Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Iskar]

Voting for citizens is not about getting more participants for the Curia (that would indeed be self-referential) but about awarding people for contributions to the site. That is not self-referential.
If some of those citizenised decide to get involved in the Curia then that is a nice side-effect, but by no means the actual goal of the process.

The recent amendment would have done away with a structure that may be rather daunting to prospective candidates in that it threatens them with increased scrutiny of their behaviour as a sarcastically twisted "reward" for their contributions. In fact you have just managed to convince me that only minimal disciplinary safeguards (such as removal of citizenship on site suspension) should be maintained.
That would in fact remove one barrier for increased application numbers on the side of the candidates. I do not know about the side of the patrons, but useful guidelines for applications might go a long way. Applications tend to become more and more pompous to impress the electorate in comparison to the last application. This is probably nothing viable for rigid codification in the Constitution, but a proactive Curator could instigate a debate in the Curia that might produce a short, comprehensive guide to patronisation, perhaps just half a page, that takes the daunting pompousness out of the process. (Of course people who have the time and like it can still file magnificently crafted applications, but our focus should be on the candidate and not his application.)

[PikeStance]

Voting for citizens is not about getting more participants for the Curia (that would indeed be self-referential) but about awarding people for contributions to the site. That is not self-referential.
If some of those citizenised decide to get involved in the Curia then that is a nice side-effect, but by no means the actual goal of the process.

Ok, this is now circular. I think the discussion deserves something better than; "it isn't"

Voting for citizens is not about getting more participants for the Curia (that would indeed be self-referential).....but a proactive Curator could instigate a debate in the Curia

These statements seemed contradictory to me. Wouldn't a Curator whose role is more than just running thr day to day operation of the Curia be self- referential?

The recent amendment would have done away with a structure that may be rather daunting to prospective candidates in that it threatens them with increased scrutiny of their behaviour as a sarcastically twisted "reward" for their contributions. In fact you have just managed to convince me that only minimal disciplinary safeguards (such as removal of citizenship on site suspension) should be maintained.

I would not be opposed to any system that gives minimal warning to allow the citizen an opportunity to change his ways and the Curia decides on removal of ranks.
However,

That would in fact remove one barrier for increased application numbers on the side of the candidates.

I do not think removal of elections or changing the disciplinary system will increase applications. The problem is the lack of patrons compared to the past. Citizens are choosing to not patronize anyone.
I would entertain any ideas that would help promote citizens to patronize members for citizenship. I can think of a half dozen of members who could be citizens. But, I do not know them well. That is I do not regularly interact with them. It would be best if a citizens who does to patronize them. Unfortunately, they do not.

I do not think keeping or removing Censors will change this. I do know less elections would definitely give people less of a reason to visit. I think it is also important to note that patronizing was declining prior to the removal of the CdeC and participation in the Curia was as well. Elections would not mean more participation. This part I think we can both agree on. The problem is; what will?

I do not know about the side of the patrons, but useful guidelines for applications might go a long way. Applications tend to become more and more pompous to impress the electorate in comparison to the last application. This is probably nothing viable for rigid codification in the Constitution, but a proactive Curator could instigate a debate in the Curia that might produce a short, comprehensive guide to patronisation, perhaps just half a page, that takes the daunting pompousness out of the process. (Of course people who have the time and like it can still file magnificently crafted applications, but our focus should be on the candidate and not his application.)

I noticed whenever there is an application and the member has a huge amount of contribution, then it takes awhile for something less than that to apply. There is a member I know for sure has enough contribution to be a citizen, but this person feels that they do not have enough. I spend several PMs trying to convince this person. However, in the end, this person (as I stated above) wold rather be patronize by someone that knows them better than I do.

We probably should update the patronization procedure. I do not think we need a "proactive Curator."

[mishkin]

Pike, sometimes I get lost reading your posts, maybe other people have the same problem. Could you try to lower your level and try to be more specific/pragmatic?

