[Decision]Limit transparency forum to citizens

[T.C.]

Decision

For the duration of any CdeC transparency trial periods, the "CdeC Transparency Trial" forum will be viewable only to members holding the rank of Citizen.

Reasoning:
While I fully support CdeC transparency, I think there is one problem with it. When members ongoing patronisation threads are made public they can also see it (obviously). This also means that they can (potentially) see the objections raised by CdeC members during the debate/voting phase. This then gives them the chance to try and sway opinion, publically or privately, while the debating/voting phase is ongoing.
This can obviously help if the nominee is being wrongly portrayed, but it also can potentially destroy the ability of a CdeC member to remain objective, which is key to the whole process.

I don't wish to portray a mistrust in the CdeC with this. The whole point of Transparency was to make sure that the CdeC were making fair and good decisions, I wouldn't want it to be the cause of wrongly made decisions.

[M D]

Oppose.. Why have transparency if its only semi transparent

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Oppose.. Why have transparency if its only semi transparent

Decision

For the duration of any CdeC transparency trial periods, the "CdeC Transparency Trial" forum will be viewable only to members holding the rank of Citizen.

Reasoning:
While I fully support CdeC transparency, I think there is one problem with it. When members ongoing patronisation threads are made public they can also see it (obviously). This also means that they can (potentially) see the objections raised by CdeC members during the debate/voting phase. This then gives them the chance to try and sway opinion, publically or privately, while the debating/voting phase is ongoing.

This then gives them the chance to try and sway opinion, publically or privately, while the debating/voting phase is ongoing.

Most CdeC Members that I know of or are familiar with are hardcore folks in terms of their volition. They have their own minds, and act as they see fit.
No one's gonna influence the way they think in terms of CdeC matters. IMO...

[Empress Meg]

If people are worried about some folks on the CdeC being swayed by personal interactions with people involved in cases in the public CdeC forum, then they should not for vote them. Full transparency involves complete accountability and therefore high personal standards.

Devoirs The Empress

[Lysimachus]

If people are worried about some folks on the CdeC being swayed by personal interactions with people involved in cases in the public CdeC forum, then they should not for vote them. Full transparency involves complete accountability and therefore high personal standards.

Devoirs The Empress

I don't particularly agree with you swaying the CdeCs in Marshal Beale's case to post seriously though. It's supposed to be an insight to how the CdeC actually works rather than moulding it in to how you want the public to see it.

[karamazovmm]

Oppose

There is no need for this since, we should measure the efforts and merits of the citizen candidate not on what he is doing, but on what he did. The period of the application is the divisor.

Thus any contributions made after the application process started should be viewed with a possibility of second intentions, not implying of course that the prospect citizen will with bad intent sway more votes. But it can be seen as a possibility that the citizenship process changed the candidate

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

Oppose.

If we lack the confidence in CdeC members to remain objective in the face of public griping during a live citizenship process, then we've goofed up in the CdeC elections and we get the government we deserve.

[Bokks]

If we lack the confidence in CdeC members to remain objective in the face of public griping during a live citizenship process, then we've goofed up in the CdeC elections and we get the government we deserve.

Best point I can think of right there.

I see where you're coming from, Top Cat, but--and I don't mean to be an Officer Dibble --I don't see any non-citizens having much of an ability to sway any CdeC member's votes anyway. If there's much of a worry about that happening, I would think it'd be the patron who could "bully" a member's voting patterns more than the client, and the patron would still be able to see everything since s/he'd be a citizen anyway.

Taking away the transperency would be a problem too in that any peregrine who does want to find a worthy patron and apply for citizenship would lack the look into the procedure that they can now access with everything the way that it is.

Oppose.

[Squid]

Oppose.

[Admiral Piett]

Opposed.

Applying members should be able to see the objections and know exactly what they need to do to improve. This would allow for a lot better behavior by all applying members as well as better posts should they be denied.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Applying members should be able to see the objections and know exactly what they need to do to improve. This would allow for a lot better behavior by all applying members as well as better posts should they be denied.

This change would only modify who can see the ongoing vote. An applicant could still reference their application once it concludes. It's not as though they could clean up ship in the space of the processing period.

Anyways, as I mentioned in the other thread I think the solution is to restrict channels for comment on active cases, not necessarily restrict who can see it. Like with non-disclosure of the past, the OP of the CdeC Commentary thread and the "gentleman's agreement" should be that case commentary be restricted to concluded cases given the manner of the process. There's a reason the jury is isolated from the outside world when they rule on a case, and it isn't because they're a bunch of incompetent louts who should be replaced with superior beings.

