[Amendment] CdeC Interns

[Empress Meg]

I don't see why having four extra people in the CdeC will allow for fresh blood to get pushed into the mix. They can only post, not vote, and therefore have no real power or influence.

Additionally, I'm not sure what the four interns would gain from taking part in posting in CdeC cases. People can already view past cases of many kinds in the Citizen Antechamber and thus can gleam any necessary situations from the archives. This, coupled with their own opinions and experiences in the curia, provides adequate experience for new CdeC candidates and of course concerned/caring citizens.

The need to create this proposal is still valid, but I feel that it tries to complicate a matter which might best be solves with something perhaps a bit more crude but might work to cause the change needed. (If, in the future we find this change wasn't needed we can always reverse it. A wonderful thing at times, no?)

Why not keep the membership of the CdeC voting members at 12 but have a limited number of old farts mixed with greenhorns? Make the majority of the CdeC seats the old timers, people with past CdeC experience (one term or more) and a minority of the seats reserved for newbies, first term hopefuls. Wouldn't that solve the problem without over-complicating things? It provides the CdeC with a firm pool of seasoned members with the added benefit of a "school" for first time applicants to the office.

Devoirs The Empress

[Augustus Lucifer]

so the pool of candidates for the internship would diminish as they burn throught their 2 goes or secure a councilor post. Can we be sure that there will be continued interest when the current batch have passed through their possible terms?

We can never be sure there will be interest, that's the Achilles Heel of a site based on volunteer work. But the failsafe for lack of interest is that the body continues to operate at full capacity even if no internship is being served.

How does it address the problem of the 12 candidates - same faces problem? Being an intern who debates well is not likely to make you a more attractive candidate for councilor per se as the same criteria will be used by the electorate as currently, which could not include consideration of how good a debator a councilor has been due to non-disclosure.

I don't think non-disclosure will be an issue once transparency fully goes through. Whether or not it makes someone a more attractive candidate will depend wholly on their performance; it could also confirm suspicions about lack of performance. Now, if the issue is Citizens not voting based on performance and qualifications, then that is an intractable problem. We can do everything in our power to allow votes to be educated and informed, but we cannot force them to be.

Using the same argument, at the intern level you may just create the same problem, with a few faces rotating 4 seats between them.

Two internships only enables that to last for so long, and due to the six month gap it can't be consecutive.

Perhaps the simpleest way of making this change would be if you stopped any senior post past or present(Moderators, Divus, Phalera, Content Directors) from running in Cdec elections. dynamism would be achieved. People in those positions are already contributing vastly to the sight and it could be construed as unfair to expect them to serve as CdeC at the same time. Users in those groups are no longer 'members ordinary' and have positions of influence withing the structure of the community. Their names are well known and they are a safe choice when casting a vote in a long shortlist. Especially if you are part of their team, or have been, or they moderate an area which you commonly frequent.

I am not talking about undue influence here, that is certain. But the natural bias of goodwill toward those who have been recognised as doing good. That is one of the reasons for the apparently static nature of the CdeC membership. People vote for those they like, those that do good are liked, and so forth. The only issue is that there is only so much room at the top, and while that space is filled no new opportunity is there.

Stopping those holding other positions from applying wouldn't necessarily create dynamism, just as the introduction of interns won't necessarily. In that scenario we could end up with 12-15 folks who never served any other position rotating in much the same way perceived now, gradually following an altogether lack of candidates due to restrictions. The only difference is every last one would be 'career politicians' so to speak, so the pedantry would be stifling.

Perhaps it would be easier to split the Cdec into two, and have Patricians elected for 8 posts and Plebs for 4. A Pleb would be roughly analgous to the intern model but with full voting rights, and a Patrician would be anyone disqualifed from running as a Pleb. This would ensure that as Pleb candidates became more established they would find themselves soon 'part of the system' and required to apply as a Patrician. I can see a problem with any senior/junior arrangement in that it leads to division, but perhaps we are deluding ourselves saying the division is not there.

I'll address this below since Meg mentioned something similar.

It is difficult to accept that some doors remain closed no matter how 'worthy' we are, or how badly those on the other side appear to behave. Governance of the many by the few is like that.

