Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Leonardo]

I didn't wanted to post this in the proposal thread, but I would like to say something about the observation I've of the constitution and how it is composed (it is not about how it is worded).

While reviewing this section of the Constitution I noticed that the text relating to Magistrates and Tribunes is missing from that area. I found it curiously in the Appeals section.

You know, sometimes when I read the constitution I find it a little confusing, I mean why is the Curial Office positions in Section 1 while the Elections is in Section 2.

And why isn't the Curia Forum (Section 2) in the same Section as the subforums (Section 3) in the Curia forum.

[Gaius Baltar]

I didn't wanted to post this in the proposal thread, but I would like to say something about the observation I've of the constitution and how it is composed (it is not about how it is worded).


You know, sometimes when I read the constitution I find it a little confusing, I mean why is the Curial Office positions in Section 1 while the Elections is in Section 2.

And why isn't the Curia Forum (Section 2) in the same Section as the subforums (Section 3) in the Curia forum.

The document needs an extensive makeover.

[Iskar]

You know, sometimes when I read the constitution I find it a little confusing, I mean why is the Curial Office positions in Section 1 while the Elections is in Section 2.

And why isn't the Curia Forum (Section 2) in the same Section as the subforums (Section 3) in the Curia forum.

What offices there are is an information concerning the Who? of the Curia, which is why it is in Section I together with Citizens. How elections work is a question of the What? and How? of the Curia, which is why it is in Section II together with the forum description and resolutions.

Section III is not about subforums but about everything that concerns disciplinary measures, nowadays only Ostraka and Magistrates. All subforums are listed in section II, article I together with the general explanation of the Curia forum.

The document needs an extensive makeover.

I hear this phrase with stunning regularity from people who are new to the Curia (not your case) or come back to it after a longer period of time. We've given the thing several makeovers in the past years and have at least turned it from an unintelligible conundrum to a moderately readable document with as little pseudo-legalese as possible. Of course one can always tweak this or polish that sentence, but in general I don't believe the content to be covered allows for an even more simplified document.

[Gaius Baltar]

I hear this phrase with stunning regularity from people who are new to the Curia (not your case) or come back to it after a longer period of time. We've given the thing several makeovers in the past years and have at least turned it from an unintelligible conundrum to a moderately readable document with as little pseudo-legalese as possible. Of course one can always tweak this or polish that sentence, but in general I don't believe the content to be covered allows for an even more simplified document

I don't agree, for example, the extensive use of footnotes unnecessarily complicated the reading of the document. Their is some redundancy between sections, and of course there is the small matter of the missing Tribunal material.

I know that several members have created PDF versions of the document, and that is a good start.

[PikeStance]

I hear this phrase with stunning regularity from people who are new to the Curia (not your case) or come back to it after a longer period of time. We've given the thing several makeovers in the past years and have at least turned it from an unintelligible conundrum to a moderately readable document with as little pseudo-legalese as possible. Of course one can always tweak this or polish that sentence, but in general I don't believe the content to be covered allows for an even more simplified document.

I know it was your intention to do this and I know you spent a great deal of time working on it. However, the footnote was not the best idea. If we wanted something easily understood we should had created a simpler document to be sent to new citizens and have a "Constitution" that is less confusing.

I don't agree, for example, the extensive use of footnotes unnecessarily complicated the reading of the document. Their is some redundancy between sections, and of course there is the small matter of the missing Tribunal material.

I know that several members have created PDF versions of the document, and that is a good start.

I know Akar has one that was promising when he shared it with me some time ago.

[Iskar]

I don't agree, for example, the extensive use of footnotes unnecessarily complicated the reading of the document. Their is some redundancy between sections, and of course there is the small matter of the missing Tribunal material.

I know that several members have created PDF versions of the document, and that is a good start.

The very point of the footnotes is that you do not need to read them to get the general facts about how the Curia works and what it is. The footnotes are there only so those occupied with procedure have a reference to go back to. The text of the Constitution without the footnotes should be perfectly readable. Previously all procedural specifications and exceptions were mingled together with statements of principle and structure, so noone except a few hardcore legalists was able or willing to navigate the document.

If there is redundancy, point it out, we shall vanquish it.

The missing paragraph is, as I said, only a rather recent maintenance oversight that the Consul/Censores can easily take care of.

[Leonardo]

The document needs an extensive makeover.

Not necessarily a total makeover, but more a logical presentation and that could be like this.

Section 1

• Citizenship
• The Curia and its subforum

Section 2

• Curial Offices
• Elections

Section 3 could cover other things not being included in the two first sections.