[Aneirin]

I noticed whenever there is an application and the member has a huge amount of contribution, then it takes awhile for something less than that to apply. There is a member I know for sure has enough contribution to be a citizen, but this person feels that they do not have enough. I spend several PMs trying to convince this person. However, in the end, this person (as I stated above) wold rather be patronize by someone that knows them better than I do.

We probably should update the patronization procedure. I do not think we need a "proactive Curator."

Sorry, for gatecrashing your discussion
So you mean the patronization procedure is to time-consuming for patron as well as the patronized?
The question would be what is the most time-consuming part of an application?

[Flinn]

Applications tend to become more and more pompous to impress the electorate in comparison to the last application. This is probably nothing viable for rigid codification in the Constitution, but a proactive Curator could instigate a debate in the Curia that might produce a short, comprehensive guide to patronisation, perhaps just half a page, that takes the daunting pompousness out of the process. (Of course people who have the time and like it can still file magnificently crafted applications, but our focus should be on the candidate and not his application.)

well it depends on the patron I guess; I like well crated applications, because I think a candidate and a patron should do their best to present in total the contributions of the applicant, for various reasons, not least the fact that it will remain in the archives and will be a sort of "show" about who the member is. I don't believe at all that this is affecting at all the numbers of applications (I'm following 4 new potential citizens myself in these weeks), the problem is, if anything, that too little citizens are looking around for new clients. Finlader's last two applications weren't nothing special in terms of presentation, still his candidates made their way through citizenship without problems at all.

As for me I'm still convinced that there is too much concern about the Curia activity, and too little interest in doing things with the people that are actually interested in it; from outside what the new citizens/soon to be applicants can see if they check the fora is a small bunch of people arguing on everything just because they can, heck it looks like the D&D here around; don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad about in general, still I believe that this is not helping at all new citizens to remain active here.. apart from Iskar and Veteraan (EDIT: and Neadal that just jumped in ) NONE of the new citizens that have been appointed during the last 12 months have put their nose again in the Curia, have you asked yourself why? How many new citizens during this period have put forth their own new candidates??
Not everybody I guess has time to read all the lines and no one would love to be butchered by "aggressivity" in general, this should not be a place of uncertainty and dread, where even an "experienced" member like me has to weight every single word he writes, lest he will be "accused" of something or even referred, not to speak about people that offer his free time to give a free service to others and more than often only gets hatred and a big finger pointed at him.. for sure the importance of the Curia does not reside on the positions it offers (such as Curators or Magistrates I mean), but it resides in the idea of a place of greater maturity and welcoming and positivity in general, where people shares in simplicity and with the respect of others' position their point of view, IMO.
If anything has to be changed, is the attitude and nothing else.

I'm sorry for the rant, I tried to be friendly everytime I could because I believe in a healthier Curia, still it seems to be that the more the time passes the harder the things are and the harsher the reactions of people are (in general); I can't witness how it was before and maybe I'm not the best citizen to judge the situation (at least in terms of time spent here), still I've plenty of experience myself in RL and what I wrote is what I feel, very straightly.. as speculative as it might be, I take the responsibility to say that most probably the same feeling is shared by many others.
Not addressed to anyone in particular, do whatever you like with my view, still hoping to rise some thoughts and a bit of self-criticism.. meh how we lack wit and irony in here

[mishkin]

About the atmosphere in the curia, certain users are more aggressive than others and certain attitudes are more bearable than others (and we all are only human with our characters and our opinions about what is hurtful and what not). This year there has been no citizen referrals. (Edit: one citizen referral, January 02, 2015)

[Omnipotent-Q]

@Q: The discussion lasted three weeks until the vote was scheduled and the first draft went up two weeks before the vote. Is that not enough time to consider the issue?
Anyway, I'll be back with the amendment in 27 days and then we can discuss it at length and consider the remaining concerns, which by then I would be rather happy to actually hear before the vote. If six out of 15 people reject the amendment then that means that obivously there are concerns and I'd always prefer to hear them and seek a solution rather than ignore them because three people decided to agree with me on the current draft.