As a mechanism, it is difficult to see governence by the competant as a bad thing. The gripe appears to be that we don't all get a turn.

Do we strive for a meritocracy or hamstring it in favour of egalitarism?

Stopping reapplication has one simple benefit above other methods that is limits. It limits good candidates who have served drowing out others and reducing others learning experiance and ability to contribute.

Personally i don't much care.

R

I think we can have our cake and eat it too. Introducing interns doesn't stop the candidates with the most merits from winning, and those candidates can be the same folk they'd always been. This proposal doesn't seek to discriminate against that circulation as a high crime against the state. What it does seek is attempts to level the playing field in whatever manners reasonable. Providing on-the-job experience bridges one of the major gaps between experienced candidates and fresh ones(not listing incumbents expressly in the threads is another simple one). What we can't bridge is personal experience of a member or capacity to perform in the role, and I don't think we should attempt to, lest we get a system where some useless outlier takes precedence.

I don't see why having four extra people in the CdeC will allow for fresh blood to get pushed into the mix. They can only post, not vote, and therefore have no real power or influence.

As far as voters are concerned, posting and voting are synonymous. Voters should wish to see how you reason your choices and what choices you make. Interns can state a choice without being tallied, which is the same to all but the applicant/appellant.

Additionally, I'm not sure what the four interns would gain from taking part in posting in CdeC cases. People can already view past cases of many kinds in the Citizen Antechamber and thus can gleam any necessary situations from the archives. This, coupled with their own opinions and experiences in the curia, provides adequate experience for new CdeC candidates and of course concerned/caring citizens.

"All know the way; few actually walk it." ~Bodhidharma

or perhaps

"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts." ~John Locke

The common uttering being actions speak louder than words. Everyone may know how to perform in the CdeC in theory, they may even be able to articulate it in the debate thread convincingly, but it takes three months worth of proving it to truly convince. The inside looking out can be remarkably different than the outside looking in, even with a completely transparent system. Actually doing the field work to ascertain contributions, having a healthy discussion with other Councilors, and deciding on a case-by-case basis, are necessary to show suitability for continued involvement. Philosophizing has its place of course, since someone going in with a completely wrong conception of how things work can be as bad as someone lacking delivery, but this is a rarer conundrum due to the available reference material you've elucidated.

The need to create this proposal is still valid, but I feel that it tries to complicate a matter which might best be solves with something perhaps a bit more crude but might work to cause the change needed. (If, in the future we find this change wasn't needed we can always reverse it. A wonderful thing at times, no?)

Why not keep the membership of the CdeC voting members at 12 but have a limited number of old farts mixed with greenhorns? Make the majority of the CdeC seats the old timers, people with past CdeC experience (one term or more) and a minority of the seats reserved for newbies, first term hopefuls. Wouldn't that solve the problem without over-complicating things? It provides the CdeC with a firm pool of seasoned members with the added benefit of a "school" for first time applicants to the office.

Devoirs The Empress

That is of course a plausible solution, but I don't prefer it to this one. The cardinal problem I see with any system that breaks the seats up and forces them through some defined criteria, is that it is treating some matter more highly than suitability(in this case newness, in Rolanbek's example site involvement). We should try and introduce equal opportunity whenever possible, but never at the expense of suitability. The most suitable candidates should always hold the relevant position, and whenever possible this should always be the result of an election rather than an appointment. If we force the guys who do the job best out the back door just to get people who do the job different, we haven't achieved anything. We must remember that while it's nice to give other folks a chance, more important than that is doing good by the applicants and appellants, and we can only claim to be doing that by always putting the best asses in the seats.

This may seem like a contradictory assertion, considering this very proposal seeks to allow for greater diversity of inclusion, but it is not. The goal of internships is to give new people the opportunity to compete against the established candidates by giving them a platform to showcase their abilities. In some cases the newcomers will not perform well enough to oust an established member, and that's fine. In other cases perhaps some young blood will light fires under a few complacent asses and get into the club by performing better than an established candidate; also fine. The crux of the matter is we can provide an opportunity to excel without also partitioning voting seats based on some arbitrary criteria that may in turn lead to a less proficient CdeC, an undermanned CdeC, or both.

