[Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier

[Viking Prince]

Politely opposed.

There must be a better solution. I am instinctively opposed to rules to banish speech. In this case, I have not seen a reason to override my instincts. Please convince me of the necessity.

[Squid]

Politely opposed.

There must be a better solution. I am instinctively opposed to rules to banish speech. In this case, I have not seen a reason to override my instincts. Please convince me of the necessity.

1. This is like court case where those involved cannot try to influence the judge(s)
2. Prevents an disadvantage for those who choose the privacy option and can't comment on what goes on
3. Prevents accusations of CdeC allowing their decisions to be influenced

I'm sure there are others but those a good start.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Politely opposed.

There must be a better solution. I am instinctively opposed to rules to banish speech. In this case, I have not seen a reason to override my instincts. Please convince me of the necessity.

You couldn't have said it any better. However, in my eyes the badgering of Councilors must cease. One act of that is one too many. This is a type of mini compromise, other wise the naysayers against transparency could concievably gain a foothold.

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.

If the patron engages in the act of badgering then individual measures can be applied. If communication is necessary from the applicant's party, then it should be through the patron...IMO. The act of also banning communication from the patron is fareaching, at this point IMO.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Support.

[Viking Prince]

But rather than use the example of a court case -- why not use the exaple of a newspaper. The newspaper gives an outlet for reader comments. The newspaper wants to encourage the readers to put forward useful ideas in response to the work of their columnists and reporters.

As to the posited disadvantage to those who choose to retain privacy -- I think the members of CdeC are capable of keeping these matters in balance. I do not see the nature of free and open discussion to be a concern.

And as to concerns about being influenced -- do you really think a pm from a member of the site is the same as creating bias???? I cannot believe that simply contacting me creates even an impression of bias with other members.

[Squid]

But rather than use the example of a court case -- why not use the exaple of a newspaper. The newspaper gives an outlet for reader comments. The newspaper wants to encourage the readers to put forward useful ideas in response to the work of their columnists and reporters.

Except in a newspaper comments to the editor are written after the article was published not while the reporter is working on it. A better example is you don't get to take part in the discussion when your boss is discussing whether or not you should get a promotion with his boss or his peers (i.e. bosses of other groups).

As to the posited disadvantage to those who choose to retain privacy -- I think the members of CdeC are capable of keeping these matters in balance. I do not see the nature of free and open discussion to be a concern.

Why allow a disadvantage when its an easy fix to keep the playing field level? The problem is it is not supposed to be a free and open discussion between CdeC and applicant but an open discussion between councilors seeking to decide if a person should be promoted. The reason for transparency was so the Curia can gauge if the elected councilors are adequately performing their duties not for applicants to communicate with CdeC. We've had this exact discussion before, not a month ago, the last time a public application caused issues.

And as to concerns about being influenced -- do you really think a pm from a member of the site is the same as creating bias???? I cannot believe that simply contacting me creates even an impression of bias with other members.

As with moderation and administration every effort should be taken to remove even the appearance of bias and/or being influenced. Allowing leaves the process open to the accusations of. Far easier to not allow communication as communication doesn't add anything has severe drawbacks.

[The Hedge Knight]

Support.

[Viking Prince]

OK -- so we both fail at similar allusions. Still, the matter remains that this proposal is designed to muzzle site member discussion. A better measure would be to accept such discussion and direct it to appropriate threads and forums.

I do not accept that there is a disadvantage between applications being transparant or private for chances of success. If there is one (which I still deny) and the applicants have all the available information to make a personal decision on transparancy, I still do not see such a disadvantage as a justification to muzzle our members.

The appearance of bias is the problem of the individual councilors and not a problem for the applicant. Wrting a rule to muzzle the site members does nothing to resolve any problem of bias within the councilor.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

OK -- so we both fail at similar allusions. Still, the matter remains that this proposal is designed to muzzle site member discussion. A better measure would be to accept such discussion and direct it to appropriate threads and forums.

