[Discussion] On-Call Consultants

[Augustus Lucifer]

It recently came up the conundrum of how we mix experienced members on the CdeC with newcomers, and I hashed a quick response about the possibility of having members on call and the plausibility of something like that. After the fact I realized this might be an even better solution to another common problem faced by the CdeC, which is that the Council doesn't necessarily always have equal representation for members of various expertise.

This can be especially problematic where modding is concerned since it's difficult for anyone without knowledge of the processes to understand the work that goes into any given aspect, even more so with folks like mod historians. I imagine the same can be said of other areas like the RPG sections. At any rate it's always useful to have a knowledgeable perspective on the CdeC to give some background information, but that doesn't always happen and we shouldn't necessarily elect active Councilors by areas lacking.

Currently this discussion lacks form and is geared towards plausible options. My initial take is thus:

• We create a semi-official, not necessarily number delimited position, with no activity requirements and only invoked on a temporary basis as the sitting CdeC needs. These 'on call' folks serve to provide perspective when needed on a given case. They would not be elected but would have to pass a confirmation vote similar to the ratification votes of old(51%, 60%, 66%, I'm indifferent).
  
  • Each 'on-call consultant' would need to have been an elected Councilor for 1 or 2 terms so they know how things work. Not sure of any other requirements.
  • Each would state a couple unofficial 'areas of expertise' which they could be contacted about, and this may change with time. These areas correlate to the stated contributions of an applicant in their paragraph. So if an applicant is mainly a modder the CdeC might contact a consultant in the modding expertise.
  • Each would have no special powers or privileges and would only be noted in some record keeping thread for posterity. I suppose they could be subject to VonC or CdeC removal if necessary but given the provisos they could just not be contacted.
  • Each would not be able to see the CdeC. In the case their perspective is desired a CdeC member or the Curator could PM them the application paragraph and have them PM back a response or something along those lines.
  • Obviously they can't vote or see the results since they can't see the CdeC directly.
  • This isn't currently intended for disciplinary actions. I suppose it could extend to Divus votes but those are way too rare to codify one way or another.

Basically the idea is if the CdeC doesn't need them that's fine, no harm no foul. If a CdeC member feels they need input from someone with experience and expertise in the area of an applicant's contribution, then they have a user or possibly a list of users whom they can legally consult and post the response of for consideration, users proven in the past as Councilors and approved by the Curia in that capacity. Currently the CdeC can sort of do this by way of unofficially contacting someone, but this is rarely done and can be at times problematic, as well as potentially biased (though informed) if it's a colleague of the applicant being contacted.

This would create the framework to have vetted users with experience who assent to being 'on call' providing an assessment you'd expect of a Councilor for consideration. It also doesn't harm the decision making ability of sitting members, since they can choose what they agree with and what they don't, as well as what level they incorporate a second opinion. Furthermore it enables these users with proven experience and confidence to contribute as needed without activity stipulations, since needing to be there for every case for three months doesn't always mesh with other commitments.

Anyways this is just a rough idea, there's still a few things that could be implemented in different ways(one PM vs. interchange, applied vs. nominated, etc), just wanted to air the discussion and see what folks think about this possibility.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Initially blind support cuz "Wall of Text, Master" authored the idea. Once I get some coffee in me {it's 5am here} that stance may change...."Drastically...

Edit: {kay 1st mug of Java down the gullet} Initially it seems to me that if the "consultants", spun their golden silk of prophecy,from afar that that would be best. Their admittance to the circle of 12 some how would seem "intrusive". Already Hex grants wisdom on occasion, taxing the poor beverage attendant to the max.

So the simple act of asking out side expert opinion via PM now requires structured Curial mandate. Tuveras...

Question: Would/could there be a privisor in which if a CdeC member{s} stepped down that this auxillary could be harnassed immediately to keep the
CdeC at full strength without suffering a loss of numbers?

[Augustus Lucifer]

Why not slim this down a little, why not call upon experienced modders to give their input on candidates who are modders?why does it only have to be CdeC members who have served 1 or 2 terms.why not Citizens who have the requisite experience?