A hopeful side effect being that interns will feel they have something to prove, and may therefore through discussion act as a catalyst for critical analysis. Speaking only for myself, there have been plenty of times I came upon something that vastly changed the landscape of the discussion, and all of them were the result of research and argumentation, not how I cast a vote. Interns can provide research and argumentation, and coupled with a need to excel may exert a positive influence indirectly on proceedings.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

At the end of the day... As stated, it's a volunteer outfit. Scuffling/jockeying for position is part luck, opportunity, and personality. The effort all in all builds character in my opinion.

If slots are limited and their performance is up for full, visible scrutiny, better public servants it makes...IMO...

[Rolanbek]

Interesting.

so the pool of candidates for the internship would diminish as they burn throught their 2 goes or secure a councilor post. Can we be sure that there will be continued interest when the current batch have passed through their possible terms?

How does it address the problem of the 12 candidates - same faces problem? Being an intern who debates well is not likely to make you a more attractive candidate for councilor per se as the same criteria will be used by the electorate as currently, which could not include consideration of how good a debator a councilor has been due to non-disclosure.

Using the same argument, at the intern level you may just create the same problem, with a few faces rotating 4 seats between them.

You may discourage applicants from reapplying as intern even should their contrbution not be well received.

Perhaps if you stopped successful CdeC members from reapplying in the following 4 elections (or 8 or 12) that may free up more space on the applicant list?

R

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Interesting.

so the pool of candidates for the internship would diminish as they burn thought their 2 goes or secure a councilor post. Can we be sure that there will be continued interest when the current batch have passed through their possible terms?

How does it address the problem of the 12 candidates - same faces problem? Being an intern who debates well is not likely to make you a more attractive candidate for councilor per se as the same criteria will be used by the electorate as currently, which could not include consideration of how good a debater a councilor has been due to non-disclosure.

Using the same argument, at the intern level you may just create the same problem, with a few faces rotating 4 seats between them.

You may discourage applicants from reapplying as intern even should their contribution not be well received.

Perhaps if you stopped successful CdeC members from reapplying in the following 4 elections (or 8 or 12) that may free up more space on the applicant list?

R

How does one grow or learn if one does not try and risk a stumble or fall. Who's to say what opportunities may arise for the interns or councilors for that matter? Often the prize goes to the one{s} that seize the day or moment.

Each individual has the opportunity to rise to the moment and make a name for themselves. Just because incumbents try for re election does not mean that they will succeed in seizing the day and outshining their non-established competition.

Not taking away from your spot on points just adding a few of my own...

[Rolanbek]

In a way you reinforce the points,

Change for changes sake is not enough reason, AL is trying to shift the makeup of the CdeC from one constantly full of the same known faces, to something a little more dynamic and this is in my eyes perhaps a worthwhile reason to make a change.

Perhaps the simpleest way of making this change would be if you stopped any senior post past or present(Moderators, Divus, Phalera, Content Directors) from running in Cdec elections. dynamism would be achieved. People in those positions are already contributing vastly to the sight and it could be construed as unfair to expect them to serve as CdeC at the same time. Users in those groups are no longer 'members ordinary' and have positions of influence withing the structure of the community. Their names are well known and they are a safe choice when casting a vote in a long shortlist. Especially if you are part of their team, or have been, or they moderate an area which you commonly frequent.

I am not talking about undue influence here, that is certain. But the natural bias of goodwill toward those who have been recognised as doing good. That is one of the reasons for the apparently static nature of the CdeC membership. People vote for those they like, those that do good are liked, and so forth. The only issue is that there is only so much room at the top, and while that space is filled no new opportunity is there.

Perhaps it would be easier to split the Cdec into two, and have Patricians elected for 8 posts and Plebs for 4. A Pleb would be roughly analgous to the intern model but with full voting rights, and a Patrician would be anyone disqualifed from running as a Pleb. This would ensure that as Pleb candidates became more established they would find themselves soon 'part of the system' and required to apply as a Patrician. I can see a problem with any senior/junior arrangement in that it leads to division, but perhaps we are deluding ourselves saying the division is not there.

