[Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Proposer: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
Supporters: irishron, Meneth, Gigantus
With the onset of citizenship application transparency, there is a current, growing trend of applicant's contacting CdeC members during their reviews. This is an unnecessary distraction and should cease. In some cases, it is negatively badgering the councilors, and that is unacceptable.

During the applicant's citizenship review, any further communication initiated by the applicant and sent to a member of the CDeC, that relates to the application, may be used as grounds for refusing citizenship.

Article II. Patronisation





Any Citizen holding their rank for three months can patronise a Peregrinus for citizenship subject to the requirements in Article I above. The process of patronisation is as follows.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community.
3. In the case that the nominee wishes his citizenship application to be public: The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum.
5. During the applicant's citizenship review, any further communication initiated by the applicant and sent to a member of the CDeC, that relates to the application, may be used as grounds for refusing citizenship.
6. If the nominee wishes his citizenship application to remain private, the patron sends the paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, to either the Curator or a member of the Consilium de Civitate. The application itself will then be posted in the Politia.
7. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
8. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes and at least two-thirds of all CdeC members voted, he becomes a Citizen.
9. In exceptional circumstances, the period of discussion can be extended at the behest of Councilors and discretion of the Curator, to comply with the voting requirements or otherwise.
10. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result. If the candidate does not pass, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply.
11. If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.

After the conclusion of the vote, if the examination was private the applicant can make it public by PMing the Curator. If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month after the conclusion of the traditional seven day processing period. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on members they patronise.

[Meneth]

Change it to " any applicant initiated communication related to the citizenship application"
With the current wording, even a CdeC member replying to some completely unrelated post by the applicant would invalidate the application.

Once that's changed: support.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Change it to " any applicant initiated communication related to the citizenship application"
With the current wording, even a CdeC member replying to some completely unrelated post by the applicant would invalidate the application.

Once that's changed: support.

Done & done.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Support x3209380

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

Just so I understand...many CdeC members have TWC 'day-jobs' elsewhere in the forums (modding work, Content, etc etc). Would "applicant initiated communications" include an applicant asking me a non-citizenship question in that context, in a forum (ie not msg boards or PMs)?

For example, would a prospective candidate asking me, in my gallery thread, how to add motion blur in Sony Vegas for their video, be against the rules? Or ask me a question about a draft Content publication article I am currently working on? These are real situations, for me at least.

I support this kind of amendment in principle, but we need to be very clear on whether or not we mean citizenship related communication only, or any communication of any kind. The latter presents a bit of a logistical challenge for those of us who wear many hats.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Obviously not

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

Obviously not

LOL...not so obvious to me...some people take rules literally, not the spirit of the rule, at crunch time.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

LOL...not so obvious to me...some people take rules literally, not the spirit of the rule, at crunch time.

I support this kind of amendment in principle, but we need to be very clear on whether or not we mean citizenship related communication only, or any communication of any kind. The latter presents a bit of a logistical challenge for those of us who wear many hats

any applicant initiated communication, related to the citizenship application

This specifies communication related to the citizenship application...

Well the idea I had would certainly put a stop to this "lobbying" practice I shouldn't wonder, the guidelines would be given to a patron/client by the curator before the process starts, its really quite simple.. the patron /client indicates they understand before the process starts, your proposal goes part of the way but not all of the way.. the Patron /client needs to indicate they understand the rules right from the off.

Yes a guidelines posting could indeed help some who are unfamiliar with the ropes so to speak. That should be pursued as well...

This bill sets the foundation for all and cuts out the posibility of applicants straying into troubled waters.

[Omnipotent-Q]

Obviously not

Then what's the actual point in legislating this? There's clearly ways applicants could communicate that could be acceptable. Any communication can simply be ignored, or if relevant to the "citizen application" the relevant person contacted can simply reply if there's attempts to try and influence saying such actions aren't a goer. What if someone has a relevant question to their application and they PM someone on CdeC it? Such as "what's the eta on a decision boss?".

If an attempt to communicate is some how a case of "Negatively badgering the councilors" then perhaps they should try and wean new potential citizens in good curial practice, include messaging people. If someone can use their precious time on deciding who is good enough for a slight increase in forum access level, then they surely must have the time to reply to PMs however badgering, explaining calmly that they will not be influenced, while being as friendly, civil and as useful as possible.

If you think sticking in yet another clause in an overly long document most will not bother reading much into is the answer to this problem, you're seriously deluded.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Then what's the actual point in legislating this? There's clearly ways applicants could communicate that could be acceptable. Any communication can simply be ignored, or if relevant to the "citizen application" the relevant person contacted can simply reply if there's attempts to try and influence saying such actions aren't a goer. What if someone has a relevant question to their application and they PM someone on CdeC it? Such as "what's the eta on a decision boss?".

If an attempt to communicate is some how a case of "Negatively badgering the councilors" then perhaps they should try and wean new potential citizens in good curial practice, include messaging people. If someone can use their precious time on deciding who is good enough for a slight increase in forum access level, then they surely must have the time to reply to PMs however badgering, explaining calmly that they will not be influenced, while being as friendly, civil and as useful as possible.

If you think sticking in yet another clause in an overly long document most will not bother reading much into is the answer to this problem, you're seriously deluded.

Then what's the actual point in legislating this? There's clearly ways applicants could communicate that could be acceptable.

To ensure that distractions do not manifest, that would deter councilors from focusing their attention on the applications themselves.

