[Amendment] Full CdeC Transparency

[Empress Meg]

Supported by: Lysimachus, Viking Prince, Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

The Proposal 2: Empress Meg and the Proposal of Doom

The Preamble

At the enactment of this proposal a trial period, ending at the end of my term as curator July 27,2010, will begin for those who wish to take part in the following social experiment.

Before any disciplinary action or citizenship application takes place, I Empress Meg, Curator, will ask the person in question (citizen applicant or defendant) if they would like their thread to be completely public (viewable, but only the CdeC may post including myself and Hex) or if their case will remain in the private CdeC forum.

It'll mean a bit more work for me, yes. It'll mean that the CdeC (myself and Hex included) will also have to be in agreement with this trial even if it does pass the curia's vote.

New fora will have to be made to allow for public viewing but only the CdeC to post inside in addition to the current CdeC forum to run as it always has. No current CdeC case will be moved to the publicly viewable fora, even if the applicant or the defendant wish it to be public since the CdeC and Hex have not agreed to make their comments public in these on-going cases.

At the end of the trial period (July 27, 2010) this proposal shall be looked at once again by the curia in the Prothalamos and will follow the directives in Sec2Art3 of the TWCC.

Additionally, I will of course take full responsibility for what occurs.

Further Transparency Bill

1)Transparency.

i) The Curia, in the name of democratic accountability and to increase the quality of CdeC operations and Councillors through public scrutiny, hereby open up the CdeC to full transparency. This shall not apply retrospectively, but only from the passing of this bill.

ii) The following CdeC sub-forums are made public;

- The Quaestiones Perpetuae
- A new Politia shall be created to store future disciplinary cases of any outcome.
- A new Citizen Archive for future failed citizenship applications.
- The Antechamber shall remain public but now only houses successful Citizenship applications.

iii) Furthermore, all already public disciplinary and failed citizenship applications shall be moved to the aforementioned newly created Politia and Citizen Archive for the purposes of storage.

iv) The Hookers and Blackjack forum shall remain private.

v) An archives will be created in the CdeC to maintain the privacy of all retro-active cases concluded before this amendment.

2) Amendments

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.

ii) Section IV - The Judiciary

ARTICLE I - CITIZENS BEHAVIOUR

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

The CdeC may know the identity of the referrer, which shall be revealed in a stickied thread found in the sole remaining private CdeC sub-forum, the Hookers and Blackjack area.

So, here goes. No re-writes in the TWCC yet to propose, I want to hear opinions.

We have been tip-toeing around it, biting at the crumbs of it, but it is always something we reach for and yet afraid to grab hold of it. Transparency in the CdeC.

We elect the members of the CdeC from our own esteemed ranks yes and we expect them to do their duty to the curia and defend our traditions and honour, phusis and nomous behind closed doors. We tell the Curator that they must give us a report each month outlining citizen passe and fails, disciplinary actions, etc. but we have no idea if that report is accurate. (I wonder how many folks read it in full or even have the kindness to give it half a glance!) We must promote and discipline the citizens in the dark for some reason or another. What do we have to hide? Everything that the CdeC does is laid out in the TWCC so there is no reason for us to scurry away into the dark crevices of the Capitol to do the work mandated by the citizenry.

It has nearly always been the case that passed citizens get to show off their wondrous achievement to the public in a publicly viewable forum but failed candidates had only a rejection letter and some brief words on the "needs improvement" column taken at the CdeC's word. Recently, the Opt-In amendment grants the defendant in the case of referrals/disciplinary matters and citizen applicants the right to archive their threads in public or private. This allows for some measure of accountability but not enough since edits may still be done before moving into the limelight. Furthermore, I don't think the Curator should have to make these decision, nor do I think that edits need be made should someone in the CdeC fail to comply with the ToS. They should not have been posted in the first place.

As for cases involving a staff infraction, presented to the CdeC. I would argue that citizens are held to a higher standard, or at least that is what has often been the gem of an argument before. If that is so, then show it.

I want to suggest that full visibility be given to all fora in the CdeC save for the "chat room" forum where no public cases are discussed anyways. Allow the citizens and the non-citizens to see what their elected members are doing. The only case I would like to adhere to in terms of privacy is sec4, art1, Citizen's Behavior:

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

Any other matters I say let the rest of the citizens see what is happening, view what their elected CdeC members are doing (or not doing), and have a clear, undiluted gauge of the citizen class itself.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Devoirs The Empress

[Jom]

I would be for this but I think for all old cases they would have to be moved to some sort of private archive. It would be unfair to expose comments made when CdeC secrecy was ensured to the scrutiny of all and sundry.