It is difficult to accept that some doors remain closed no matter how 'worthy' we are, or how badly those on the other side appear to behave. Governance of the many by the few is like that.

As a mechanism, it is difficult to see governence by the competant as a bad thing. The gripe appears to be that we don't all get a turn.

Do we strive for a meritocracy or hamstring it in favour of egalitarism?

Stopping reapplication has one simple benefit above other methods that is limits. It limits good candidates who have served drowing out others and reducing others learning experiance and ability to contribute.

Personally i don't much care.

R

[Viking Prince]

Not mentioned, but important -- this position takes time to do a good job. The time varies with every candidate and a CdeC member's own areas of expertise, but it does take time. There may be many that would like to test the waters so to speak. This will give them the chance and to see if it is something they would wish to commit real time towards for the health of the site.

If I were to change anything in the proposal (it is a work in progress -- right AL?) it might be to select two interns at a time to two month insternships. This would be ashorter time to test the waters and selecting two at a time improves the chances of selection in some perverse way.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Not mentioned, but important -- this position takes time to do a good job. The time varies with every candidate and a CdeC member's own areas of expertise, but it does take time. There may be many that would like to test the waters so to speak. This will give them the chance and to see if it is something they would wish to commit real time towards for the health of the site.

If I were to change anything in the proposal (it is a work in progress -- right AL?) it might be to select two interns at a time to two month insternships. This would be ashorter time to test the waters and selecting two at a time improves the chances of selection in some perverse way.

Not mentioned, but important -- this position takes time to do a good job.

Spending "Hours" on an applicant, not a few minutes "if" one feels like it, occurs more than not. That's part of the reason some CdeC Members stress that applicants put effort into their applications. If a perspective citizen doesn't care enough to invest effort in themselves...Why should we?

Investing as much time as it takes to assist a perspective citizen is an honor, if they invest in themselves as well...

[Rolanbek]

To put it more plainly as i am having difficulty getting my point across.

Interns will acheive nothing as they do not vote, no one on the cdec will be required to listen to or be influenced by them.

the proposal is a waste of time in its current format, it does not address the issues we agree are present.

R

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

To put it more plainly as i am having difficulty getting my point across.

Interns will acheive nothing as they do not vote, no one on the cdec will be required to listen to or be influenced by them.

the proposal is a waste of time in its current format, it does not address the issues we agree are present.

R

no one on the cdec will be required to listen to or be influenced by them.

Again, not to take away from the other well founded points but... Isn't that an unfounded presumption? I can attest for a fact that at least a few current CdeC Members would not only listen to, but would encourage any input a party could contribute a citizenship/disciplinary review.

[Rolanbek]

prove it,

line up all current Cdec in this thread and get them to admit that they are inadequate, and need a novice to tell them what to think.

By admitting you will benefit you admit you are lacking currently. Which means either the members are doing fine now, the changes in the amemdment are superfluous, and nothing needs to change or the members are not up to the task and should resign and reapply once this is passed.

I think satan may skate to work first.

Until the above issues are addressed it is the amendment that is an unfounded presumption that this will do any good.

R

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

prove it,

line up all current Cdec in this thread and get them to admit that they are inadequate, and need a novice to tell them what to think.

By admitting you will benefit you admit you are lacking currently. Which means either you are doing fine now, and nothing needs to change or are not up to the task and should resign and reapply once this is passed.

I think satan may skate to work first.

Until the above issues are addressed it is the amendment that is an unfounded presumption that this will do any good.

R

Done..... I'm woefully inadequate at the job I am attempting to perform, and sincerely hoping that on the job training will carry the day to the Benefit of those relying on my performance...

Now I can only speak for myself in this instance. If others wish to contest it is beholden of them to do so....

I think satan may skate to work first.

For the most part, probably so...

Until the above issues are addressed it is the amendment that is an unfounded presumption that this will do any good.

Why not give it a throw. It risks nothing and could theoretically prove fruitful. If not, then we can mock the attempt and relish in it's failure.