1. If applicants feel the need to impart any further information then funel it through the patron.

2. Transparency is a checks and balances measure. Once the application is tendered, it should stand on it's own merit.

3. Distracting commentary about particular reviews, should wait til after the review is complete.

I think Christopher Walken is the perfect example of how that sometimes effective measures sometimes are'nt pretty. They're just one's weapon of choice....

WEAPON OF CHOICE.mov

{If the link does'nt work please try back later. Youtube is spotty sometimes. The song is "Weapon of Choice" by Fatboy Slim.}

[Omnipotent-Q]

To ensure that distractions do not manifest, that would deter councilors from focusing their attention on the applications themselves.

Are you telling me councillors cannot distinguish between a Private message in their inbox, and being objective in a voting process? If they're incapable of that, then surely they shouldn't be making these decisions in the first place. If the whole Curia voted on these decisions, this wouldn't even need to be worried about.

1. If applicants feel the need to impart any further information then funel it through the patron.

Why only the patron? We should encourage potential citizens to contact other members in friendly and civil ways. This encouragement shouldn't be limited to certain people. If someone sends a distracting PM about the vote, then simply explaining to the person in a reply will help to foster a better understanding. I'm at a loss as to why this is such a headache for people to do. It is easy not to get dragged into arguments over PM. For example:

You called me a cock in my CdeC application why?

Explain opinion in a civil manner. Explain that as an applicant you have to be subject to such scrutiny. Explain that they can if they wish withdraw the application if they so wish. yadda yadda yadda

Once the application is tendered, it should stand on it's own merit.

Yes but only voting councillors can truly say that to be the case. You can't embargo members from PMing other members because it is hassle for people to answer their messages in a helpful constructive way. Yeah for sure, some budding potential citizen might PM a councillor asking for support and pushing for a vote. But this is an opportunity for the councillor to reach out and help these potential additions to the curia gain a better understanding. We were all newbies at one point, and I think cutting off methods of communication in this manner would be counterproductive. It's such a small clause stuck into a big document and will only result in potential citizens being disqualified because they're nothing more than eager to do well as a member. It won't stop it happening - even Lord Rahl, one of our most oldest and esteemed members didn't know about the transparency of CdeC. If people like him and undoubtely others don't know that, how do you expect a member not even in the Curia yet to notice such a small clause as this?

The only effect this will have is that people will be disqualified. Why? Because a few councillors cannot be bothered to reply to PMs in a helpful constructive way. It's an attempt to bring a tool in to simply disqualify people some councillors deem a hassle. Not only that, it cannot be effectively implemented as there's no possibility of knowing that every CdeC member who gets a communication of this regard, will then decide to bring it to the attention of the rest of the CdeC. Unless you want to further change your amendment to

During the applicant's citizenship review, any applicant initiated communication related to the citizenship application , outside of the CdeC requesting further information from the applicant is grounds to invalidate the application....if the CdeC member contacted decides they want to use this clause to disqualify an applicant

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I support in theory... but also to stop this ongoing trend I have provided a way to negate such occurrences, which may help.. as obviously some Patrons/clients are unclear as to the does and donts whilst there is an ongoing process. I cant blame prospective clients if there are no set guidelines in place.

Does and donts

This amendment in practice, shall make sure that folks have their applications ready to go and don't submit them {like I did} before they are complete. Even if we plastered do's and don'ts on bill boards around the site, alot of folks will miss them. most folks however who go for citizenship have at least have a glance at the constitution....

Just so I understand...many CdeC members have TWC 'day-jobs' elsewhere in the forums (modding work, Content, etc etc). Would "applicant initiated communications" include an applicant asking me a non-citizenship question in that context, in a forum (ie not msg boards or PMs)?

For example, would a prospective candidate asking me, in my gallery thread, how to add motion blur in Sony Vegas for their video, be against the rules? Or ask me a question about a draft Content publication article I am currently working on? These are real situations, for me at least.

I support this kind of amendment in principle, but we need to be very clear on whether or not we mean citizenship related communication only, or any communication of any kind. The latter presents a bit of a logistical challenge for those of us who wear many hats.

I support this kind of amendment in principle, but we need to be very clear on whether or not we mean citizenship related communication only, or any communication of any kind. The latter presents a bit of a logistical challenge for those of us who wear many hats

any applicant initiated communication, related to the citizenship application

This specifies communication related to the citizenship application...

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

ok...full support.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Well we have started the ball rolling at least, if anyone is interested in adding to a set of guidelines concerning the patronization process? add you ideas? and welcome to it chaps.Does and donts

A worthy idea that should garner support and blossom... Now as to this...

During the applicant's citizenship review, any applicant initiated communication, related to the citizenship application outside of the CdeC requesting further information from the applicant is grounds to invalidate the application.

I'm taking it, that you are opposed. Care to share as to why?

1. The rules applies to everyone, so it's fair in that sense.

2. It cuts outs the CdeC councilor badgering that's been going on, and that is unacceptable.

3. Transparency is a good checks and balances measure. What it is not, is an open dialogue between applicant and the CdeC during their reviews.
.

[Gigantus]

2. It cuts outs the CdeC councilor badgering that's been going on, and that is unacceptable.

3. Transparency is a good checks and balances measure. What it is not, is an open dialogue between applicant and the CdeC during their reviews.
.

That's why I support

[irishron]

Support.

[Antwerpen]

Support.

[MorganH.]

Support.

[Squid]

This should be extended to the patron as well, there's no need for the patron to lobby through PMs or other means on an applicants behalf. But I support as a starting point.

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Support.