[Amendment] Opt-In Transparency

[Augustus Lucifer]

Proposer: Augustus Lucifer
Required Support: Justinian, Viking Prince, Sqυιd
Additional Support: Theodotos I

Section III. Member Ranks and the Curator

Article II. Patronisation

Any Citizen holding their rank for three months can patronise a Peregrinus for citizenship subject to the requirements in Article I above. The process of patronisation is as follows.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community. The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Patronization forum.
3. A CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum.
4. A CdeC member responds to the corresponding thread in the Patronization forum, denoting that the proposition has been moved to discussion.
5. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes and at least two-thirds of all CdeC members voted, he becomes a Citizen.
7. In exceptional circumstances, the period of discussion can be extended at the behest of Councilors and discretion of the Curator, to comply with the voting requirements or otherwise.
8. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result. If the candidate does not pass, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply, and asks the applicant whether they want the application to be made public or kept private. Public cases are kept in the Antechamber, viewable to all Citizens; private cases are kept in the Archives, viewable only to the CdeC.
9. If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.

If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month after the conclusion of the traditional seven day processing period. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise.

Section IV. The Judiciary

Article I. Citizen's Behavior

...

If a member is referred by another member, the process is the same, except that the accusation is substituted for usernotes in the thread, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

At the conclusion of the process, the Curator informs the referred member of the result, and asks whether the member wants the case to be made public or kept private. Cases made public are moved to the Antechamber, viewable by all Citizens; private cases are kept in the Politia, viewable only to the CdeC.

A Rank may not be removed except by the procedure outlined in this Article. Divus, Opifex and Phalera awards may only be removed by a Decision of the Curia or by the request of the rank holder.

-------------------------------------

The rationale is that increased transparency is necessary for the Curia to hold accountable its elected officials. However, the confidentiality of the applicant who does not pass a vote is theirs to hold, since they should not be subjected to the potential for public embarrassment. In the case of disciplinary actions, it is a member's prerogative alone to publicize their infractions to those who aren't part of a disciplinary body(moderators, CdeC). By allowing the member to opt in to having their case public, we enable an increase in the amount of cases viewable to voting Citizens while not infringing on the member's rights to decide.

It has been suggested that this apply retroactively. I have not included that as a supplementary decision, but I will if that aspect gets support.

[Viking Prince]

Do you really want the referrals to be made public in all cases? I am referring to the initial anonymous member letter is now being made a bit less than anonymous.

Also -- is this intended to be retroative or for only future happenings after this passes?

[Augustus Lucifer]

Do you really want the referrals to be made public in all cases? I am referring to the initial anonymous member letter is now being made a bit less than anonymous.

Also -- is this intended to be retroative or for only future happenings after this passes?

The member is not quoted, so it would be anonymous as you say. If the CdeC are to speak as if they would in public, and they have to hear the complaints raised by any Citizen against any other, then any Citizen who brings a referral to the CdeC should be expected to do the same. Truly if an accusation, even in anonymity, cannot only be identified but would embarrass the accuser, then one must wonder if the accusation were not vindictive and unnecessary. If the potential for an anonymous letter being published scares off those who may refer a Citizen, I'd bet that's for the better.

The initial proposal is not intended to be retroactive. I foresee dissent along those lines, and would rather pass it for the future first unless there's reason to believe otherwise. A decision can always be created if this passes which stipulates that this enacted amendment be applied retroactively.

[Justinian]

I support this. It's much less complex than the idea I had, though less complete. (I was thinking of having the Curator copy every failed applicant's thread but with usernames removed from everyone involved).

I do not see how this could be retroactive because we would have to go back through literally six and a half years of records and try to get approval for each one

[Augustus Lucifer]

I do not see how this could be retroactive because we would have to go back through literally six and a half years of records and try to get approval for each one

Well, it would more be that any failed applicant in the past could also request it be publicized. So if someone failed two weeks prior they could PM the Curator asking it be moved to the Antechamber. Naturally it wouldn't be expected that the contacting part be done for all former cases.

In thinking on this I realize there may be an objection to the possibility of a patron seeing the failed applicant's case. I think the concerns there are less important than the concerns here, but it is a valid consideration. Keep in mind that the Antechamber is visible only to Citizens. Like all private forums it is a gentleman's agreement that no quotes from those areas are posted to users who can't see them. These would be there for reference of voting Citizens, but quoting them where those besides Citizens can see, including private correspondence with the applicant in question, would seem in violation of that permissions setting.

[Viking Prince]

Thanks for the explanations. I support this.

[Squid]

Support. Personally I'd prefer full public auditing, but opt in is likely the best that will occur anytime in the near future.

[Spiff]

Has anyone complained about their privacy in this matter?

[Theodotos I]

Support.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Has anyone complained about their privacy in this matter?