[Harry Lime]

There is some virtue in your proposal, AL. I seem to remember a similar idea being mooted in the Den for a kind of entry level moderator (without actual powers), it may have even yourself that raised it, long time ago can't remember but with the diabolical machinations of the CdeC now exposed to all and sundry, surely they can already learn how the game is played out?

As for me I always vote for the new guys anyway just to give 'em a chance to prove their calibre and to perhaps become more involved in site operations, something I've been resisting for a long time.

[Viking Prince]

Well in that case Harry, you will get another new guy to vote for each time.

And after they have interned, you will still be able to vote for them as a new guy for the councilor seats as well.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Not mentioned, but important -- this position takes time to do a good job. The time varies with every candidate and a CdeC member's own areas of expertise, but it does take time. There may be many that would like to test the waters so to speak. This will give them the chance and to see if it is something they would wish to commit real time towards for the health of the site.

If I were to change anything in the proposal (it is a work in progress -- right AL?) it might be to select two interns at a time to two month insternships. This would be ashorter time to test the waters and selecting two at a time improves the chances of selection in some perverse way.

That's another possible approach which doesn't change much. Would create a bit more election creation overhead and a bit less necessary longevity. If this one doesn't go through we could try that way, for now I think voting with the given supporters is the best way forward to see where we're at.

Interns will acheive nothing as they do not vote, no one on the cdec will be required to listen to or be influenced by them.

I've never found a correlation between ability to vote and being listened to in the CdeC. A patron cannot vote on their client, but they are heavily involved in the discussion nonetheless. Hex members cannot vote, but their input is well received and responded to. Moreover the fact that another CdeC member can vote is not the reason an interchange would take place, it's because the Curia has determined we are all part of a working body, and that writ demands of us some level of openness and discourse.

the proposal is a waste of time in its current format, it does not address the issues we agree are present.

R

I addressed the points in your previous post, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say issues not addressed. If you mean that this isn't going to benignly educate the voting masses to vote on the most righteous of criteria, bring about 100% voter turnout, and solve every facet of incumbent advantage, then you're correct. But it would be complementary to any solutions that attempt to achieve that, it solves one facet of incumbent advantage and provides one more criteria to educate voters, and it comes with no perceptible negative side effects. That, I think, is all that can be expected of a proposal truly seeking passage through this most conservative of halls.

line up all current Cdec in this thread and get them to admit that they are inadequate, and need a novice to tell them what to think.

By admitting you will benefit you admit you are lacking currently. Which means either the members are doing fine now, the changes in the amemdment are superfluous, and nothing needs to change or the members are not up to the task and should resign and reapply once this is passed.

I find that to be a wholly wrong perception of the nature of healthy discourse. No one is telling anyone else what to think, they're providing a different perspective through which that person can better refine their own analysis. If the sky is blue where you live, but green where someone else lives, and it has always been so, both are likely to think the sky is always blue or always green. It takes proof of the other possibility to refine that assessment so that it is more correct, which does not necessarily entail switching from "the sky is always blue" to "the sky is always green" or vice versa, but rather "the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes green". This is called critical re-analysis and compromise and it's the foundation of a body seeking consensus.

If it's admitting someone is not perfect you're after, I should hope every CdeC member in the history of the site would attest to that. No one will catch everything all the time, or always have the most correct perception of affairs. I sure as hell don't, and apparently that was good enough for six terms. In fact the only people I'd want serving on the CdeC are those who are consistently open to the possibility that they missed something, were wrong in drawing some connection, etc. The less open someone is to re-analyzing their position given new evidence and perspective, the more ignorant the CdeC as a whole will be.

There is some virtue in your proposal, AL. I seem to remember a similar idea being mooted in the Den for a kind of entry level moderator (without actual powers), it may have even yourself that raised it, long time ago can't remember but with the diabolical machinations of the CdeC now exposed to all and sundry, surely they can already learn how the game is played out?

Gee whiz, the old curmudgeon doesn't think my proposal is utter bollocks, well hot damn!