Also, the OP needs to be edited and change the "Article I. The Triumvirate and Referrals" to "Article I. Ostraka" in Section 3 (why is it in a separate section? Unless it has to do with the removed citizen referrals).

[Cope]

The very point of the footnotes is that you do not need to read them to get the general facts about how the Curia works and what it is. The footnotes are there only so those occupied with procedure have a reference to go back to. The text of the Constitution without the footnotes should be perfectly readable. Previously all procedural specifications and exceptions were mingled together with statements of principle and structure, so noone except a few hardcore legalists was able or willing to navigate the document.

If there is redundancy, point it out, we shall vanquish it.

The missing paragraph is, as I said, only a rather recent maintenance oversight that the Consul/Censores can easily take care of.

Working from Akar's pdf, I wrote up a version of the Constitution which simplified the language and integrated the footnotes into the main body of the text. Article I was typed up onto the forums recently, but no one seemed interested.

See here.

[Flinn]

Working from Akar's pdf, I wrote up a version of the Constitution which simplified the language and integrated the footnotes into the main body of the text. Article I was typed up onto the forums recently, but no one seemed interested.

See here.

you need to put up and amendment for that, IIRC I already told you, didn't I?

[Cope]

you need to put up and amendment for that, IIRC I already told you, didn't I?

The text itself needs adjustments prior to being voted on (parts marked in red). I was hoping for some input from other users, but as I said, no one seems interested.

[Iskar]

Working from Akar's pdf, I wrote up a version of the Constitution which simplified the language and integrated the footnotes into the main body of the text. Article I was typed up onto the forums recently, but no one seemed interested.

See here.

Is that really more readable with all the procedural blah blah and special case regulations mingled into the main text?

[Cope]

Is that really more readable with all the procedural blah blah and special case regulations mingled into the main text?

That is a matter of personal preference. I broke it down into specific paragraphs and simplified the language to make it easier to read and cite. It is worth noting that people almost always refer to the Constitution for the specifics, not because they're looking for a general understanding of what the TWC is about.

I actually thought that the footnotes system was well done, but there seemed to be an interest in getting rid of it. The reduction of the language was my main goal, however.

[Akar]

I have no issues understanding the constitution as it is right now and personally never refer to either my PDF version or anyone else's, but I can see why not having the footnotes would be a more attractive option for some. As it is, I have no problems with it and think it's pretty well done.

[Gaius Baltar]

Not necessarily a total makeover, but more a logical presentation and that could be like this.

Section 1

• Citizenship
• The Curia and its subforum

Section 2

• Curial Offices
• Elections

Section 3 could cover other things not being included in the two first sections.



Also, the OP needs to be edited and change the "Article I. The Triumvirate and Referrals" to "Article I. Ostraka" in Section 3 (why is it in a separate section? Unless it has to do with the removed citizen referrals).

I would also prefer a different organizational scheme, for example, I would move the Ostrakon material out of the Magistrates and Tribunal area.

I would also note that the Tribunal material has been reinserted into the text, however, the footnote numbering doesn't match.

Also, the portions of the Constitution posted in the "Guide to the Tribunal" area of the "Infractions and Appeals" Forum was last updated in 2016.

Moreover, I would note that the Tribunal has been functioning without the correct text in the Constitution or in the "Guide to the Tribunal" areas. AND, no one has noticed either, for at least several months with regard to the Constitution and 5 YEARS for the Guide material.

[King Athelstan]

The very point of the footnotes is that you do not need to read them to get the general facts about how the Curia works and what it is. The footnotes are there only so those occupied with procedure have a reference to go back to. The text of the Constitution without the footnotes should be perfectly readable. Previously all procedural specifications and exceptions were mingled together with statements of principle and structure, so noone except a few hardcore legalists was able or willing to navigate the document.

If there is redundancy, point it out, we shall vanquish it.

The missing paragraph is, as I said, only a rather recent maintenance oversight that the Consul/Censores can easily take care of.

Has been taken care of

I can also add that Legio Italica stands as re-elected Magistrate!

[Gaius Baltar]

There is an award proposal for a deserving modder (MIB) in the Prothalamus, link is here!

[Gaius Baltar]

Congratulations Cope on his narrow victory!

However, the results should be visible at this point.

[Turkafinwë]

Indeed though narrow? The results are right here.

[PikeStance]

The vote is too widespread, regularities are there, I will initiate a COUP!

[Turkafinwë]

Oh my?! A coup. Not on my watch! Maybe for the right price.