Proposal for the Civiate review panel

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I think that this topic should be placed here where disucssion on such things are supposed to happen so to recap-

The original proposal arose here

I said:

Perhaps we could try this process:

1. Patron approaches a client
2. Client application submitted to the staff
3. Staff check the warn record and deem if the member is eligable to become a civiate, any potential clients deemed beneath standards are rejected.
4. The eligible applicants are then put on a wating list.
5. A panel of senatorii/patricians will meet during the last week of each month, review all of the applicants for the month, and vote on who becomes a civiate
6. The next month begins and the process starts over

notes-

Any applications which are submitted during the review period will be reviewed by the staff and put on the waiting list for the NEXT month`s review

The panel of senatorii and patricians (numbers yet to be decided) would rotate between months

Any patrician who is on the panel and has a client under review cannot participate in the discussion and vote about that applicant.

The review panel will be under oath to judge each applicant by his/her merit, not by the lineage of the patron or any past differences they may have encountered with said applicant

The panel discussions will be hidden from view while the discussions are underway, but will be kept for prosterity and viewable by all after the review period is over

followed b Kagemusha`s reply:

I agree what Pater familias is saying but,maybe just the Senatorii should vote on the new civitates?All Senatorii are former staff members and they could be trusted to judge on a matter like this.It would also give the "old geezers" Something to do. And the prestige they hold in the community would limit the criticism. And when some of the present staff retires they will help to add to the Senatorii if the "elders" get tired on voting.

and then mine:

Well the problem with having only senatorii is that a) there are not many of them, some of which may not wish to participate. This would simply lead to another council of the same members, which is basically what staff is and b) senatorii have left office because they do not have the time commitments and may grow tired if they have to participate in a monthly panel discussion.

The addition of patricians gives everyone a chance to have a voice in who joins the ranks and who inevitably will become moderators of the site. The lack of experiance of any patricians on the panel will be balanced out by the senatorii. Perhaps the panel should be half patricians and half senatorii

and eventually some useful numbers by Archer

I can give you a number in a minute... (clicking things around..)

civitates: 173
patricians: 42
senatorii: 30

registered users: 6,551
Members 1,379 (registered users also, but there is a small special process with the software, which i am trying to figure out what it serves)
__________________

and this

Ok, I guess the "members" process is for the registered users to have at least 50 posts and be registered at least 7 days. It's kinda like a promotion process. the only one done automaticly.

ok, back on topic.

don't forget, not all senatorii are active. Actually the larger portion is inactive. i usually see only 6-7 senatoriis active most of the time.

I noticed that a similiar thread has been proposed by tBP but seems to have stalled in it`s evolution. I think that we need to pass a piece of legislation with a little more meat then simply discussing title names etc..

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

makes sense but I'd retain Archer's original idea of having a thread where the names of potential civitates are posted. Everyone can then see who is coming up before the panel and can PM members of the panel with any relevant comments about the person.

I'd also suggest the Pro-Curator leads the panel.

My only worry/concern is how many people would be willing to be on the panel, you risk just ending up with the same people doing the job all the time. Mind you, is that a problem?

[Muizer]

Hail to the pater familias and all that. Now, making nominations subject to any form of public vote or petitioning (<-the current rules) is not something I favour. IMHO there's nothing wrong with a bit of controversy amongst Civitates about who is "worthy". It reflects a diversity of opinion that could be lost if admission were to be made subject to public voting, especially if a 2/3 majority remains the requirement. IMHO the judgement of who deserves citizenship should remain in the hands of the patron only and staff should concern themselves with objective evidence such as post counts, bannings, warnings etc.. I'd suggest that any tweaks to Civitate entry requirements be made within this framework.

Muizer

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Does anyone else have any opinion upon this idea? If not can I move this into the Curia for a vote?

[Simetrical]

You need three named supporters before anything can be moved to vote.

As for your idea, I'm sorry, but I just don't see any gain from implementing it.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

You need three named supporters before anything can be moved to vote.

As for your idea, I'm sorry, but I just don't see any gain from implementing it.

The only reason I even bothered formulating this process was because there seemed to be a need in the community for a change in how civiates are chosen. I am kind of surprised at how this and the original proposal by tBP seemed to have died, yet other ones, such as argueing over names, are heated debates. It makes you wonder where people really think the important issues are.

[imb39]

I was under the impression that this problem had largely been resolved. I was also under the impression that the Staff themselves took the blame for any mistakes as they had made by not being, perhaps, vigilant enough.

Look at the furore over Drak and Crackermonkey. They tighten up and people scream blue murder. Krewcial was rejected too and he has said he agrees with the staff's assessment - he has said this openly, so I'm only repeating public knowledge.

Finally, Archer's figures indicate to me that the problem is perceived rather than actual in terms of numbers of Civitates. If the argument is about the standard of Civitates, well we all fall short in some ways. Even I ( ) drive people up the wall at times, I'm sure. Perhaps some have more off days than others - but then it is up to the Patron to have a chat with said client. If there is a weakness in the system it is that the Patron/Client relationship is purely voluntary. Once a promotion has been made a Civitate can totally ignore his patron if he wanted (which is fair enough) and so long as he stays within accepted norms there are no problems. Perhaps Civitates should have tighter rules placed on them...

