[Amendment] Change in requirements for citizen

[Viking Prince]

Sponsor: Viking Prince
Support: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze, Nerva, Mr MM.

Section to be amended

Section III - Member Ranks and the Curator
Article I. Ranks
Citizens
To qualify for Citizen, a member must have at least fifty posts, been a registered member for two months, and have no active warnings. If a member has been warned, the member must have gone six consecutive months without a further warning.

Previous glorious attempt to convince the TWC version of the bourgeoisie that peaseants and the Royals are not their enemies.

[VOTE FINISHED: FAILED] [Amendment] Change in requirements for citizen

Rationale:

If we wish to encourage good behavior it might be best to not further punish members more than need be. A member without an active warning means no moderation warnings issued within the past 3 months. A new member with a clean record needs 3 months to qualify as well.To be honest, I do believe that there is a real correlation between the member that needs to learn and struggle and then cleans up active warnings and the likelihood that they will not be a problem citizen. They still need the contribution componant as well.

I have faith in CdeC to perform their duties and properly research the nature of the candidate. I can see instances where member behavior will preclude citizenship for a long time. I can also see instances where a moderation warning can even be recent and the CdeC may not deem it an issue, but in any case -- active warnings remain as a disqualification. With this change, the three months must still pass for the active warnings to expire. This is consistent for all applicants now. No differentiation between the new and the established.

Personally I'd rather not have any arbitrary expiration requirement - surely that kind of vetting is what the CDeC is here for. However, I do not believe that the warning requirement can be eliminated in a Curial vote. So this is the compromise position -- a clear disqualification due to existing active warnings. The nature of the warning is not even important since the existance of an active warning point has been determined by the Curia to be sufficient for disqualification (why I believe the warning requirement should be eliminated completely). However we write the rules though, it is important that we keep it simple and that all members be treated fairly based upon their posting record and contributions. Remember that the posting record may also include Tribunal appeals, commentary thread posts, etc.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support.

[Lysimachus]

HUGE SUPPORT

Either that, or if there's too much opposition to the bill in its current state, add a clause stating perhaps that people with up to 2 infraction points (since there are no loss of forum privileges until 3 points) are allowed to bypass the arbitrary six-month requirement. Regardless of how this proposal is edited, as long as the same concept of reducing the requirement is reduced then I insist on you adding my support to the proposal regardless of how many times you edit it.

[the Black Prince]

Oppose, for all the reasons this has bill and other attempts at it have failed, what, 3 times in a row now?

[Augustus Lucifer]

7th time's the charm?

Eventually we will wear down the opposition with our dashing good looks! They'll be saying "Don't start that again!"...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[the Black Prince]

Surely the number of failed demonstrates that you've yet to make a strong and compelling argument in favour of this change.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Surely the number of failed demonstrates that you've yet to make a strong and compelling argument in favour of this change.

Ah, but my dear Aden, same-sex marriage is illegal in almost every US state, but I've yet to find a grain of intelligible argument in the opposition. Sometimes stubbornness and tradition can go a long way.

[the Black Prince]

Ah, but my dear Aden, same-sex marriage is illegal in almost every US state, but I've yet to find a grain of intelligible argument in the opposition. Sometimes stubbornness and tradition can go a long way.

thats because the arguments against are based in religion, which is by its nature unintelligible.

The arguments against this bill on the other hand are sound in principle and have been upheld by the Curia on numerous occassions

This is not about the powers and abilities of the CdeC versus the powers and abilities of staff. I am not saying either is a greater measure.

Citizens are expected to set a high standard of behaviour. They are supposed to be model members that others can look up to and aspire to. If members in the past have had a troubled record with sticking to the rules, I do not think it too much to ask for that member to comprehensibly demomstrated that they have made a permanent improvement in the way they conduct themselves here. This is not about demonstrating that they are warn free, but that the behavior that led to the warnings is not coming about.

As some should be aware, we recently had a great debate on a citizen application. Even several administration members as well as the owner posted their thoughts. In the end CdeC voted to pass the application in a split decision. The Curator then vetoed the CdeC decision. I still am not convinced that the veto is in the best interests of the Curia, but I have faith in the system. CdeC debated. CdeC voted. The Curator performed her duty as she saw fit. Under no circumstances did anybody feel that the decision to promote or not promote the candidate should be the result of a decision of staff.

