to do the same, its the beauty of politics
Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
- Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54
Curial Reform
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Nikos
. If citizens aren't going to bothered to look after their own house, why should staff/hex make any effort to allow citizens to look after the neighbourhood?