I don't think it was me who proposed that idea, though it does sound like something I'd propose. And you're right that they can learn how the game is played as it is. But I think we can all agree that watching footie on TV for 20 years and knowing it inside and out doesn't mean that person can be a starting striker. The only way to get the starting job is to prove you know what you're doing in training camp, as a backup, or on a lower level club. That's basically what internship is, it lets the players(candidates) participate in real games to prove to the coach(Citizens) they should get the start.

As for me I always vote for the new guys anyway just to give 'em a chance to prove their calibre and to perhaps become more involved in site operations, something I've been resisting for a long time.

Speaking of which, you've been wearing that Tribune badge four ticks past the standard unit of measure for Harry involvement.

[Rolanbek]

I've never found a correlation between ability to vote and being listened to in the CdeC. A patron cannot vote on their client, but they are heavily involved in the discussion nonetheless. Hex members cannot vote, but their input is well received and responded to. Moreover the fact that another CdeC member can vote is not the reason an interchange would take place, it's because the Curia has determined we are all part of a working body, and that writ demands of us some level of openness and discourse.

Hex members contribute from a position of experience and authority, so are likely to be listened to eiher out of respect or fear. Interns lack for both experience and authority, so their comments will unavoidably be considered with much less gravity.

There is no "stick" to make Councilors listen to interns, there is no "carrot" reward them for doing so.

I addressed the points in your previous post, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say issues not addressed. If you mean that this isn't going to benignly educate the voting masses to vote on the most righteous of criteria, bring about 100% voter turnout, and solve every facet of incumbent advantage, then you're correct. But it would be complementary to any solutions that attempt to achieve that, it solves one facet of incumbent advantage and provides one more criteria to educate voters, and it comes with no perceptible negative side effects. That, I think, is all that can be expected of a proposal truly seeking passage through this most conservative of halls.

When you say the Curia you mean the 60 or so people who turn up to vote. 12 of whom are currently CdeC and recently more than 6 candidates who are non CdeC. Thats 30% in or running for office. At those levels of activity you could turn it into a Jury service arrangment, whereby if you vote on anything and are qualified your name goes on the roster for Cdec service. With those numbers you would not have to serve more than once a year. Everyone gets a go and everyone shares the pain. You could stagger the oldtimer involvement throughout the cycle to ensure a mix of experience levels.

job done.

I find that to be a wholly wrong perception of the nature of healthy discourse. No one is telling anyone else what to think, they're providing a different perspective through which that person can better refine their own analysis. If the sky is blue where you live, but green where someone else lives, and it has always been so, both are likely to think the sky is always blue or always green. It takes proof of the other possibility to refine that assessment so that it is more correct, which does not necessarily entail switching from "the sky is always blue" to "the sky is always green" or vice versa, but rather "the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes green". This is called critical re-analysis and compromise and it's the foundation of a body seeking consensus.

Consensus is normally flawed in that no one truely gets what the want, but least you can console yurself that no one else did either. In your example you solve the problem of our two disperate, but accurate local models and combine them into one imprecise statement part of which is contra to the experience and reality of both partys. It is important to remember that every act of compromise is an act which betrays your ideals. Compromise Is method for accepting second (or third) best and counting it as a win.

If it's admitting someone is not perfect you're after, I should hope every CdeC member in the history of the site would attest to that. No one will catch everything all the time, or always have the most correct perception of affairs. I sure as hell don't, and apparently that was good enough for six terms. In fact the only people I'd want serving on the CdeC are those who are consistently open to the possibility that they missed something, were wrong in drawing some connection, etc. The less open someone is to re-analyzing their position given new evidence and perspective, the more ignorant the CdeC as a whole will be.

There are 12 members, between them that should catch everything. If they don't them perhaps we need to revaluate what the qualifications an mode of operation are for the Cdec.

Being open to re-evaluation does not support your amendment, I understand it to be a desirable trait in a CdeC member but your amendment does not increase the prevelence of that trait. Either Cdec needs more help or it dosen't, If it does then there is a tacit admission of inadequacy, if it does not then this amendment is not needed. If it is that the change is not needed yet individual CdeC members want it, we need to analyse why they think their competancy is suboptimal and remove those who are.