One possibility is to have a dual voting system. The goal of any official consultants system needs to be maintaining a high level of vetted input, such that if someone is called upon they provide a detailed appraisal. We could simply stipulate that a member who has served 2+ terms requires 60% of the vote and a member who hasn't requires 75% or something of like kind. This means it's still very much possible for qualified members who haven't served on the CdeC to get in, but it's weighted towards those with proven experience if the Curia decides to go on a stingy streak. I'm not necessarily sold on either number.

Edit: {kay 1st mug of Java down the gullet} Initially it seems to me that if the "consultants", spun their golden silk of prophecy,from afar that that would be best. Their admittance to the circle of 12 some how would seem "intrusive". Already Hex grants wisdom on occasion, taxing the poor beverage attendant to the max.

Right, no one would be getting access to the CdeC forums, unless of course the proceedings were made entirely transparent by a separate bill, in which case they'd have incidental viewing ability as with all else.

Question: Would/could there be a privisor in which if a CdeC member{s} stepped down that this auxillary could be harnassed immediately to keep the
CdeC at full strength without suffering a loss of numbers?

Currently the Constitution stipulates that a 'volunteering Staff Member' be appointed to fill such a void. Such a group would inherently create a pool of potential seat fillers if necessary, but I don't see any reason to limit it beyond its current scope.

[T.C.]

Candidates.

Why not slim this down a little, why not call upon experienced modders to give their input on candidates who are modders?why does it only have to be CdeC members who have served 1 or 2 terms.why not Citizens who have the requisite experience?


Rationale

• Experienced modders from established teams etc would be better suited to look at a candidates contributions.
• Perhaps a check list of the mods requirements should be implemented?
• This would be a positive step to ensure the candidate is treated fairly as I have seen in some applications previously that some members couldn't get a certain mod to work.

I would support such a proposal if it was changed to include some of the above points

I'd agree with this - many modders don't join the CdeC because of time commitments, no need to hamstring the process before it begins.

[karamazovmm]

nope, the obligations of the cdc are self explanatory, what actually made me sad is the consideration that was given to my game.

A game that was designed to see how you would perform at your duties, it was a simple:

decide if user is worthy of citizenship

decide if punishment is need for the user

That boils down most of the tasks for a cdc member.

Aside that the cdc is a popularity contest, as such we can see that much of our cdc members have already served for a little while in that position.

Another note would be that Hex already does that job, you can argue any time that in Hex there are members who were never cdc, but again to choose who is citizen or not, who gets a slap in their hands or not, isn't that hard. If it is considered hard by the candidate, might as well not run.

OPPOSE

[Augustus Lucifer]

(I'm not sure what you're getting at with most of the post since none of this attempts to alter the role of the CdeC in any way, nor do I know what you mean by your 'game', so I can only respond to one point)

Another note would be that Hex already does that job, you can argue any time that in Hex there are members who were never cdc, but again to choose who is citizen or not, who gets a slap in their hands or not, isn't that hard. If it is considered hard by the candidate, might as well not run.

The job is by no means 'hard' in that it takes specific acumen to perform, unless ability to reason is an acumen. That does not mean any case is clear cut. This isn't about doing someone's job for them. The Councilor is at liberty to consider or wholly disregard as it suits them, since their job is to compile evidence and an informed testimony is simply more evidence to consider.

OPPOSE

Well there's nothing to oppose just yet, or support for that matter, this is just a discussion about prospects.

[karamazovmm]

I opposed any idea of another council to council more things on the counseling of others

this game: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...99#post7633999

[Legio]

This is to the CdeC as moderator emeritus is to moderators?

[Augustus Lucifer]

I opposed any idea of another council to council more things on the counseling of others

Not a council but no skin off my back.

This is to the CdeC as moderator emeritus is to moderators?

Yes? No? Maybe? I'm just airing a possible thing here, whether it resembles Moderator Emeritus I guess is contingent on if and how the idea develops. Initially I'd say no, since as I understand it any Moderator can stop being active and become Emeritus without needing a vote. Moreover though Emeritus still have Den access and can moderate, something like what's outlined in the OP wouldn't have the same privileges/powers as a Councilor.

[karamazovmm]

Not a council but no skin off my back

not meant to!