Although I voted yes to the amendment, I suspect those who didn't believe a change isn't required. Two weeks is normally enough, but you've got to take context into account with these things and the number of changes was quite large in text form and you have to think about how changes affect other parts of the document. A little longer to consider the final piece might have increased the probablity of it passing. I'm not saying it was a must or two weeks wasn't enough time, merely that leaving it a bit longer strategically might have picked up straddling votes and passers-by, increasing the probablity of a pass. Something to keep in mind for the second serve I think.

[Radzeer]

Funny when I was proactive, i was told that I should had been more passive.

Yeah, it depends on what do you do when you are proactive.

[Iskar]

@Flinn: Thanks for that view. You probably pinpointed the central problem. I will have to think about that.
As for patronisation I must admit that for the first months I did not feel "established" enough to even think about patronising new candidates. Once I started looking for prospective candidates it turned out that those people I asked (mostly debaters, as that is the area I frequent) were usually not interested in the Curia. Maybe it is easier with modders, also because a modding application is somewhat more straightforward to craft than a debating application where you have to actually find the prime posts of a debater amidst probably several thousands, because you cannot expect the Citizenry to read through everything the candidate wrote...

Although I voted yes to the amendment, I suspect those who didn't believe a change isn't required. Two weeks is normally enough, but you've got to take context into account with these things and the number of changes was quite large in text form and you have to think about how changes affect other parts of the document. A little longer to consider the final piece might have increased the probablity of it passing. I'm not saying it was a must or two weeks wasn't enough time, merely that leaving it a bit longer strategically might have picked up straddling votes and passers-by, increasing the probablity of a pass. Something to keep in mind for the second serve I think.

I see, thanks. Will keep that in mind. Once you're strongly involved into something cognitively it becomes hard to see how others might struggle to see through the thicket of changes and wordings.

[PikeStance]

Pike, sometimes I get lost reading your posts, maybe other people have the same problem. Could you try to lower your level and try to be more specific/pragmatic?

To be honest, whenever I respond to these request, you either say I am evading the question or I am being condescending. It is very frustrating. My wife is a non native speaker and she has never accused me of this. My best guess is that your animosity towards me stems from this false perception. In every case I have honestly attempted to answer any of your questions, but it has always made things worse.

Anyway, I will make an attempt...please do not read anything negative or derogatory, I am making an honest and sincere attempt

My Original statement (I am assuming this is what you were referring to)

Voting for citizenship is self- referential. You are adding new members to your own group. The same is true for large awards and any awards for that matter. The only possible exception would be changes to the site in general in which the Curia gain no advantage. A linkage could be made however, if you argue that the Curia is the "heart and soul" of the site. If you argue that citizens are the role- model of the site, then any suggestions made by the Curia whether or not it directly benefits the Curia thus benefits the interested members. I think what is missed with the citizenship application is more than just numbers. From 2009- 2011 there were large numbers of people given citizenship. Many of these members were active. Many of them are no longer active in the Curia. These citizens were "replaced" by a much smaller pool of citizens. The "pool" is getting smaller and smaller. The irony is the numbers should actually be increasing, not decreasing. The question is ask is why? Would your amendment address the answer to the question? No. If anything, it will give people less reason to even visit the Curia. Cynically, if the goal is to create a barren, less interesting Curia, therefore less of a liability to patronize potential citizens, then we are on the right track. Seriously, endless debate on constitutional issues or VonC's will not bring greater participation. BTW, if you doubt the application as a factor, the voting participation has also steadily dropped in correlation to the number of applicants. This is what needs to be address.

If you recall earlier I made a post illustrating the dramatic drop in citizenship applications. Also consider, during the discussion for the removal of the CdeC, I also illustrated the drop in both the number of votes and number of people willing to run for CdeC. Early on both the number of votes and number of applicants were high. Over time, this number dropped. I have not checked amendment voting or decision voting. I suspect a similar type numbers. My Thesis is basically that the Curia has been slowly dying for at least the past 3-5 years. I cannot prove this yet, but the evidence I have collected seems to suggest this. My thesis also argues that the drop in citizenship application preceded the slow drop in Curia participation.