[Admiral Piett]

This change would only modify who can see the ongoing vote. An applicant could still reference their application once it concludes. It's not as though they could clean up ship in the space of the processing period.

Anyways, as I mentioned in the other thread I think the solution is to restrict channels for comment on active cases, not necessarily restrict who can see it. Like with non-disclosure of the past, the OP of the CdeC Commentary thread and the "gentleman's agreement" should be that case commentary be restricted to concluded cases given the manner of the process. There's a reason the jury is isolated from the outside world when they rule on a case, and it isn't because they're a bunch of incompetent louts who should be replaced with superior beings.

A fair point, well taken sir.

However, part of the issue is the mob's 'oversight' CdeC is it not?

[M D]

It still seems like we have just taken 3 steps forward and we're about to take 4 back with this.

[Augustus Lucifer]

It still seems like we have just taken 3 steps forward and we're about to take 4 back with this.

I could understand a 3 forward 1 back analogy, but 4 back? I'm curious to know what a non-Citizen seeing the case live as opposed to archived does. They don't vote so accountability doesn't apply. They shouldn't influence the vote so seeing how it runs its course shouldn't matter. They can't improve within the space of a week any concerns so knowing sooner won't help. What exactly is it that their viewing adds to the process?

(I'm playing Devil's Advocate, by the way. I don't think restricting viewing is necessary, just restricting commentary.)

[M D]

Non Citizens feel they should have the ability to see it. I mean so what if interested members can see a live application, apart from the fact their not red, how does it change how they will feel when viewing a live application. We have come along way with the transparency and now we're making it semi transparent so sorry, 2 steps back

[Augustus Lucifer]

Non Citizens feel they should have the ability to see it. I mean so what if interested members can see a live application, apart from the fact their not red, how does it change how they will feel when viewing a live application. We have come along way with the transparency and now we're making it semi transparent so sorry, 2 steps back

So the argument for is... curiosity? Transparency I should hope has a much nobler basis than that. Unfortunately none of them translate to this situation, since they'd all be adequately satisfied in the absence of this visibility. That's not to say it's a bad thing, just that if a grain of bad proves to come of it, that innately outweighs the lack of any appreciable value the visibility serves.

Anyways, I think we've done a good thing with transparency, but we need to be careful. There are valid reasons to have it, which are:

1) Accountability of elected officials (insured by all threads being made public as a matter of course)
2) Ability to insure threads are not substantially modified before being made public (insured by electorate-viewable live proceedings)
3) Ability for non-Citizens to see concluded applications for reference in their future applications (insured by Citizenship threads being archived in a location accessible to non-Citizens)

Those are the three tenets that transparency brings. Every frivolous allowance we take outside those bounds has more potential to harm than to help. Commentary on active cases is not the reason transparency has passed, and it has the potential to be a roadblock when it need not be. You have potential for undue influence, potential for a plebiscite or referendum forming, potential for spread of misinformation, and potential for wearing out prospective Councilors. The two most recent cases that circulated throughout the Curia, the Ferrets Citizenship case and Halie's censure, are clear as day evidence of this. On the other hand, the only benefit that could be stated is providing valid missed information, which would be better off handled through a PM to the Curator who can filter it.

Basically I don't want to see us get a good thing in transparency tangled up in the unnecessary addition of comment on live cases or other such extremities. There's simply no compelling reason for it, and many compelling reasons not to have it. As to the assertion that the solution is better Councilors, to that I say last I checked we're electing human beings, and ones with plenty of stress already at work/school. So let's not get caught up in the "transparency is transparency" circular argument and forget what end it's supposed to serve.

[T.C.]

Every frivolous allowance we take outside those bounds has more potential to harm than to help.

This was what I was thinking about when I put this forward - is there any reason to leave the potential for harm there? It's not as if every non-citizen needs to see every case going live. When I was forming my citizenship paragraph I did just fine on the selection of archived public cases available to me.

We can't realistically filter live discussion of these cases - at least with this measure we can (somewhat) restrict the informed discussion to Citizens, who should be making mature posts in the first place.

[Ciabhán]

This proposal smacks of elitism to me.

Oppose.

[Lysimachus]

This proposal smacks of elitism to me.

Oppose.

This. And if I recall correctly we went for full transparency, not "citizen transparency".

[magpie]

Opposed!