Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Каие]

Useful Curia Links

The Constitution -- Curial Information and Reports -- Citizens, Awards and Nominations -- The Townhall -- SYMPOSIVM

RECORDS: Annals of Amendments -- Annals of Curial Decisions -- Annals of Curial Officer Elections -- Register of Medals Awarded by Vote of the Curia -- Citizen List

ARCHIVES: TWC's Living History Forum -- Inactive Curial Procedures -- Inactive Committees

Townhall - General Chat and Commentary

This thread serves as a place to voice general concerns, comments and remarks on any and all Curial proceedings and matters, including, but not limited to, elections, votes or tangents of proposal discussions. Please note that any kind of discussion related directly to a current proposal is to take place in the respective proposal thread.

[Heinz Guderian]

Townhall eh? I think this town needs a monorail.

RESIGN NOW YOU SUCK AT CURATOR AND DONT YOU DARE DELETE MY POST

[Belisarius]

Caps Thread title = Fail.

[Nazgûl Killer]

ROME, RESIGN! YOU'RE DOING A TERRIBLE JOB! WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THE CAPS TITLE!?



Just messing with you. This is actually a good idea.

[abbews]

You never said "Passed" on my application thread..

[Каие]

Ah yeah, that's because I moved it straight away, and you can't post anything in the Antechamber, and I couldn't be bothered moving it back, saying 'passed' then moving it back again.

[abbews]

Still, I feel that I get some special treatment, like I'm different from you guys

[Nazgûl Killer]

Still, I feel that I get some special treatment, like I'm different from you guys

Well, you are "Special"...

[Augustus Lucifer]

You can mark the Judge's Gavel proposal as having been moved to vote at your leisure, Mr. Curator.

[Justinian]

ROME IS A SOCIALIST AND IS BRAINWASHING OUR CLIENTS WITH HIS COMMIE PROPAGANDA!

THIS IS LIKE IN GULAG

[Halie Satanus]

This stickied thread has been created to allow a place for citizens to openly and freely scrutinise the Curator of the day's performance, and hold him (or her) to account on any issue. It'll be good for openness, accountability, and for the quality of the running of the Curia.

A good idea and I'm sure done in good faith, however you probably need to get this passed by the Curia.

suggest changes to the day-to-day bureaucracy of the Curia amongst other things.

A self fulfilling prophesy?.

Also, no spam and please keep it on topic.

That didn't last long.

[Каие]

I don't have to get this passed by the Curia. It's just a thread, which I stickied, for my own benefit.... because I've been really distracted of late, so I keep forgetting to do things and keep making mistakes in the things that I remember to do.. so this can act as quality control.

[Maverick]

Also, no spam and please keep it on topic.

That didn't last long.

I see what they did there.

[Nazgûl Killer]

I have a suggestion for you, Rome. How about instead of just one pro-curator, you get two? And give those two the same powers you have, so you can together do the stuff the Curia requires. To be honest, being a Curator seems like it's overwhelming; I'm not doubting your abilities and I'm sure you can handle it, but I also think you deserve a little more help.

[Viking Prince]

job application ^^^^

[Nazgûl Killer]

Oh dear god no. That job looks so tedious

[Legio]

whats the curia
sounds like some sort of rpg
anyway, i thought staff does everything

job application ^^^^

lol <3

[Acco]

This amendment needs to be hauled off to the Tabularium as the poll closed a few days ago. The thread prefix of this thread needs to be changed to 'Passed: Implemented' since Gigantus has received his Opifex award. Freddie needs his Phalera award, and the Medal Section Cleanup amendment needs to be added to the Constitution.