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

It really is amazing how seldom decisions are made here without directly consulting the people who are likely most effected. I know I know...CdeC are elected representatives. But how much effort does it really take to send out a PM to a group of people in-the-know (modders, historians...whatever depending on the topic)? I almost never see non-binding polls on CdeC proposals, for example. I think I understand what AL is getting at...I think the solution is too unwieldy and overcomplicated, but I think he's touching on a real problem here and that shouldn't get lost.

I guess one question is: how do you encourage good CdeC practice to occur regularly without making it too prescriptive and mandatory?

One way is that everytime someone proposed an amendment or decision, they have to demonstrate that they consulted with a few of the major players who would be most effected by what they are proposing. Wouldn't have to be complicated..."I PM'd Joe, Bob, and Anne...they like it." (and I don't mean other citizens willing to sign their name to the proposal...I like that step, but this is different...the people most effected by the proposal...may not even be citizens). If other Curia members read this and know Joe, Bob and Anne aren't really the key players, they'll call out "BS!"

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
Question: Would/could there be a privisor in which if a CdeC member{s} stepped down that this auxiliary could be harnessed immediately to keep the
CdeC at full strength without suffering a loss of numbers?

Currently the Constitution stipulates that a 'volunteering Staff Member' be appointed to fill such a void. Such a group would inherently create a pool of potential seat fillers if necessary, but I don't see any reason to limit it beyond its current scope.

Now admittedly I am "bathed in ignorance" and dipped in "Dumb as a stump" when it comes to the inner workings of the CdeC, but it seems lately that when CdeC Members have left the flock that there replacements have been noticeably truant in reporting for duty.

One of my chief concerns is plugging this seemingly noticeable hole in the dike. Now admittedly if an applicant is approved by only a segment of the CdeC contingent he is still approved and should theoretically be grateful for that.

Still the appearance that is shone to some is that some other folks don't really give a hoot and therefore can't be arsed...

Tendered with utmost decorum and respect. {Sorry, military mindset at work. "Step, pivot step"}

[Pontifex Maximus]

I've served seven terms on the CdeC but I think one of the great things about the body is the ability to hit the refresh button every few months and get new perspectives. I don't know if I would want to add my input on an issue is I wasn't a currently sitting CdeC member.

[M D]

If it removes the vague volunterring staff member thing then sure, sounds ok

[Rolanbek]

Meh, does this obviate the need for the CdeC to actually research and give informed opinion?

I wonder if this is an oblique way of saying that Cdec members are not 'fit for purpose'? Are we not confident in the CdeC's abilty to discharge their duties?

There seems to be a weird lack emphasise on the responsibility of the applicants to do the thing they said they would do.

R

[Squid]

If it removes the vague volunterring staff member thing then sure, sounds ok

Totally unrelated, see one of AL earlier posts. This has nothing to do with replacing inactive CdeC members, it has to with CdeC recognizing it might lack the knowledge to decide on the value of the contributions of a citizenship candiate and to seek to be able to discuss it with those members of the site who have the ability to evaluate those contributions. For example, using a very broad brush, say that all of CdeC was composed of people who were citizens from the non-TW side and a candidate came forward who was from the TW side, they might want to ask consultants who are familiar with modding to evaluate the contributions made by the candidate.

Meh, does this obviate the need for the CdeC to actually research and give informed opinion?

Not at all, it would merely allow CdeC to bring in people to provide expertise in areas the council did not currently have.

I wonder if this is an oblique way of saying that Cdec members are not 'fit for purpose'? Are we not confident in the CdeC's abilty to discharge their duties?

Its an oblique way of saying councilors cannot be expected to know everything about everything and so need to consult experts. I don't know much about cars, so if I have something about cars I need to figure out I'll go talk to someone who does know cars, this is the same thing.

There seems to be a weird lack emphasise on the responsibility of the applicants to do the thing they said they would do.

R

This has nothing to do with the applicants fulfilling their duty, and more to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can be expected to know everything.

[Rolanbek]

Not at all, it would merely allow CdeC to bring in people to provide expertise in areas the council did not currently have.

What exactly is required in the way of expertise to ask the petitioner to explain in more detail their precise reasons if they are not clear in the patroniseation request?