Do you mean the applicants or referred members? Or the Councilors ruling on the case? I haven't heard complaints in the former, but then the privacy is not intruded upon at current so they have no reason to complain about anything. As to the latter, the argument has been made before that being subjected to public scrutiny can adversely impact the deliberation process, but I haven't heard it made recently. Councilors should stand behind whatever it is they've said, plain and simple.

[the Black Prince]

Oppose for the same reason I've opposed every other move to open up CdeC debates.

As a councillor, I want to be able to be debate these issues with absolute frankness and without either fear or prejudice. Thats not going to happen if the debate and everything you've posted becomes public.

[Søren]

Oppose for the same reason I've opposed every other move to open up CdeC debates.

As a councillor, I want to be able to be debate these issues with absolute frankness and without either fear or prejudice. Thats not going to happen if the debate and everything you've posted becomes public.

I completely agree with this.

[Harry Lime]

Oppose for the same reason I've opposed every other move to open up CdeC debates.

As a councillor, I want to be able to be debate these issues with absolute frankness and without either fear or prejudice. Thats not going to happen if the debate and everything you've posted becomes public.

I don't very often agree with tBP but when he's right I do

Opposed.

If there's any untoward behaviour happening in the CdeC then the Curator or Hex should be stamping it out with their tiny little feet.

[Garnier]

Oppose for the same reason:

Oppose for the same reason I've opposed every other move to open up CdeC debates.

As a councillor, I want to be able to be debate these issues with absolute frankness and without either fear or prejudice. Thats not going to happen if the debate and everything you've posted becomes public.

[Lord Condormanius]

Oppose for the same reason I've opposed every other move to open up CdeC debates.

As a councillor, I want to be able to be debate these issues with absolute frankness and without either fear or prejudice. Thats not going to happen if the debate and everything you've posted becomes public.

So, let me get this straight...are you saying that it is only possible for you to be honest in private? On the surface, it sounds like a very poor excuse. I am all but certain that we would be able to find a good number of counselors who could effectively operate in an open setting...who can be frank, regardless of who is reading their posting. To be honest, I wouldn't vote for anyone who couldn't do that.

PS Thank you for the insight. I will remember it the next time your term is up.

[Viking Prince]

So, let me get this straight...are you saying that it is only possible for you to be honest in private? On the surface, it sounds like a very poor excuse. I am all but certain that we would be able to find a good number of counselors who could effectively operate in an open setting...who can be frank, regardless of who is reading their posting. To be honest, I wouldn't vote for anyone who couldn't do that.

PS Thank you for the insight. I will remember it the next time your term is up.

I am in favor of this amendment, but I think you are being a bit unfair to tPB. The ability to speak openly and honestly is both a bit of a skill and also a judgement call on what should be posted. A first time newly elected member to CdeC is not the same as a grizzled veteran with a gold baubble for time served since God created dirt. I agree with tBP that there will be a certain amount of self censorship if this is adopted. I think the benefits greatly outweigh the costs though.

[Lord Condormanius]

I am in favor of this amendment, but I think you are being a bit unfair to tPB. The ability to speak openly and honestly is both a bit of a skill and also a judgement call on what should be posted. A first time newly elected member to CdeC is not the same as a grizzled veteran with a gold baubble for time served since God created dirt. I agree with tBP that there will be a certain amount of self censorship if this is adopted. I think the benefits greatly outweigh the costs though.

I'm not being hard on anyone. I'm just trying to understand where he;s coming from. I don't see the ability to speak openly and honestly as a skill or as a judgment call. I see it as a natural ability. If people are unable to be honest while others are watching...well, that isn't honesty. If counselors cannot be honest unless they are operating in private, perhaps they shouldn't be counselors at all. At any rate, it seems like a cop out to me.

[Garnier]

I'm not being hard on anyone. I'm just trying to understand where he;s coming from. I don't see the ability to speak openly and honestly as a skill or as a judgment call. I see it as a natural ability. If people are unable to be honest while others are watching...well, that isn't honesty. If counselors cannot be honest unless they are operating in private, perhaps they shouldn't be counselors at all. At any rate, it seems like a cop out to me.

I can be honest if I want to, but if I have something legitimate and negative to say about someone which might prevent their gaining citizenship, I'd probably be more likely to bring it up in private than if it was public, simply to avoid offending them or making enemies. Same reason for instance people who are thinking of hiring me for a job can talk among themselves about me privately.

[Viking Prince]

We already release the threads of successful applications. What about the passion of those who vote against the future member? How is that any differant from the failed applications? The only difference was to protect the privacy of the failed applicant and not to shield the debate.

I reject any idea that the shielding of the discussion should be for the benefit of CdeC membership.

[Lord Condormanius]

Oppose. I think all proceedings should be made public (i.e. viewable by the whole of the Curia).