[Søren]

Rome nobody would deny you are doing a sterling job old bean, I doff my ti' fer tat sir, however, I was wondering if a proposal in the Curia might be a good idea about the citizenship application vote, reading some of the applications, I cant help feeling there is something not transparent in the voting process, for instance if certain allegations against a citizenship applicant were brought up by a member of the CdeC and the citizenship application failed because of it, who would know of it?, sometimes not the applicant as nobody can see the "failed" application ,and therefore the allegation brought against the applicant would "perhaps" be explained afterward by the patron or the curator, but that would of course be too late, the vote was found against citizenship, and the applicant would have to wait another month.
But what happens if the allegation could be proven to be false by the applicant or he could at least provide a satisfactory explanation, and the member of the CdeC who brought up the discrepancy could have been proven wrong or that the member of the CdeC had used the discrepancy in a bid to derail the citizenship vote even though as a moderator he had seen the discrepancies weeks prior but had not informed the applicant of them or explained how to correct them?(hypothetically speaking of course)
So might it not be an idea to let applicant defend themselves in the CdeC vote if there was such a case as this? I mean members of the CdeC should be held accountable for their discrepancies too surely? I see a bit of a loophole in the procedure? perhaps a proposal to let 'prospective citizens' at least defend themselves(if discrepancies were found early on in the vote and it is not to say every citizen applicant need have to defend himself or take part, only if there was a discrepancy) or offer information in the CdeC citizen application thread to ensure complete transparency?

I guess the main problem with that would be that if the failed member saw who voted against him/her, he/she might take it very personally, and have a bit of a vendetta against that CDeC member. Or if (hypothetically speaking of course) a moderator provided information which, if the candidate knew about it, would allow them to easily identify that moderator, the same result might occur. I think something like the scenario you fear is very unlikely to ever happen though, and thus the positives of such a proposal are outweighed by the negatives.

[Каие]

Rome nobody would deny you are doing a sterling job old bean

I certainly would.

I was wondering if a proposal in the Curia might be a good idea about the citizenship application vote, reading some of the applications, I cant help feeling there is something not transparent in the voting process, for instance if certain allegations against a citizenship applicant were brought up by a member of the CdeC and the citizenship application failed because of it, who would know of it?, sometimes not the applicant as nobody can see the "failed" application ,and therefore the allegation brought against the applicant would "perhaps" be explained afterward by the patron or the curator, but that would of course be too late, the vote was found against citizenship, and the applicant would have to wait another month.

But what happens if the allegation could be proven to be false by the applicant or he could at least provide a satisfactory explanation, and the member of the CdeC who brought up the discrepancy could have been proven wrong or that the member of the CdeC had used the discrepancy in a bid to derail the citizenship vote even though as a moderator he had seen the discrepancies weeks prior but had not informed the applicant of them or explained how to correct them?(hypothetically speaking of course)

So might it not be an idea to let applicant defend themselves in the CdeC vote if there was such a case as this? I mean members of the CdeC should be held accountable for their discrepancies too surely? I see a bit of a loophole in the procedure? perhaps a proposal to let 'prospective citizens' at least defend themselves(if discrepancies were found early on in the vote and it is not to say every citizen applicant need have to defend himself or take part, only if there was a discrepancy) or offer information in the CdeC citizen application thread to ensure complete transparency?

I just want to let you know that this isn't actually a matter for me or any future Curator, therefore is not really relevant to the point of this thread... but I will however answer your concerns and give you my opinion on the matter.

Since this is not a debate thread, I would ask that no one seeks to debate this post of Brig's and no arguments emerge, if you want to answer him, by all means I can move the thread to a new one and let the discussion happen there.

Brig, your idea is an interesting one and I suggest you open a thread in the Prothalmos section in order to gauge opinion and spark debate on the matter so you can come to a good wording for a bill.As I understand it, you seek a sitaution where an applicant should be able to see his own vote thread while it's in progress so that he may reply to any allegations? It's an interesting idea...

...but I will tell you that there does currently exist a provision whereby a vote can be delayed by the CdeC and Curator if they need certain information or seek clarification on a matter. I've done it before and recently, whereby the CdeC asked me to contact the patron and other members to seek clarification on a claim made by the applicant in his paragraph.

But anyway, you should take this point to the Prothalmos instead of debating it here, as this isn't the purpose of this thread.