[Søren]

I'd also suggest the Pro-Curator leads the panel.

The pro-curator is merely someone who copes with the administrative tasks of the Curia, e.g. moving things to vote e.t.c.

some common false illusions about the pro-curator are :

a) he/she is the reperesentative of the Curia

b) he/she is the representative of the staff to the Curia

c) he/she is given de jure power to interpret the Syntagma

Syntagma Pro-Curator

A Patrician, Senatorii, Cohortes Praetoria or staff member selected by the Republican Consul to manage day to day duties in the Curia. They will have Local Moderator powers over the Curia for this task

As you can see, it is merely an administrative role. There is absoloutly no reason whatsoever to expand it IMO.

---------------------

The addition of patricians gives everyone a chance to have a voice in who joins the ranks and who inevitably will become moderators of the site. The lack of experiance of any patricians on the panel will be balanced out by the senatorii. Perhaps the panel should be half patricians and half senatorii

Quite simply, why should everyone have a chance to do that ?

Why should people who play no role in moderating the site be allowed to do that ?

Why should people who do not have access to staff discussion/logs be allowed to do that ?

Why should people with no moderating experience be allowed to do that ?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Quite simply, why should everyone have a chance to do that ?

Why should people who play no role in moderating the site be allowed to do that ?

Why should people who do not have access to staff discussion/logs be allowed to do that ?

Why should people with no moderating experience be allowed to do that ?

ok.. go along as usual.. I could care less. I merely thought that this process could allow patricians to gain some experiance in running the site under fairly safe and controlled conditions (the list if approved by the staff and the decisions are also mediated by who have experiance). But what benefit would that be? You do realise that you and the other staff will not always want to be staff. When the time comes to choose people to replace you wouldnt you like to know that the there is a larger pool of experiance that you could draw from?

This proposal also acts, to state blunty, as another carrot for members to participate in this forum. It would also remove some of the burden on the staff as all you guys would have to do is remove applications which do not meet the standards (warns etc) and give you more time to moderate the site, which is the reason why you are staff. You as staff are not losing any power by doing this (which seems to me to be the main reason why some staff are so opposed to it), you stil have the initial say as to who proceeds to the review panel so it makes no difference that members who can`t see the warn logs are deciding on who will join the ranks.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Do any other civiates, particularly Patricians or Senatorii even care about this?　　Or am I simply beating a dead horse? If that is the case I will drop this issue immediately

[Simetrical]

I feel the same way about some of my proposals. We should institute log-rolling.

[Siblesz]

Good idea WBK. I sponsor this wholeheartedly.

[MadBurgerMaker]

You know...as a matter of fact, I like this idea as well. You've got my support.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

well I don`t think this should go forward to a vote until we hear from the people who would be involved with it. Would patricians and Senatorii be willing to participate? Would newer civiates who will one day be patricians also like to participate? If they don`t then there would be no point to changing things..

[Zuwxiv]

***This idea has earned the official Stamp of Zuwxiv's Approval.***

[Obi Wan Asterix]

It is a very daring idea, but I fully support it WBK. Well worked etc.

Please count on my full support

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

WBK,

as I said earlier in the thread i support this with only the slight addition of retaining Archer's idea of having prospective Civitate's names published in a thread beforehand so that people have a chance to send in comments. I like the once/month idea and would be willing to take part.

As you can see, it is merely an administrative role. There is absoloutly no reason whatsoever to expand it IMO.

other than the fact that you have someone in a central role who, as you say, is already willing to carry out administrative duties in the Curia. This would just be another administrative duty setting up an running the monthly meetings, managing the thread in which proposed names go and publishing the results of the civitate vote. Seems very in keeping with their current legislative role in the Curia.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

WBK,

as I said earlier in the thread i support this with only the slight addition of retaining Archer's idea of having prospective Civitate's names published in a thread beforehand so that people have a chance to send in comments. I like the once/month idea and would be willing to take part.


other than the fact that you have someone in a central role who, as you say, is already willing to carry out administrative duties in the Curia. This would just be another administrative duty setting up an running the monthly meetings, managing the thread in which proposed names go and publishing the results of the civitate vote. Seems very in keeping with their current legislative role in the Curia.

Second reading:
Overall I think this is a fantatstically constructive step into evolving the institution of patronage. It makes patronage impersonal, and gives a chance for people to get important self reflections on how they are perceived by the community.

I would honestly hate to see this great bill scrapped.

Motion to move to a vote or to extend discussion time by an x number of days

[Sinuhet]

Second reading:
Overall I think this is a fantatstically constructive step into evolving the institution of patronage. It makes patronage impersonal, and gives a chance for people to get important self reflections on how they are perceived by the community.

I would honestly hate to see this great bill scrapped.

Motion to move to a vote or to extend discussion time by an x number of days

I am for "to extend the discussion by an x days". There was stated a lot of new important things and for me intresting information in this thread during a discussion about this far-going change. It would be better to discuss it still a while, in my opinion.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I support this proposal.