I do not accept that there is a disadvantage between applications being transparant or private for chances of success. If there is one (which I still deny) and the applicants have all the available information to make a personal decision on transparancy, I still do not see such a disadvantage as a justification to muzzle our members.

The appearance of bias is the problem of the individual councilors and not a problem for the applicant. Wrting a rule to muzzle the site members does nothing to resolve any problem of bias within the councilor.

Perhaps it is akin to putting a band aid on a severed limb. ATM though a necessary one til those other avenues of expression are secured. Transparency is in it's infancy, and should be safeguarded, so that it may mature unimpeded to adulthood...

"What is done can always be undone."

[Squid]

I do not accept that there is a disadvantage between applications being transparant or private for chances of success. If there is one (which I still deny) and the applicants have all the available information to make a personal decision on transparancy, I still do not see such a disadvantage as a justification to muzzle our members.

It obviously is an advantage otherwise you would not be fighting so hard to preserve it if you thought there was no benefit to it. If there were no benefit you wouldn't care if the communication were there, similarly if there were no benefit I wouldn't be trying to remove it.

The appearance of bias is the problem of the individual councilors and not a problem for the applicant. Wrting a rule to muzzle the site members does nothing to resolve any problem of bias within the councilor.

The same can be said about bias being the problem of individual moderators and admins but there are still rules governing the behaviour of moderators and admins to protect against the appearance of bias.

[Viking Prince]

My concerns regarding transparancy were meant to help the citizens assess the elected members of CdeC for performance. I still believe a transparant process is better than a private membership club meeting behind closed doors. If this was meant to amend the transparancy process, I might support it. It is not meant to be anything more than a muzzle on our members though.

If the problem is when the threads should be visible, then change the transparancy from submission to a later point such as prior to the polling. If the problem is members contacting CdeC on current business, then instruct the members of CdeC to not respond to the communications and to log the transmissions for the Curator to deal with. If the problem is members discussing the current business via pm, then redirect the member to a thread or forum where the discussion can take place. But do not blanket muzzle the membership of TWC from responding to threads that they can see. And do not punish the applicant for being honest and responsive to a matter near and dear to his particpation on the site.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

My concerns regarding transparancy were meant to help the citizens assess the elected members of CdeC for performance. I still believe a transparant process is better than a private membership club meeting behind closed doors. If this was meant to amend the transparancy process, I might support it. It is not meant to be anything more than a muzzle on our members though.

If the problem is when the threads should be visible, then change the transparancy from submission to a later point such as prior to the polling. If the problem is members contacting CdeC on current business, then instruct the members of CdeC to not respond to the communications and to log the transmissions for the Curator to deal with. If the problem is members discussing the current business via pm, then redirect the member to a thread or forum where the discussion can take place. But do not blanket muzzle the membership of TWC from responding to threads that they can see. And do not punish the applicant for being honest and responsive to a matter near and dear to his particpation on the site.

If the other councilors can invest in this, I'm more than willing to retract the attempted muzzling.

[Viking Prince]

@Navajo Joe's application/Viking Prince:
"I am inclined to suggest that until the beta testing is complete for 6.4, this remains a part of the dev team effort and not yet a contribution."
SS6.4 was released last month. Beta testing is complete.

I include this as exhibit A on why transparancy of the ongoing discussion has merit. I would also add that it was not necessary for the member to do so via pm.

Perhaps we should shelve this muzzle for a later time and address the actual issues of when and where the commentary by members should be made.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I include this as exhibit A on why transparancy of the ongoing discussion has merit. I would also add that it was not necessary for the member to do so via pm.

Perhaps we should shelve this muzzle for a later time and address the actual issues of when and where the commentary by members should be made.

I would prefer that route, if strides manifest in that direction.

But bear in mind, What does not lift an eye brow for you and I, may cause discomfiture in others. A councilor should not feel harassed while working on a review. Then again aren't citizens made of "sterner stuff"?