Another factor to consider is the percentage of the total new citizens and citizens who actively participated in the Curia. It would be interesting to determine if this percentage dropped as well.

So, if my thesis is correct, the problem is the lack of applicants for citizenship.

If you recall I made a number of suggestions with the intent of revitalizing the Curia. They are; Historical Community, Small Communities, D & D Community Initiative, and I strongly supported (actually AL beat me to it) the Modding Community. The "Thesis" I was operating under is that there have been a quantum shift in what people wanted in the site. Members interest have been strongly associated with their specific area of contribution. I am guessing this is what you meant by "anti- Curia." One of the criticism of my ideas is that this would destroy the Curia. My goal was to revitalize it by turning the Curia into a "hub" of the site. The idea was that a interest specific community would promote greater interest and this would lead for more people (a greater percentage of citizens) to participate in general curia affairs. If I had made an error is that I had not realized that citizenship applications had dropped dramatically over the years. Ironically, it may suggest that this is the best route to take. People may be more interested in being citizens if it is directly related to their area of interest.

Another issue raised on my previous post concerned the perception of the Curia. It is viewed with indifference and disdain by citizens and members alike. This is due to the ceaseless amendments and petty bickering that happens are too often within the Curia. This place isn't fun! No one wants to be conceited or continuous maligned for the slightest mistake. This can be a very unforgiving place. This perception needs to change if there is any hope of recovering the past glories. It would nice if the Symposium were to get "overused" for awhile while the Prothalamos become a forgotten place. On teams forum, we are 4-6 and we just fired our Defensive Coordinator, and, as I read through the thread, there were serious post and hilarious posts. It was fun, informative and engaging. People here are too serious about things that may not last very long. I won't say I am innocent, because I am as much part of this community as anyone else is.

We can all learn something from Flinn's post

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

well it depends on the patron I guess; I like well crated applications, because I think a candidate and a patron should do their best to present in total the contributions of the applicant, for various reasons, not least the fact that it will remain in the archives and will be a sort of "show" about who the member is. I don't believe at all that this is affecting at all the numbers of applications (I'm following 4 new potential citizens myself in these weeks), the problem is, if anything, that too little citizens are looking around for new clients. Finlader's last two applications weren't nothing special in terms of presentation, still his candidates made their way through citizenship without problems at all.

As for me I'm still convinced that there is too much concern about the Curia activity, and too little interest in doing things with the people that are actually interested in it; from outside what the new citizens/soon to be applicants can see if they check the fora is a small bunch of people arguing on everything just because they can, heck it looks like the D&D here around; don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad about in general, still I believe that this is not helping at all new citizens to remain active here.. apart from Iskar and Veteraan (EDIT: and Neadal that just jumped in ) NONE of the new citizens that have been appointed during the last 12 months have put their nose again in the Curia, have you asked yourself why? How many new citizens during this period have put forth their own new candidates??
Not everybody I guess has time to read all the lines and no one would love to be butchered by "aggressivity" in general, this should not be a place of uncertainty and dread, where even an "experienced" member like me has to weight every single word he writes, lest he will be "accused" of something or even referred, not to speak about people that offer his free time to give a free service to others and more than often only gets hatred and a big finger pointed at him.. for sure the importance of the Curia does not reside on the positions it offers (such as Curators or Magistrates I mean), but it resides in the idea of a place of greater maturity and welcoming and positivity in general, where people shares in simplicity and with the respect of others' position their point of view, IMO.
If anything has to be changed, is the attitude and nothing else.

I'm sorry for the rant, I tried to be friendly everytime I could because I believe in a healthier Curia, still it seems to be that the more the time passes the harder the things are and the harsher the reactions of people are (in general); I can't witness how it was before and maybe I'm not the best citizen to judge the situation (at least in terms of time spent here), still I've plenty of experience myself in RL and what I wrote is what I feel, very straightly.. as speculative as it might be, I take the responsibility to say that most probably the same feeling is shared by many others.
Not addressed to anyone in particular, do whatever you like with my view, still hoping to rise some thoughts and a bit of self-criticism.. meh how we lack wit and irony in here

Ok, I hope this sums it up better.