Its an oblique way of saying councilors cannot be expected to know everything about everything and so need to consult experts. I don't know much about cars, so if I have something about cars I need to figure out I'll go talk to someone who does know cars, this is the same thing.

With respect Squid you don't elect your mechanic, or bring him home to explain to your family how the car was fixed, or in to any of your peer groups to explain. He does what is required, and you are the conduit for communication.

This has nothing to do with the applicants fulfilling their duty, and more to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can be expected to know everything.

They can be expected to aquaint themselves with the facts and make a descision based on those. Can you be certain that those who post single word or phrase voteing posts have even read the subject matter?

R

[Squid]

What exactly is required in the way of expertise to ask the petitioner to explain in more detail their precise reasons if they are not clear in the patroniseation request?

Basically you're saying if I'm unsure as to the quality of a contribution I'm to ask the candidate "Is this good enough for you to become a citizen?" What do you expect they're going to answer 100% of time?

With respect Squid you don't elect your mechanic, or bring him home to explain to your family how the car was fixed, or in to any of your peer groups to explain. He does what is required, and you are the conduit for communication.

With all respect my elected representatives hire people who have the expertise to help them with the tasks they've been elected to decide. The elected representative makes the final decision based on what the experts they've hired have told them and as they make the final decision they are held responsible by the electorate. A finance minister (or sec tres if your in the US) does not know how to cost everything that goes into a budget, that is why there exists a finance department (or the treasury) to do that work.

They can be expected to aquaint themselves with the facts and make a descision based on those. Can you be certain that those who post single word or phrase voteing posts have even read the subject matter?

R

Again two separate issues, I can know all the facts in a case but not have the required expertise to be able to adequately judge whether or not its sufficient. I don't think a councilor should only say yes or no in a case, as that isn't helpful to the case but again that's a different issue so please keep this only about the issue at hand.

If I were applying and I gave one of my modding tools as the reason why I should be a citizen can you honestly tell me that someone who has no modding experience much less expertise would be able to adequately assess the value of that tool as a contribution?

[Augustus Lucifer]

It really is amazing how seldom decisions are made here without directly consulting the people who are likely most effected. I know I know...CdeC are elected representatives. But how much effort does it really take to send out a PM to a group of people in-the-know (modders, historians...whatever depending on the topic)? I almost never see non-binding polls on CdeC proposals, for example. I think I understand what AL is getting at...I think the solution is too unwieldy and overcomplicated, but I think he's touching on a real problem here and that shouldn't get lost.

Polls tend to get more voters than reasoning. I'd take one vetted and respected person characterizing the nature of contributions in detail over 50 voting whether they'd pass the person or not. We don't need a public referendum, we just need a perspective that can be relied upon and that the Curia has stated it acknowledges.

One way is that everytime someone proposed an amendment or decision, they have to demonstrate that they consulted with a few of the major players who would be most effected by what they are proposing. Wouldn't have to be complicated..."I PM'd Joe, Bob, and Anne...they like it." (and I don't mean other citizens willing to sign their name to the proposal...I like that step, but this is different...the people most effected by the proposal...may not even be citizens). If other Curia members read this and know Joe, Bob and Anne aren't really the key players, they'll call out "BS!"

That is indeed a separate matter but not an unimportant one. Last I heard some reforms were in the works which may do something like what your suggest. I made an in-depth post here touching on that some a while ago.

One of my chief concerns is plugging this seemingly noticeable hole in the dike. Now admittedly if an applicant is approved by only a segment of the CdeC contingent he is still approved and should theoretically be grateful for that.

Well as I said it isn't about replacing that line, but that doesn't mean it can't also do that as a matter of course. When the Curator selects a staff member to fill a gap, rather than pick out of a hat there would be two segments perhaps a better selection than others. One would be staff members who weren't elected but received a number of votes in a recent election. The other would be this consultants group. All I'm saying is I don't see any reason to restrict the selection to those two, but it would create a pool which could be drawn from if necessary and user willing.

I've served seven terms on the CdeC but I think one of the great things about the body is the ability to hit the refresh button every few months and get new perspectives. I don't know if I would want to add my input on an issue is I wasn't a currently sitting CdeC member.