It is very simple as a previous CdeC member myself, you know what the job is when you sign up. If you can't do it then step aside.

If you want true consensus abolish Cdec altogether and allow the curia at large to vote on all matters, in public. This is the optomen, cdec was designed as a transitional state between the old and new republics to facilitate the Tabula Rasa we had to endure during the reforms. It belongs in the past.

R

[Augustus Lucifer]

Hex members contribute from a position of experience and authority, so are likely to be listened to eiher out of respect or fear. Interns lack for both experience and authority, so their comments will unavoidably be considered with much less gravity.

There is no "stick" to make Councilors listen to interns, there is no "carrot" reward them for doing so.

It's clear that you feel standing is relevant to the merits of one's argument, and that I feel it is not. We cannot project either of our views onto the twelve Councilors. It should nevertheless not take an incentive to be reasonable and open-minded, and that means clout has its place but does not approach logic.

When you say the Curia you mean the 60 or so people who turn up to vote. 12 of whom are currently CdeC and recently more than 6 candidates who are non CdeC. Thats 30% in or running for office. At those levels of activity you could turn it into a Jury service arrangment, whereby if you vote on anything and are qualified your name goes on the roster for Cdec service. With those numbers you would not have to serve more than once a year. Everyone gets a go and everyone shares the pain. You could stagger the oldtimer involvement throughout the cycle to ensure a mix of experience levels.

job done.

If you wish to propose that as a solution you're welcome to do so. I do not feel that a volunteer position should be thrust around arbitrarily and that applicants and appellants should be made to suffer anything less than the most heavily supported occupants dealing with their cases. We should not value circulation over the role of the CdeC in managing matters optimally.

Consensus is normally flawed in that no one truely gets what the want, but least you can console yurself that no one else did either. In your example you solve the problem of our two disperate, but accurate local models and combine them into one imprecise statement part of which is contra to the experience and reality of both partys. It is important to remember that every act of compromise is an act which betrays your ideals. Compromise Is method for accepting second (or third) best and counting it as a win.

You're right, in an attempt at brevity my combination was not precisely scientific. A better combination would be something like: "It would appear that the color of the sky changes in different locales due to varying amounts of low atmospheric gas concentration. Currently perceived sky coloration's include blue and green, which seem to be quite constant in their relative areas. We posit that a red sky may also be possible in our atmosphere under special circumstances around the polar regions. This is all bearing in mind, of course, that the notion of named color hues is a human construct and our perception as such is a result of our optical senses." That would be a much better way of putting it.

I'm sure you've heard of a certain Rolling Stones song about wants and needs. Civilized society is founded upon compromise, it's all around us in everything that we do. If anyone always got everything they wanted and was correct all the time, they'd soon find themselves awaking. The only people I would lend confidence to on the CdeC are those intelligent enough to be able to re-analyze their perceptions and opinions with the goal of approaching correctness. Or to put it another way:

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
~ William Shakespeare, acclaimed fool.

There are 12 members, between them that should catch everything. If they don't them perhaps we need to revaluate what the qualifications an mode of operation are for the CdeC.

Being open to re-evaluation does not support your amendment, I understand it to be a desirable trait in a CdeC member but your amendment does not increase the prevelence of that trait. Either Cdec needs more help or it dosen't, If it does then there is a tacit admission of inadequacy, if it does not then this amendment is not needed. If it is that the change is not needed yet individual CdeC members want it, we need to analyse why they think their competancy is suboptimal and remove those who are.

Ah, but 12 is such an arbitrary number. It's a nice number, a workable number, but 12 people can miss something as easy as 5, or 20, or 100, and so on. But that's beside the point, because the goal of this proposal isn't to add four opinions in the hope it will provide enlightenment. It was suggested that the vigor may produce something of that nature on occasion as a byproduct, and that's all. If the four interns were completely ignored on every case it would wholly and entirely not alter the effectiveness or lack thereof of this proposal.