I don't. I am absolutely livid about that veto which I think was an utter abuse of the Curator's power. But that debate belongs in another thread and is currently ongoing in the CdeC.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Citizens are expected to set a high standard of behaviour. They are supposed to be model members that others can look up to and aspire to. If members in the past have had a troubled record with sticking to the rules, I do not think it too much to ask for that member to comprehensibly demomstrated that they have made a permanent improvement in the way they conduct themselves here. This is not about demonstrating that they are warn free, but that the behavior that led to the warnings is not coming about.

Yes but as we've seen, six months isn't good enough either. If we aren't to use it as a barometer and cut off point for behavioral relevance then it is purely arbitrary and unnecessary. If we are to use it in that way, perhaps we forgot to send out the memo?

[Lysimachus]

Surely the number of failed demonstrates that you've yet to make a strong and compelling argument in favour of this change.

I think "GTFO with the arbitrary requirements" is enough of an argument. I've yet to see anything strong and compelling from the people who are opposed, to be honest.

[Augustus Lucifer]

It should be noted that every time this has been proposed it has received more 'Yay' than 'Nay'. The initial vote to set it to 6 months passed here, and ever since then the vote has gone the other way, so were this the established standard the opposition would have no hope of overturning it either.

First Attempt: 30-21-0
Second Attempt: 29-18-6
Third Attempt: 27-25-6
Fourth Attempt: 35-20-1
Fifth Attempt: 25-22-3

The fact that the initial vote passed can't be attributed to good argumentation but rather that it was immediately in the wake of a number of CdeC controversies. So yeah, neither side has a leg to stand on where winning the argument is concerned, we've both been set in our ways for years and only external factors and new Citizens have changed the end result.

[Viking Prince]

Surely the number of failed demonstrates that you've yet to make a strong and compelling argument in favour of this change.

The fact that support is not sufficient to pass by the rules, but the idea is supported by a majority is not really the same as failure.

I think that the moderation staff performs a very important function for the well being of the site. I know this is obvious as I am a moderator. But the thing about staff is that they are creatures of the administration of the site. If the Curia is to establish rules for citizenship and elect a council to review the applications and also to review citizen behavioral -- why not entrust the council to do their job? Where is the driving need to default to staff actions rather than entrust the CdeC and the Curator to do their jobs?

As some should be aware, we recently had a great debate on a citizen application. Even several administration members as well as the owner posted their thoughts. In the end CdeC voted to pass the application in a split decision. The Curator then vetoed the CdeC decision. I still am not convinced that the veto is in the best interests of the Curia, but I have faith in the system. CdeC debated. CdeC voted. The Curator performed her duty as she saw fit. Under no circumstances did anybody feel that the decision to promote or not promote the candidate should be the result of a decision of staff.

If I thought that the Curia would support allowing a freer hand to CdeC to examine an applicant (including a full record of all warnings and notes) on their merits for citizenship, I would propose a change to do so. I think that the arbitrary line on no citizenship to those with active or recent warnings is not needed. This is a proposal to move that arbitrary line and give CdeC some more room to make their own decisions on a candidate.

So if I can only convince tBP to support having CdeC take a more responsible role in the process of citizenship, I shall call this a great victory.

[irishron]

Support. Black Prince overruled.

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Opposed.

[Legio]

CdeC Undecided.

[Empress Meg]

Opposed. There's a reason we have warnings and ranks to keep up decent behavior.

Devoirs The Empress

[Harry Lime]

Opposed.

[Squid]

Oppose as I always have.

Except the end result hasn't changed in at least a year and a half (based on your threads).

VP, rather than trot out the same amendment again and again that keeps failing, why not try to create a different amendment that reduces the time requirement but raises the standards of citizenship, this ship obviously isn't going sail so why not try building another one.

[Augustus Lucifer]

VP, rather than trot out the same amendment again and again that keeps failing, why not try to create a different amendment that reduces the time requirement but raises the standards of citizenship, this ship obviously isn't going sail so why not try building another one.

It's not clear how the vote will go, as 30+ new Citizens have been approved since the last proposal made by VP, enough to potentially influence the results one way or another.

If you have anything in mind for reducing time requirements but raising standards, I'm sure VP will take it under advisement. It's a bit hard to pander when there's no clear statement of what reconciliations it would take to get the reduction passed.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

The viability of this site is a reality and also a concern, role play or no. Denning this site the acquisition of another potential attraction trumps the
role play imo...

Just the opinion of an administrator who plays in that "other" horrible world.