Sorry, for gatecrashing your discussion
So you mean the patronization procedure is to time-consuming for patron as well as the patronized?
The question would be what is the most time-consuming part of an application?

I wish I knew the answer. I think it goes deeper than this TBH.

About the atmosphere in the curia, certain users are more aggressive than others and certain attitudes are more bearable than others (and we all are only human with our characters and our opinions about what is hurtful and what not). This year there has been no citizen referrals. (Edit: one citizen referral, January 02, 2015)

TBH, I think people have been assigning a certain attitude to my post and they act accordingly. Unfortunately, I responded in kind. Recently, I have made a concerted effort to just ignore these posts (assumptions).

@Flinn: Thanks for that view. You probably pinpointed the central problem. I will have to think about that.
As for patronisation I must admit that for the first months I did not feel "established" enough to even think about patronising new candidates. Once I started looking for prospective candidates it turned out that those people I asked (mostly debaters, as that is the area I frequent) were usually not interested in the Curia. Maybe it is easier with modders, also because a modding application is somewhat more straightforward to craft than a debating application where you have to actually find the prime posts of a debater amidst probably several thousands, because you cannot expect the Citizenry to read through everything the candidate wrote...
I see, thanks. Will keep that in mind. Once you're strongly involved into something cognitively it becomes hard to see how others might struggle to see through the thicket of changes and wordings.

I think there is a three month waiting period. However, I think by now you are more than ready! I look forward to your first applicant!

[mishkin]

Pike, sometimes I get lost reading your posts, maybe other people have the same problem. Could you try to lower your level and try to be more specific/pragmatic?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To be honest, whenever I respond to these request, you either say I am evading the question or I am being condescending. It is very frustrating. My wife is a non native speaker and she has never accused me of this. My best guess is that your animosity towards me stems from this false perception. In every case I have honestly attempted to answer any of your questions, but it has always made things worse.

Anyway, I will make an attempt...please do not read anything negative or derogatory, I am making an honest and sincere attempt


If you recall earlier I made a post illustrating the dramatic drop in citizenship applications. Also consider, during the discussion for the removal of the CdeC, I also illustrated the drop in both the number of votes and number of people willing to run for CdeC. Early on both the number of votes and number of applicants were high. Over time, this number dropped. I have not checked amendment voting or decision voting. I suspect a similar type numbers. My Thesis is basically that the Curia has been slowly dying for at least the past 3-5 years. I cannot prove this yet, but the evidence I have collected seems to suggest this. My thesis also argues that the drop in citizenship application preceded the slow drop in Curia participation.

Another factor to consider is the percentage of the total new citizens and citizens who actively participated in the Curia. It would be interesting to determine if this percentage dropped as well.

So, if my thesis is correct, the problem is the lack of applicants for citizenship.

If you recall I made a number of suggestions with the intent of revitalizing the Curia. They are; Historical Community, Small Communities, D & D Community Initiative, and I strongly supported (actually AL beat me to it) the Modding Community. The "Thesis" I was operating under is that there have been a quantum shift in what people wanted in the site. Members interest have been strongly associated with their specific area of contribution. I am guessing this is what you meant by "anti- Curia." One of the criticism of my ideas is that this would destroy the Curia. My goal was to revitalize it by turning the Curia into a "hub" of the site. The idea was that a interest specific community would promote greater interest and this would lead for more people (a greater percentage of citizens) to participate in general curia affairs. If I had made an error is that I had not realized that citizenship applications had dropped dramatically over the years. Ironically, it may suggest that this is the best route to take. People may be more interested in being citizens if it is directly related to their area of interest.