Let's see if other, more preferable, options manifest.

[Jom]

I include this as exhibit A on why transparancy of the ongoing discussion has merit. I would also add that it was not necessary for the member to do so via pm.

Perhaps we should shelve this muzzle for a later time and address the actual issues of when and where the commentary by members should be made.

You would have found that out from Ishan anyway, or another councillor who has their finger a little more attentively on the pulse of the modding scene than you or me. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of taking external input on a case from the Curial Commentary thread or indeed any other thread. It defies the whole purpose of the CdeC in my mind; you may as well just open a thread in the Curia proper and have anyone have a go at saying why they think a prospective citizen should or should not make it.

[Viking Prince]

Perhaps. But then, the Tribunal may or may not read the Tribunal Commentary thread (except for the periodic cleaning). I have never heard that the thread is a threat to the independance of the Tribunal or a threat to the deliberations within the appeal threads. As a member of the moderation staff, I do check the moderation commentary threads. To be honest, I do not think it has done much to ruin my independance or create any sort of bias. Feed back is needed by all administrators and elected officials. What use you choose to make of the feedback as a member of CdeC is completely up to you.

As to allowing just anybody to post in the application threads -- that might be an interesting townhall experiment. In the end -- CdeC is an elected body to take positions via polling. Mainly because of the time involved to take an informed decision rather than any special traits held by members elected to CdeC. That would remain. We now allow the members to sit in on the discussions and yet CdeC still holds the votes. If we allow the members to also post to the discussion threads, that might not be so bad. It might be a bit chaotic though. A bit like my city of Denver Colorado when the cowboys could still ride their horses into the bars near the Capital building on some of the busier Friday nights.

[Jom]

There's no analogy between the CdeC and The Tribunal. The Tribunal has an absolute set of guidelines to follow: the ToS. The CdeC has so such guidelines and relies upon the personal feelings of each councillor.

[Viking Prince]

I see a great deal of similarities between the Tribunal and CdeC and how the community is able to interact via commentary threads and even via pm. I am not aware of any public policy that forbids a member from contacting a Tribune on an ongoing case. Not that I would encourage a mass communication on any case, but still there seems to be no rule forbiding such actions.

We shall disagree then. Politely though.

[Jom]

I see a great deal of similarities between the Tribunal and CdeC and how the community is able to interact via commentary threads and even via pm. I am not aware of any public policy that forbids a member from contacting a Tribune on an ongoing case. Not that I would encourage a mass communication on any case, but still there seems to be no rule forbiding such actions.

We shall disagree then. Politely though.

Politely as always, of course.

I think the two differ too greatly due to the absolutely point of reference that the Tribunal has whereas the CdeC is necessarily much more subjective. A better analogy in my eyes would be the Praetorium as it deals more in the equally subjective subject of clemency, and we certainly hide the Praetorium from prying eyes and don't mention what's happening in it at all.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I see a great deal of similarities between the Tribunal and CdeC and how the community is able to interact via commentary threads and even via pm. I am not aware of any public policy that forbids a member from contacting a Tribune on an ongoing case. Not that I would encourage a mass communication on any case, but still there seems to be no rule forbiding such actions.

We shall disagree then. Politely though.

Politely as always, of course.

I think the two differ too greatly due to the absolutely point of reference that the Tribunal has whereas the CdeC is necessarily much more subjective. A better analogy in my eyes would be the Praetorium as it deals more in the equally subjective subject of clemency, and we certainly hide the Praetorium from prying eyes and don't mention what's happening in it at all.

Glances up at the opposite but equal meeting of the minds....


OT: I'm still looking for support for this amendment in case preferable options don't pop up on the radar. Now in my 70+ votes that I sat in on, not once was I contacted by an applicant during an ongoing application, and I was at the time the most vocal councilor of the lot.

So although yes a curtailment of rights, I see no reason why any pertinent additional information about applications, cannot by funneled through the patron.