The goal of the proposal is not to help the CdeC directly. It isn't even to help the applicants or appellants directly. That's all ensured by the lack of voting and consequently lack of risk associated with internships. The goal is to help voters and candidates, which may in turn help the CdeC by allowing hopefuls to showcase themselves. As a Citizen looking through records of Councilor participation, it doesn't matter how the tally ended up, it matters how each individual articulated their reasoning and which decision they came to. An intern can do this without needing to cast a vote or be heard by his fellows, and still prove more insightful than sitting Councilors and therefore more electable. To say that the act of casting a vote is more important than compelling argumentation is to admit voting in folly and perpetuating mediocrity.

It is very simple as a previous CdeC member myself, you know what the job is when you sign up. If you can't do it then step aside.

If you want true consensus abolish Cdec altogether and allow the curia at large to vote on all matters, in public. This is the optomen, cdec was designed as a transitional state between the old and new republics to facilitate the Tabula Rasa we had to endure during the reforms. It belongs in the past.

R

But you just pointed to the fact that under 10% of the Citizen body participate in votes. Those 10% deciding would be no more of a true consensus than the CdeC is a true consensus. By adding an element of exclusivity and requiring a certain level of participation, we insure that educated voting is valued over simply voting. If every Citizen had the time to spend that each Councilor does on assessing a case, then abolishing the CdeC would be sensible. This isn't remotely the case however.

[irishron]

If it were mandatory to hold a position for a certain length of time, or as VP tried to push a certain amount of involvement in the Curia, CDEC, etc., you will have a revolt on your hands. If you want to watch citizenship drop, implement it.

[Harry Lime]

Well in that case Harry, you will get another new guy to vote for each time.

But where's the choice?

And after they have interned, you will still be able to vote for them as a new guy for the councilor seats as well.

Bah! They'll be soiled by then.

Gee whiz, the old curmudgeon doesn't think my proposal is utter bollocks, well hot damn!

Not fair. I support, oppose or abstain entirely on the merit of the proposal and I have supported or voted yes on a fair few of yours.

I don't think it was me who proposed that idea, though it does sound like something I'd propose. And you're right that they can learn how the game is played as it is. But I think we can all agree that watching footie on TV for 20 years and knowing it inside and out doesn't mean that person can be a starting striker. The only way to get the starting job is to prove you know what you're doing in training camp, as a backup, or on a lower level club. That's basically what internship is, it lets the players(candidates) participate in real games to prove to the coach(Citizens) they should get the start.

Your analogy would be striking if being on the CdeC involved the same level of skill but it doesn't. Having the time and ability to research the applicant thoroughly is all that's required and then to use that in drawing your own conclusions as to the worth of each applicant. I don't see debating to convince the other councillors either way as being a prerequisite of the job.

That being said I do see some advantage in your proposal but maybe not enough to sway me just yet.

Speaking of which, you've been wearing that Tribune badge four ticks past the standard unit of measure for Harry involvement.

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Not fair. I support, oppose or abstain entirely on the merit of the proposal and I have supported or voted yes on a fair few of yours.

I's jus' messin'. Jus' messin'.

Your analogy would be striking if being on the CdeC involved the same level of skill but it doesn't. Having the time and ability to research the applicant thoroughly is all that's required and then to use that in drawing your own conclusions as to the worth of each applicant. I don't see debating to convince the other councillors either way as being a prerequisite of the job.

That being said I do see some advantage in your proposal but maybe not enough to sway me just yet.

The skill required is not comparable by any means. The divide between inexperienced and experienced is not remotely as wide. Nevertheless there is an element of being a proven and known quantity versus an unknown quantity. We can observe that election is not purely an incumbent phenomenon, as folks like Viking Prince, Squid, Pontifex, Belisarius, and the Black Prince all took leaves from the CdeC and were re-elected in their first or second subsequent attempt. So either past service does mean something to voters and will be factored in, in which case an internship served well would greatly improve one's chances. Or, elections are purely based on a name check and no higher criteria, in which case there's nothing we can do save abolish ourselves for incompetence. More likely there's an element of both.

(It would be interesting to see how many folks would be re-elected if they changed their usernames and profiles, but still associated with past CdeC terms indirectly. That would be a very telling case study.)

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Quite.