[Empress Meg]

I would be for this but I think for all old cases they would have to be moved to some sort of private archive. It would be unfair to expose comments made when CdeC secrecy was ensured to the scrutiny of all and sundry.

This is not retro-active. No thread in the currently prviate area need be moved. Sorry I did not spell that out but I thought it would be understood since the TWCC says nothing is retro-active unless applied in the proposal. So no moving of private, back cases.

Devoirs The Empress

[Jom]

This is not retro-active. No thread in the currently prviate area need be moved. Sorry I did not spell that out but I thought it would be understood since the TWCC says nothing is retro-active unless applied in the proposal. So no moving of private, back cases.

Devoirs The Empress

Well then you have my complete support. Sorry for being dense about the whole retroactive thing.

[Empress Meg]

No worries Jom, I am awful at bureaucratic stuff myself. I have to read things about ten times before they sink into my head.

General questions- How would we go about formulating this so as to make it simple and not overly complex? The last thing we need is more tetchy wording to cause confusion.

Devoirs The Empress

[Каие]

Further Transparency Bill

1) Transparency.

i) The Curia, in the name of democratic accountability and to increase the quality of CdeC operations and Councillors through public scrutiny, hereby open up the CdeC to full transparency. This shall not apply retrospectively, but only from the passing of this bill.

ii) The following CdeC sub-forums are made public;

- The Quaestiones Perpetuae
- A new Politia shall be created to store future disciplinary cases.
- A new Citizen Archive for future failed citizenship applications.
- The Antechamber shall remain public, but only now house successful Citizenship applications.

iii) Furthermore, all already public disciplinary and failed citizenship applications shall be moved to the aforementioned newly created Politia and Citizen Archive for the purposes of storage.

iv) The Hookers and Blackjack forum shall remain private.

2) Amendments

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.

ii) Section IV - The Judiciary

ARTICLE I - CITIZENS BEHAVIOUR

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

The CdeC may know the identity of the referrer, which shall be revealed in a stickied thread found in the sole remaining private CdeC sub-forum, the Hookers and Blackjack area.

Is that what you were thinking Meg?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Well in general...

1. Citizen application reviews: I think it's good the way it is. if they pass the world sees, if they don't, applicant option. CdeC Members should speak their mind, but also stand behind their words. Deletions and Edits{non-grammar} have no place. If you step in poo, admit it and move on with your day. Don't hide and pretend that you never said it.

2. Citizen behavior issues: Imo..if a pm can settle the issue and everyone learns from their mistake, then make it so. The general public doesn't need to know. Imo knowing the parties involved is always pertinent. That action has a cause. Disciplining the action may or may not treat the root cause.

Dunniow, it's the way I was taught conflict resolution management. Perhaps realties in a small INTERNET world are different because many well respected folks categorically state that identities have nothing to do with dealing with behavior issues... **Crawls back under rock**

[karamazovmm]

I support this, the transparency is good banner to fight for.

Since most likely there is no delicate material that should be confined, I fail to see the dire of not opening what happened in past days. Aside that this is negligible, it really does not matter.

What matters is to reformulate this into a proposition.

and I do think that we need to put more things in the to-do list

they discuss the areas where citizens have failed after all, they do get a letter from the curator explaining why they failed if the applicant asks?

Graham that is already done if i'm not mistaken

for the citie school we actually need more professors at the TWC uni, and more courses. Not that the drop out average is low.
For debating? this is a matter of doing and seeing.

Although if you cook up more this idea we can discuss it

[magpie]

I fully support your proposal Empress, It would I think improve the whole process and show to our members how hard the CdeC officer,s work.

[Каие]

You have my sword Meg. I have been for full transparency for some time now. Parliament is a theatre, so shall be the CdeC.

[Augustus Lucifer]

You have my sword Meg. I have been for full transparency for some time now. Parliament is a theatre, so shall be the CdeC.

...

RUM

Anyways, I also like to party have also been in favor of CdeC transparency. Some feel the steps we've taken so far aren't enough, and that's good, they probably aren't. Though without the moves we've made over the last year, first with the Pater Familias, then the Antechamber, then the opt-in transparency, we'd be running on a platform for radical change here. As it stands however, and as more users get used to the current transparency allowances, full transparency will seem gradual, which was always the intention behind taking incremental steps.