Another issue raised on my previous post concerned the perception of the Curia. It is viewed with indifference and disdain by citizens and members alike. This is due to the ceaseless amendments and petty bickering that happens are too often within the Curia. This place isn't fun! No one wants to be conceited or continuous maligned for the slightest mistake. This can be a very unforgiving place. This perception needs to change if there is any hope of recovering the past glories. It would nice if the Symposium were to get "overused" for awhile while the Prothalamos become a forgotten place. On teams forum, we are 4-6 and we just fired our Defensive Coordinator, and, as I read through the thread, there were serious post and hilarious posts. It was fun, informative and engaging. People here are too serious about things that may not last very long. I won't say I am innocent, because I am as much part of this community as anyone else is.

We can all learn something from Flinn's post

Thanks. (I will reply later after a few coffees).

- Revitalization of the curia

Proceed to relaunch your ideas (micro communities) / ammendments. Honestly I do not see how that can revitalize the Curia. We will see.

We must patronize who deserves it (because he deserves it, not to recruit curialists), but this will not solve the problem in my opinion. The Curia (not talking about the positions) is a bit flashy "work". Amendments (usually boring and/or endless discussions), obviously deserved rewards (medals, citizenship), elections with few candidates and a VonC every now and then. Who can be attracted by this? A couple of guys willing to help, a couple of guys looking for e-power, and a couple of guys who love to create controversy. You know what I think attracted more people to the Curia/Citizenship? The elitism we got rid of. We could revitalize the Curia with that old elitism, but personally I am content with the honest people working to better this thing we have. In the end probably things are as they should, and are not so bad.

Sincerely:

mishkin the wise.

[Flinn]

... were usually not interested in the Curia.

You can't imagine how many people I heard saying this (I mean lads I approched about citizenship), and that's the reason of my post above actually. Even those who showed interest clearly stated, for the most part, that they are little interested in Curia but of course will accept the reward of citizenship if they are considered worthy.. once more, that's just my view and my experience, still I'm sure I'm not the only one who faced similar answers from potential clients

We can all learn something from Flinn's post

rising a bit of thoughts is its purpose; mostly I'm concerned about what is the image of the Curia that anyone has.. as a mean to reward contributors with citizenship and other awards it still rocks, but as a mean to involve and keep people interested in the site it utterly fails, IMO. It does not offer anything from this point of view (at least nothing of my personal likings); whether it is intended to be so or not I can't surely tell, basically I believe it can be BOTH and I believe it was so in the past.
Enough of this anyway, as I can't propose a way to improve this I have to accept this fact and move on.

About the atmosphere in the curia, certain users are more aggressive than others and certain attitudes are more bearable than others (and we all are only human with our characters and our opinions about what is hurtful and what not). This year there has been no citizen referrals. (Edit: one citizen referral, January 02, 2015)

Surely we are all different, and I agree that there are various degrees of "aggressivity" and each of us reacts differently. I'm not the softer man you can meet (having lived as a business man for 9 years now, most of which during the economical crysis), still I would prefer a bit calmer and softer tones, for the enjoyment of everybody involved in the Curia. Sometimes it is better to let it go I guess

EDIT:

You know what I think attracted more people to the Curia/Citizenship? The elitism we got rid of.

I was thinking the same just yesterday, but in my case it's just a sensation you know, so I might perfectly be wrong about

[Veteraan]

Elitism (as vague as that term is) would surely make me "leave" the Curia part of the forum. So would an increase in "roleplaying". But it might attract others that are interested in it.
It would be a shame though to leave voting on citizenship and awards to "elitist roleplayers" IMO.

What I would like to see happening most is that we can think of a way to attract more citizens to actually vote on awards and citizen applications. This without them having to visit the Curia for anything else. Having votes where about 15 to 25 people participate makes those who do take part too important.

[Aneirin]

Well, I am not a very frequent poster in the Curia.. anyway the lack of participation, as well as, the small amount of new applicants for citizenry is obvious.
So if I may suggest that we should consider and determine our problems, maybe in an kind of extra thread, so that we have certain list of what is not convenient at the time.

Next step would be, that we discuss every point of the list and hopefully solve it step by step, rather than debating on and on?

