[Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier

[Saint Nicholas]

This just makes good sense to me, funny how no one thinks of these things until we have a problem. Once an application is in it's done and dusted, an applicant cannot be allowed to try and influence a councillor to vote one way or another, going further; councillors must be protected from harassment from applicants. It's like the jury being harassed by the accused, it isn't permitted and neither should it be. On TWC the CdeC is the Jury, the impartial body elected to judge. They need to have some protections in place. Support.

[Lord Rahl]

Question: Since when was the CdeC viewable to non-CdeC members? Maybe I've simply forgotten but when I was a member this wasn't the case. It would seem like harassment of CdeC members would not be such an issue if the CdeC sub-forum was exclusive to just them.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Question: Since when was the CdeC viewable to non-CdeC members?

Yes...Quite. Public Visibility for-the-win....


You "in" Ma Lord, or taking a pass on this one....

[Jom]

Question: Since when was the CdeC viewable to non-CdeC members? Maybe I've simply forgotten but when I was a member this wasn't the case. It would seem like harassment of CdeC members would not be such an issue if the CdeC sub-forum was exclusive to just them.

Since this amendment was passed, Rahl, so for about a month and a half.

Yes...Quite. Public Visibility for-the-win....


You "in" Ma Lord, or taking a pass on this one....

What?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

What?

I asked him if he would care to throw in a support or oppose on this one... Texas inside humor I suppose...

[Lord Rahl]

You "in" Ma Lord, or taking a pass on this one....

If we're talkin' Texan here then I'll say I'm gonna "fold" on this (Texas Hold 'Em). The proposal makes sense if the CdeC is having problems but it seems like it'd be easier and make more sense to not have the CdeC's deliberations public. Back when I was a CdeC member we didn't seem to have problems of members messaging us in such a way to annoy us. It's the candidate's and potential patron's responsibility to provide enough information to properly represent the candidate, and it's the CdeC's responsibility to best criticize the candidate on the provided information and their own research. There shouldn't be a back-and-forth between the two parties. It's not a conversation between them or interview. It's more like a job application where the member's qualifications and contributions should speak for themselves.

But that's just my opinion.

Since this amendment was passed, Rahl, so for about a month and a half.

I guess I should have voted on that. Has this problem of annoying contact to the CdeC come as an effect of the increased transparency?

[Jom]

I guess I should have voted on that. Has this problem of annoying contact to the CdeC come as an effect of the increased transparency?

Of course. People can now see exactly what CdeC councillors are discussing and find it hard to resist rebutting or trying to correct them.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Has this problem of annoying contact to the CdeC come as an effect of the increased transparency?

Of course. People can now see exactly what CdeC councillors are discussing and find it hard to resist rebutting or trying to correct them.

So it seems. Some folks notice it, some don't. So let's take it out of the equation during ongoing reviews.

[Saint Nicholas]

I guess I should have voted on that. Has this problem of annoying contact to the CdeC come as an effect of the increased transparency?

Of course. In the past there was a disconnect between CdeC and applicant. Now the applicant or any other member can view their application in progress. If the applicant sees a comment made by a councillor they don't like then they can easily start questioning them and then we start down the murky path. Evidence of this can be seen in Rebel Jeb's case.

[Lord Rahl]

Of course. People can now see exactly what CdeC councillors are discussing and find it hard to resist rebutting or trying to correct them.

Then either the candidate simply doesn't qualify or didn't properly represent themselves.

So it seems. Some folks notice it, some don't. So let's take it out of the equation during ongoing reviews.

Then I guess this proposal is a solution...but not the best. Now people will get even angrier that they can see what's said about them without defending themselves, right or wrong.

Of course. In the past there was a disconnect between CdeC and applicant. Now the applicant or any other member can view their application in progress. If the applicant sees a comment made by a councillor they don't like then they can easily start questioning them and then we start down the murky path. Evidence of this can be seen in Rebel Jeb's case.

If it becomes such a big deal then really...the candidate most likely doesn't deserve to be a Citizen.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Then I guess this proposal is a solution...but not the best. Now people will get even angrier that they can see what's said about them without defending themselves, right or wrong.

right or wrong.