Well we don't want you anyways!

---

I think Squid has addressed the other points much as I would have, so I agree with what he's said. He's correct in saying that all modern decision makers have folks around to help summarize and characterize the large amounts of information they have to work with on a day-to-day basis. Sometimes this works, sometimes this doesn't(lobbyists). Consultants would be more akin to the workable version because they would be providing a visible assessment to the CdeC as a whole, rather than representing a behind the scenes interest of a specific Councilor. Councilors may take this in mind and then agree or disagree, it is not intended to replace their ultimate task of coming to the final decision, it simply gives them more evidence.

The example of a modding tool is a good one. Just as only handymen know why there exist so many wrenches and screwdrivers in practice, which to use for what, which innovations save the most time, etc, only modders can know the true value of any given modding tool. And then only modders who have experience with that platform or similar platforms. Others might have an idea like "Making tools is good. Making things easier is good. I know what units are, if this adds them that saves time.", but this is not a true assessment of the impact of a tool, just a surface understanding of the role tools play. To really get acquainted with the arduous task that brought about the tool so that you can then really appreciate the job the tool does, it takes weeks or months, which is outside the scope of the CdeC. Figuring out which tools don't actually do much of value is even harder.

More often than someone not understanding the impact of something, a lot of times folks will overestimate something. This is the modder-fan relationship. Modders know we sometimes use hot words in previews to describe systems which make them seem more groundbreaking. I think "Exhaustive re-balance of all units for more realism" sounds a lot niftier than "I added 2 atk to every unit with find+replace". I'm not saying there's disingenuous stuff, just that more often than not the actual work put into something is overestimated than underestimated. Nowhere is this more true than in modeling and texturing, because to really understand what the applicant added you have to understand what he started with as a base, and him explaining it isn't exactly the perspective you need. Case in point, a recent case would have gone very badly wrong if I hadn't pointed out the units were ripped; folks just aren't expected to look for that kind of thing.

This problem is not limited to modders. My post here explains the inherent difficulty in making a fair assessment of a user who runs one of our RPG games without having any experience of it. The same can be said of Content contributions, as it's often the happenstance of a given Editor being on the CdeC who provides the reality check of what amount of tangible work went into the 'X articles for X publication'.

[Rolanbek]

Basically you're saying if I'm unsure as to the quality of a contribution I'm to ask the candidate "Is this good enough for you to become a citizen?" What do you expect they're going to answer 100% of time?

That would be the asking the candidate, not the petitioner. It make sense to ask the person putting a candidate forward. "what in the name hades does this mean?"

With all respect my elected representatives hire people who have the expertise to help them with the tasks they've been elected to decide. The elected representative makes the final decision based on what the experts they've hired have told them and as they make the final decision they are held responsible by the electorate. A finance minister (or sec tres if your in the US) does not know how to cost everything that goes into a budget, that is why there exists a finance department (or the treasury) to do that work.

You are equating being on Cdec with being a senior politician? Disturbing to say the least, However those advisors are not elected and are not responsible for the decisions, the elected person is. It is the Cdec members indivdual resposibility to ensure they have the best advice to make decisions Why formallise, and legislate on something which should be apparent to those taking the job on. If knowing your abilities are finite and that you are fallable is not a specifically written requirement of the job, then one would hope as a human being a Cdec members would know apply these things practically.

Again two separate issues, I can know all the facts in a case but not have the required expertise to be able to adequately judge whether or not its sufficient. I don't think a councilor should only say yes or no in a case, as that isn't helpful to the case but again that's a different issue so please keep this only about the issue at hand.

It is pertinant to the character of the amendment you are proposing. Simply put you are saying that the current situation is deficient and are proposing a change to correct this. I am illustrating that even with your change you a have no way of objectively measuring the result based on 'yes or no' responses.

If I were applying and I gave one of my modding tools as the reason why I should be a citizen can you honestly tell me that someone who has no modding experience much less expertise would be able to adequately assess the value of that tool as a contribution?

I would hope you potential patron would know, otherwise they are being reckless to the fact that they have no clue as to your qualifications for citizenship, prior to you patronage. I am assuming that this comment arises due to the misunderstand of my initial comment(see above).

R