Okay, here it goes. :0
MCM's seat.
Jom is correct. A new poll is required since MCM's term isn't quite at half yet. So that has been
done here.
Thank you to the staffers who applied to fill this void, but rules are rules.
I've gone ahead and
started a new one with some very basic rules. Keep it to the topic of the OP, that is the transparency trial. Simple.
Spam crackdown.
I do hate to delete posts or edit them I have been noticing an increase in spammy, off-topic, or random picture posts with no reference to the source and one or two lines. I'm finding it hard from time to time to keep on track of a thread when there's a picture or random remarks interspersed between discussions.
While a bit of a joke is fine here and there the curia isn't necessarily the place to clutter with these all the time. I'd like to just remind folks to use a bit more decorum when posting here if we're supposed to take citizenship and the "elitism" of that rank to heart. Else why bother?
Besides, there are plenty of other outlets on the TWC forum to cool off and spam within.
CdeC re-votes.
There's been a handful of re-votes within the CdeC as we can all see in the trial forum.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1602
I believe that both instances have been explained but if further discussion is necessary please feel free to start a new thread in the curia main.
Transparency and debate within the CdeC, read non-disclosure.
This is something that needs to be discussed within and without the confines of the transparency trial. The continued instances of transparency, disclosure, applicant contact with the CdeC etc., in many a thread shows that we've not really gotten a handle on it. The curia needs to come to an agreement on what binds the CdeC's collective mouth shut during a case and what can be discussed with an applicant or patron while the application process is ongoing.
Some examples. These apply to citizenship applications and disciplinary cases, make it all even.
BG's post where the patron wrote to the CdeC to clarify some points on his client's qualifications.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...89#post8008589
Ferrerts54 case where the client openly stated that he was in contact with CdeC members while the case was open.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=374186
Lysimachus's referral case where it was out in the open in the Prom. for a while.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=360821
The questions that these bring up for me include:
- Should there be an NDA within the CdeC, transparent or no?
- Is the patron/client or defendant/referrer allowed to provide even more examples or clarifications without being asked by the CdeC?
- Is it proper for this lead to a dialogue type situation with the patron or client and the CdeC?
- Are members of the CdeC allowed to discuss their ongoing case with the patron or client?
- Does the transparency trial allow for debate or more openess between patron/client and the CdeC? Is that its purpose right now or is this something more applicable for later discussion should transparency in the CdeC become a reality?
PMs and wall replies.
I should have gotten to them all by now. If not, resend please.
Devoirs The Empress
Re: Townhall
Originally Posted by irishron
Reply With Quote