Your right as right gets...But as the Ancient & Old Gaurd CdeCers have told me ..."It has always been thus." I don't beleive in tearing into someone who's not there to respond to it but that's how the application system here has always been applied.

In short they told me to ...

1. Suck it up.

2. Change the system

3. Or get out of the CdeC and don't look back.

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.


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:


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

The thing is, is that the application process has always been behind closed doors. You tender an application and they left you know how it goes in a week or so. Making on going applications visible is brand new and fundamentily without operational parameters.

Closed applications are how things have always been done. It has been successful, and gotten us this far. Yes the spirit of openess the cooperation should be in full swing, but firm operating guidelines need to be in place that are not atm.

Maintaining the closed application, is still a way to keep things fair to all.

Yes, finding workable guidelines to please everyone may or may not happen but, let's give that a try.

Mom used to say be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

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.

Your right, and if they actually cashed the TWC payroll checks that they get in the post every month then you would be doubly right. They are volunteers, some are bothered by it some not.

.if the CdeC member contacted decides they want to use this clause to disqualify an applicant

That would be one voice amongst the 13 that reside on the board...

We should encourage potential citizens to contact other members in friendly and civil ways.

Not everyone plays nice though...

[Omnipotent-Q]

The thing is, is that the application process has always been behind closed doors. You tender an application and they left you know how it goes in a week or so. Making on going applications visible is brand new and fundamentily without operational parameters.

Apart from "this is new" I'm not sure what you're trying to add there. If it's such a problem, simply close of the CdeC to normal members and have it transparent to Civitates so that they can judge CdeC members are making the correct calls.

Your right, and if they actually cashed the TWC payroll checks that they get in the post every month then you would be doubly right. They are volunteers, some are bothered by it some not.

Irrelevant. If they don't have the time to do the job properly, there's plenty of others who will volunteer to do it. It isn't tough or difficult to be helpful to members. Yes there is and will be problems with making a system transparent. But we need a spot of realism and common sense when it comes down to it. This amendment won't work and will cause more problems than it solves. The solution is to not make it transparent access for all forum members, only Citizens. That way, applicants won't be "harassing people" and CdeC is still accountable to the Curia.

I've always found CdeC hilariously pointless. Doesn't anyone miss the olde-efficient, non-bureaucratic times of the staff simply voting on new citizens? I personally have always advocated the removal of CdeC all together. The main reasoning for this is it has become a closed, oligarch minority who all think they're King Dong and accountable to no one. Keeping transparency in the CdeC is the only way we can determine who should be given a go at CdeC next time - i.e. if someone's doing a good job or not. If transparency is removed, I don't think I'd be alone in calling for the immediate dissolution of CdeC, with its powers transferred back to the Curia/staff.

It's really basic to reply to people whoever they are as friendly as possible. If communicating as friendly as possible by PM with someone who happens to be an applicant is some how too difficult, then there's no hope for the small number in control of these decisions and we might as well reverse the whole lot.

[Lord Rahl]

Your right as right gets...But as the Ancient & Old Gaurd CdeCers have told me ..."It has always been thus." I don't beleive in tearing into someone who's not there to respond to it but that's how the application system here has always been applied.

Do you mean older ex-CdeC members have said members have gotten mad because of the CdeC's decisions? That's the truth but that can't be avoided. What this transparency has done is to make the CdeC's decisions and even discussions open for criticism. The CdeC isn't supposed to be criticized. Their whole purpose is to criticize, not have others do the same to them.

I'm not trying to argue with you here. I'm just saying that the transparency has caused a problem, and while this proposal seems to be a solution to effects of CdeC harassment, it doesn't solve the cause of the problem. I think Omnipotent-Q's idea of the having transparency to just the CVRIA is a good alternative (although I don't understand how going back to the Staff deciding on Citizens won't be inherently bureaucratic). Really, Citizens are not responsible to non-Citizens, that's why we have the ranks, especially the CdeC.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Do you mean older ex-CdeC members have said members have gotten mad because of the CdeC's decisions? That's the truth but that can't be avoided. What this transparency has done is to make the CdeC's decisions and even discussions open for criticism. The CdeC isn't supposed to be criticized. Their whole purpose is to criticize, not have others do the same to them.