As always the sole concern is applicant confidentiality in some respects. We either need to forgo it or we can't move any further, because any attempts at obfuscating the name of a user in an application thread would be insufficient due to the comments and links, without which an onlooker couldn't assess. I'm fine with making it a public affair, but I can sympathize with those who don't want to put themselves up to that much scrutiny. The other point about Councilors needing privacy to discuss is not something I agree with or sympathize with, since it's supposed to be a tough job and we're supposed to elect strong willed individuals who can take scrutiny and shred it up with the sharpness of intellect.

[Lysimachus]

So if this passes people will be able to see the CdeCs as they discuss citizen applications?

[karamazovmm]

nevermind

[Каие]

There's way more loose ends than just blocking off the Chat room. Check mine out above.

[Nole4694]

Well the two issues we face in this decision to make Cdec transparent is that of privacy, for both applicants/defendants/accusors and the Cdec members themselves, or transparency so that we know what the Cdec is actually doing, if they are doing it right, that they are fair, and various other things.

There would be a few cons to going transparent, for one the Cdec might not vioce their true opinions and feelings may be hurt and heads might burst at comments made during applications or diciplinary cases. But I think those are minor and hopefully with the Citizen's high standards not happen, or atleast not too often.

I think that applications should still be confidential, unless the applicant wants it to go public, but for disciplinary actions I think they should become public.

[Empress Meg]

There would be a few cons to going transparent, for one the Cdec might not vioce their true opinions and feelings may be hurt and heads might burst at comments made during applications or diciplinary cases. But I think those are minor and hopefully with the Citizen's high standards not happen, or atleast not too often.

This was a concern before, when the passed citizen applications were made public for the first time. I think this is not a concern any longer because as we've seen, no one has died of shame or otherwise. No foot in mouth phrases, etc. It is my belief that full transparency will further impose upon elected members the need for honesty and criticism - the entire breath of that word being used in this case, not just the negative we're so used to hearing these days.

I think that applications should still be confidential, unless the applicant wants it to go public, but for disciplinary actions I think they should become public.

This confuses me. Why one and not the other?

@Яome kb8. Yes, something like that indeed! I would like to hear some more opinions first before cementing anything in solid proposal style.

Additionally, I am not sure what would be more apt for the storage of past cases. I think that maybe instead of moving all of the older cases (retroactive stuffs) into new fora, maybe just moving them all into one mass archive of citizen and disciplinary subfora to remain private.

Devoirs The Empress

[Nole4694]

Well, to me, I don't think it's the Curia's business to know who is applying, having it open to the public might also pressure the Cdec (like in this recent mix up with Thor i believe) to pass or fail someone, whether this actually changes things or not is up for debate but the possibility is still there. They are also judging your contributions and pretty much everything else about you on TWC, and if they are seen as unfit for citizenship I think it should be the applicants right to hide that try at least until the next time they think they are ready for citizenship.

However with Disciplinary cases, its much simpler. It only covers one incident (or related incidents) and is primarily based around facts and the constitution. It is a much more straight forward affair. Also they shouldn't have the same right to hide their cases as applicants do because as a citizen he represents his rank and if he has done something wrong or close enough to wrong that it has warranted a Cdec review the rest of the Curia should know about it.

In my opinion, they are two different things, with different circumstances and objectives. Thus why I prefer applicants to stay hidden (if they want) but disciplinary cases to be seen.

[karamazovmm]

thats why the nevermind yours is tiddier, and we can try to dumb it down, but I don't think that it will be possible

[Viking Prince]

Some random and probably unrelated thoughts:

• I agree that there needs to be a bit nore transparancy.
• I also like the current opt in for citizen applications and keeping the unsuccessful ones not visible unless requested by the applicant. I owuld not want such exposure to be a reason that discourages an application.
• Other than the citizen applications, I think that the threads should be visible -- I am not certain if it is wise to do so as debate and discussion unfolds though. It is not as if we are live and all together in person.
• I have never liked the fairly loose edit of the threads prior to release into a visible forum. I think there is a reason for some editing on rare occasions and would not want there to be no edits. Some more thought may be needed on this one to make the edits limited to material that is moderation related and should not be released.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I have never liked the fairly loose edit of the threads prior to release into a visible forum. I think there is a reason for some editing on rare occasions and would not want there to be no edits. Some more thought may be needed on this one to make the edits limited to material that is moderation related and should not be released.

If one can not be forthright & honest, then folks just need to keep it zipped. If we step in poo, acknoweledge that fact and everyone moves on with their day. We should let others profit {learn from} our errors where they may.

If I step in poo, you should'nt have to....to...