[PikeStance]

The so- called removal of "elitism" in the Curia is a recent movement and mostly incomplete one at that, The decline of the Curia goes back years. It is only noticeable now because we have, apparently, hit the proverbial "rock bottom."
I would guess that 2016 would be another year of patronages in the 20s with elections being at or below 20 as well. After 2016, I can only guess. It would depend on what we decide to do.

In a private conversation; Bethen made a good point about creating a sense of fraternity. This was reiterated by Flinn. It will probably take just that; a real community based on a common goal than the current rivalries and internal conflict that dominate the current Curia.

[mishkin]

Well, I am not a very frequent poster in the Curia.. anyway the lack of participation, as well as, the small amount of new applicants for citizenry is obvious.
So if I may suggest that we should consider and determine our problems, maybe in an kind of extra thread, so that we have certain list of what is not convenient at the time.

Next step would be, that we discuss every point of the list and hopefully solve it step by step, rather than debating on and on?

Son of Aikanar, brother of Iskar *
(Vets idea is very interesting in my opinion)

In a private conversation; Bethen(court)? made a good point about creating a sense of fraternity. This was reiterated by Flinn. It will probably take just that; a real community based on a common goal than the current rivalries and internal conflict that dominate the current Curia.

- We all want to be nice and work with friends in a happy environment. Yes. How do you think we can achieve that?
- Define that common goal. (the maintenance and improvement of a system based on the concept of citizenship?).

*Shall we continue in a new thread?

About participation, there is an old failed ammendment by my good old friend Koultouras where he asked for a system through which alert citizens (those who so wish) about new votations (simply a guy multi-messaging, if I recall clearly).

[Flinn]

Elitism (as vague as that term is) would surely make me "leave" the Curia part of the forum. So would an increase in "roleplaying". But it might attract others that are interested in it.
It would be a shame though to leave voting on citizenship and awards to "elitist roleplayers" IMO.

What I would like to see happening most is that we can think of a way to attract more citizens to actually vote on awards and citizen applications. This without them having to visit the Curia for anything else. Having votes where about 15 to 25 people participate makes those who do take part too important.

well the concept of elitism is rather vague; honestly as I said in the previous post it's just a sensation for me, none the less it is undenayable that with the removal of the CdeC many citizens have left the Curia for good.. I don't see many "curial medal wearers" popping up here around nowadays, and the more the time passes the less I see them. Also, as Halie (IIRC) said some time ago, no CdeC means less elections and thus less activity in general. I'm not defending the CdeC, nor the concept of elitism, I'm just telling from where that "feeling" came.

Well, I am not a very frequent poster in the Curia.. anyway the lack of participation, as well as, the small amount of new applicants for citizenry is obvious.
So if I may suggest that we should consider and determine our problems, maybe in an kind of extra thread, so that we have certain list of what is not convenient at the time.

Next step would be, that we discuss every point of the list and hopefully solve it step by step, rather than debating on and on?

we have had plenty of similar threads around, with ideas and proposals to increase the visibility and activity and appeal of the Curia, but without much success: the problem is that almost anyone has his own idea on what the Curia should/could be and obviously it's impossible to come out with a solution that everybody could accept or at least like. Furthermore, things tend to get even more difficult when the previous experience of old members clashes with the enthusiasm of new ones, because they are actually speaking two different toungues, to use an analogy. ATM I think (and I believe we can all agree on this) the only real "official" purpose of the Curia is that of voting on Citizenships and Awards, which in my book is already quite a lot.

In a private conversation; Bethen made a good point about creating a sense of fraternity. This was reiterated by Flinn. It will probably take just that; a real community based on a common goal than the current rivalries and internal conflict that dominate the current Curia.

I would be happy to see this happening, at least for the sense of fraternity, still as optimist as I am I really doubt we will ever have a common goal, for the reasons I said above. I would love to see a place of maturity and composure, where even when you post a VonC you do it with educated manners, where there are no personal grudges, no witch hunts and a big, BIG quantity of respect for everyone.. that's what I would call higher standards, honestly.