I'm not trying to argue with you here. I'm just saying that the transparency has caused a problem, and while this proposal seems to be a solution to effects of CdeC harassment, it doesn't solve the cause of the problem.

it doesn't solve the cause of the problem.

Yes your right, it's a piss poor attempt at putting a band aid on a severed limb. Some where along life's journey,everyone steps in poo. The applicants will learn from their mistakes, for better or worse. The purpose of this bill was to ....

1. Try and keep the applicants from inadvertantly veering off course into troubled waters.

2. To try and Keep any CdeC councilor from perceiving harrassment.

I personally am not bothered by any of it, however if any one is, then the issue is no longer tolerable.


Now here's another idea, and if it gains support, we can stick this in the shredder where it belongs...

[Amendment] Patronization

[irishron]

Support, again.

[Meneth]

Re-support.

[Viking Prince]

I still politely oppose. First the grammar nazi observation that the applicant never had direct communication to CdeC in the first place. The communication was by a citizen acting as patron. Thus the phase regarding 'any further' is not quite the grammar fit.

The more practical opposition is that even though it states 'may' these rules will be used as 'must not' contact a member of CdeC on an active case. This is wrong. There is also no reason why an elected member of CdeC cannot communicate with a citizen (patron) -- but this was not a part of the proposed rule. It is implied though. And if it is not implied, the work around via the patron makes the rule useless in any case.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I still politely oppose. First the grammar nazi observation that the applicant never had direct communication to CdeC in the first place. The communication was by a citizen acting as patron. Thus the phase regarding 'any further' is not quite the grammar fit.

The more practical opposition is that even though it states 'may' these rules will be used as 'must not' contact a member of CdeC on an active case. This is wrong. There is also no reason why an elected member of CdeC cannot communicate with a citizen (patron) -- but this was not a part of the proposed rule. It is implied though. And if it is not implied, the work around via the patron makes the rule useless in any case.

Yes... I'm with you, but even so we've got to do something....If we don't then those that say "it doesn't work", are kinda-sorta right. The flexibility is there, but the volition to apply it with wisdom also needs to be there.

Even if we did come up with pristine rules and guidelines, which is a struggle at the moment, the volition has to be there to interpret and execute them fairly.

Not so long ago, at one point, the CdeC was focused on it's duties for the membership. It acted with flexibility, goodwill, cooperation amongst peers, was in high spirits, and even had a little fun as well.

Whom ever comprises the sitting CdeC board, at a given moment, should strive to operate with that type of spirit. That's the type of CdeC that best serves the membership. Act with wisdom and utilize discretion, and flexibility to best serve the membership.

[Lord Rahl]

In my experience with being a CdeC member, I remember us contacting patrons to get more information about applicants. Sometimes if we thought we didn't have enough information or needed some things cleared up we would contact patrons, who could then contact their potential clients, to help us have a better understanding of the applicant and therefore be able to make better judgments. This didn't happen a lot but I'm fine with that. It's the potential patron's and applicant's responsibility to properly represent the applicant and the CdeC's responsibility to judge the applicant according to the representation.

The CdeC has a lot of power and responsibility, and with that comes necessary discretion, as MtdB mentioned.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here but...whatever.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

In my experience with being a CdeC member, I remember us contacting patrons to get more information about applicants. Sometimes if we thought we didn't have enough information or needed some things cleared up we would contact patrons, who could then contact their potential clients, to help us have a better understanding of the applicant and therefore be able to make better judgments. This didn't happen a lot but I'm fine with that. It's the potential patron's and applicant's responsibility to properly represent the applicant and the CdeC's responsibility to judge the applicant according to the representation.

The CdeC has a lot of power and responsibility, and with that comes necessary discretion, as MtdB mentioned.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here but...whatever.

And you are completely right Ma Lord....