[Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier

**Gigantus** · February 18, 2011, 03:11 AM

Support again.

**Thoragoros** · February 27, 2011, 06:30 PM

Hmm...I have to say, I support this in theory, but I also have some very mixed feelings about this. Would this also apply to the applicants patron?

If it does apply to the applicants patron, I can't support this, since during my own Citizenship process I had several questions for my patron, which he happily responded to. For instance, one was about the formating of my letter.

Another contact I myself initiated was to Empress Meg after I was told (by my Patron) that my application failed initially because of voting technicalities (there weren't enough total votes cast or some such thing). May I also add that Empress Meg very gratiously answered my question and even sent a follow up PM afterwards.

So, perhaps if this changes to 'contact deemed inappropriate by the CDeC member' I could support this. Otherwise, why bar all contact by applicant, since the contact may or may not be inappropriate?

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 27, 2011, 10:07 PM

[Amendment] Transparency Restraint is doing well at the polls, so I think we can put this notion in mothballs for the time being...

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Hmm...I have to say, I support this in theory, but I also have some very mixed feelings about this. Would this also apply to the applicants patron?

If it does apply to the applicants patron, I can't support this, since during my own Citizenship process I had several questions for my patron, which he happily responded to. For instance, one was about the formating of my letter.

Another contact I myself initiated was to Empress Meg after I was told (by my Patron) that my application failed initially because of voting technicalities (there weren't enough total votes cast or some such thing). May I also add that Empress Meg very gratiously answered my question and even sent a follow up PM afterwards.

So, perhaps if this changes to 'contact deemed inappropriate by the CDeC member' I could support this. Otherwise, why bar all contact by applicant, since the contact may or may not be inappropriate?

This bill was only looking to put restrictions on the applicant.Thanks for sharing your e*periance with this...

**Thoragoros** · February 28, 2011, 12:04 AM

Granted, Mega, I am very inexperienced here when compared to veterans such as yourself, and the others posting. However, reading through the three prior pages, my concern was not limited to myself, others expressed very similar concerns, and I am quite certain that there belittlement is pending

Let's review,

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.

Now, in my post, I clearly specify that I -- the applicant -- initiated each contact, first to my Patron, and then later with Empress Meg. Under the proposal, my contacts, valid or not, could be held as grounds for disqualification.

Granted, the proposal specifies 'may' be used as grounds for disqualification, however, inappropriate (badgering) communications, especially with members of the site's staff, are already prohibited. Thus, either this clause is entirely redundant, or it places uncessary restrictions on the applicants.

**Gigantus** · February 28, 2011, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Granted, the proposal specifies 'may' be used as grounds for disqualification, however, inappropriate (badgering) communications, especially with members of the site's staff, are already prohibited. Thus, either this clause is entirely redundant, or it places uncessary restrictions on the applicants.

I was under the impression that the "badgering" is the major reason for this proposal. And I wouldn't know under which rule it would be curtailed\forbidden at the moment. Not in the ToS unless the badgering would be insulting or harrassing.
Under badgering I would understand persisting PMs to CdeC members with regards to the application. Like: 'hey I forgot something' or 'why did you say that?'

**sinople** · March 06, 2011, 10:32 AM

Support

**Navajo Joe** · March 09, 2011, 03:56 AM

I have recently been made a Citizen of TWC, I was watching my application avidly, however I was very shocked and surprised that another applicant was PMing a CdeC member. I considered that it is improper to PM to seek support or influence that person's view or vote. I knew two of the CdeC members, but at no time in my application did I directly contact them, about anything, I thought that it would absolute 100% not allowable. Support this idea.

**DAVIDE** · March 09, 2011, 08:21 AM

A talented modder/debater doenst need those little ways to seek the promotion or to catch the attention on his works. PMing the Cdec is not only a sign of disrespect but also of self-insecurity and citizenship should be forbidden to people using those tricks.

**Omnipotent-Q** · March 09, 2011, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by davide.cool

A talented modder/debater doenst need those little ways to seek the promotion or to catch the attention on his works. PMing the Cdec is not only a sign of disrespect but also of self-insecurity and citizenship should be forbidden to people using those tricks.

You're running on the assumption all communication between potential Citizens and any CdeC member would be 100% of the time all about bigging themselves up.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · March 10, 2011, 10:32 AM

Strongly oppose. CDeC members are often plain wrong and should be corrected.

**Thoragoros** · March 10, 2011, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q

You're running on the assumption all communication between potential Citizens and any CdeC member would be 100% of the time all about bigging themselves up.

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Strongly oppose. CDeC members are often plain wrong and should be corrected.

These.

And again, why assume that every contact between a CDeC member and the applicant is a disqualifier?

If some kind of clause were added to make this situational, meaning if the contact was unnecssary or badgering nature, I would support this, but as is, I simply must oppose.

**M D** · March 10, 2011, 11:31 AM

Support

**Obi Wan Asterix** · March 11, 2011, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Well serious and stuffy but I like!

Here here... put me as a sponsor, I haven't sponsored anything in the Curia since 1848...

I might add that we can disqualify anyone based on wether Garb likes them or not.... which pretty much could turn TWC into a Greek colony online... which as far as Greek institutions go would last for exactly 5 minutes before the riot police would have to be called in... but at least we would eat and drink well!

**Noble Savage** · March 11, 2011, 11:56 AM

I'm not a great supporter of the CdeC but I do support this .

The less excuses the CdeC can have for turning down an application the better.

**Obi Wan Asterix** · March 11, 2011, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Noble Savage

I'm not a great supporter of the CdeC but I do support this .

The less excuses the CdeC can have for turning down an application the better.

It was a genius who invented the CdC!

The CdC is the best brothel on this damned web address!

They are prime courtesans the lot of them... don't be slanderous or savage now savage

**Noble Savage** · March 12, 2011, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Asterix

It was a genius who invented the CdC!

The CdC is the best brothel on this damned web address!

They are prime courtesans the lot of them... don't be slanderous or savage now savage

It certainly is a brilliant and most unique idea ,I'm in no way disputing that. I just think sometimes it just hasn't evolved enough with the site and I'm pretty sure it has been a tool of snobbery for a few people.

However, theres a lot of good and honest members in today's CdeC who want the best for the site's membership so I'm quietly hopeful that it become a power for TWC's good.