An in any case most part of the citizens do their contribution to the site out of the Curia, so I guess some have to accept the fact that the Curia is not the place to contribute (at least sensibly) and that each attempt to change this fact is doomed to fail... my two rusty cents as usual

[Iskar]

Another question, completely unrelated, that just occurred to me:
Who moderates the VoNC thread if the subject of the vote is the Curator himself?

[Aneirin]

@Flinn: Sure, you are right, everyone has his own opinion about what the curia has to be and the impossibility to bring all opinions together, is more than true, as well.. but we have obviously a serious problem, so how can we solve it, when we are not certain about what is the problem. In my opinion we should determine the problem/s first, rather giving up, cos we might find no suitable solution.

[PikeStance]

- We all want to be nice and work with friends in a happy environment. Yes. How do you think we can achieve that?
- Define that common goal. (the maintenance and improvement of a system based on the concept of citizenship?).

*Shall we continue in a new thread?

I think a new thread might be appropriate at this stage. It seems people are interested in alternatives.
I used to show a video to my students that illustrated that change starts with a single act.

About participation, there is an old failed ammendment by my good old friend Koultouras where he asked for a system through which alert citizens (those who so wish) about new votations (simply a guy multi-messaging, if I recall clearly).

Ah, You know the fiery Greek too

well the concept of elitism is rather vague; honestly as I said in the previous post it's just a sensation for me, none the less it is undenayable that with the removal of the CdeC many citizens have left the Curia for good.. I don't see many "curial medal wearers" popping up here around nowadays, and the more the time passes the less I see them. Also, as Halie (IIRC) said some time ago, no CdeC means less elections and thus less activity in general. I'm not defending the CdeC, nor the concept of elitism, I'm just telling from where that "feeling" came.

I really do not think people left because of the lack of elitism. When the CdeC ended, many people left. The vote tallies remain stable for awhile, but the drop seems to correlate with the drop in interest. However, sa I noted, the drop in participation has been dropping prior to that.

we have had plenty of similar threads around, with ideas and proposals to increase the visibility and activity and appeal of the Curia, but without much success: the problem is that almost anyone has his own idea on what the Curia should/could be and obviously it's impossible to come out with a solution that everybody could accept or at least like. Furthermore, things tend to get even more difficult when the previous experience of old members clashes with the enthusiasm of new ones, because they are actually speaking two different toungues, to use an analogy. ATM I think (and I believe we can all agree on this) the only real "official" purpose of the Curia is that of voting on Citizenships and Awards, which in my book is already quite a lot.

Most threads only have about a half dozen contributors. There will be a common goal: (General) improve the Curia and {specific) increase the number of applications for citizenship. We do not all have to agree on every proposal as long as there is a willingness to compromise and have trust and different ideas. In the past, people voted for things because it wasn't exactly what they wanted. Ultimately, people need to learn to take ownership of the process and not their own proposals.

I would be happy to see this happening, at least for the sense of fraternity, still as optimist as I am I really doubt we will ever have a common goal, for the reasons I said above. I would love to see a place of maturity and composure, where even when you post a VonC you do it with educated manners, where there are no personal grudges, no witch hunts and a big, BIG quantity of respect for everyone.. that's what I would call higher standards, honestly.

This honestly would take time. A common goal can help develop this. A resistance to "negative karma" would also help. However, this will not happen over night.

An in any case most part of the citizens do their contribution to the site out of the Curia, so I guess some have to accept the fact that the Curia is not the place to contribute (at least sensibly) and that each attempt to change this fact is doomed to fail... my two rusty cents as usual

This is true. We wouldn't want to change that. People seem to have lost faith in what citizenship is. The "Negative karma" of the Curia over the years didn't help. This discussion has been very productive in that we all seem to recognize a problem. The next step is discussion on what to do to fix it. I think it will be more than a couple of simple ideas.

Another question, completely unrelated, that just occurred to me:
Who moderates the VoNC thread if the subject of the vote is the Curator himself?

I do not think that there would be a problem. It may be safer bet to report it like other forums and let a member of Hex deal with it.