[kind of an amendment] Transparency Repeal

**Pontifex Maximus** · February 16, 2011, 08:10 PM

Proposer: Pontifex Maximus
Supporters:

Transparency has become more of a hindrance than anything else, causing at least three applications to be thrown out and causing half a dozen procedural problems that further complicate the application process at the cost of the applicant.

The Curia hereby nullifies any and all transparency packages passed within the last 12 months.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 16, 2011, 08:17 PM

Oppose.

Let's put our efforts into finding workable guidlines for visibility, not curtailing it.

**Hader** · February 16, 2011, 08:19 PM

Aww, we can't just abolish the CdeC?

**Viking Prince** · February 16, 2011, 08:22 PM

Opposed -- for the moment. I doubt whether you will get the needed numbers to reverse this at a poll.

Just to clarify -- does this mean that no thread will be visible even upon completetion of the CdeC decision?

**Omnipotent-Q** · February 16, 2011, 08:27 PM

Strongly opposed. I don't think the transparency changes have been given enough time since implementation. However, I would consider supporting a motion to limit access to the transparent CdeC to current Civitates only. I don't think there's any need for normal members to see the forum.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 16, 2011, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q

Strongly opposed. I don't think the transparency changes have been given enough time since implementation. However, I would consider supporting a motion to limit access to the transparent CdeC to current Civitates only. I don't think there's any need for normal members to see the forum.

I would consider supporting a motion to limit access to the transparent CdeC to current Civitates only. I don't think there's any need for normal members to see the forum.

You should then go ahead and endorse this measure. What you suggest would take it half way there. It negates the whole point of visibility.

**Omnipotent-Q** · February 16, 2011, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

You should then go ahead and endorse this measure. What you suggest would take it half way there. It negates the whole point of visibility.

Incorrect. CdeC should be transparent to Citizens as its councillors are elected and accountable to the Curia. Normal members need not see it as councillors although some what accountable to the whole forum, they're not elected into place by the whole forum only the Curia.

**Lord Rahl** · February 17, 2011, 01:49 AM

I don't know if I oppose this or not. I know the old ways where the CdeC was closed to viewing, things seemed to work relatively smoothly back then, and don't know exactly what's happened to cause these problems, if someone would like to explain what happened then that'd be much appreciated, so I can't make a fair educated decision about this. Besides, the proposal doesn't sound like it takes much into account as far as what exactly to do.

Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q

Incorrect. CdeC should be transparent to Citizens as its councillors are elected and accountable to the Curia. Normal members need not see it as councillors although some what accountable to the whole forum, they're not elected into place by the whole forum only the Curia.

That is exactly my thoughts on the matter.

**jimkatalanos** · February 17, 2011, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q

Incorrect. CdeC should be transparent to Citizens as its councillors are elected and accountable to the Curia. Normal members need not see it as councillors although some what accountable to the whole forum, they're not elected into place by the whole forum only the Curia.

This.

**Acco** · February 17, 2011, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q

Incorrect. CdeC should be transparent to Citizens as its councillors are elected and accountable to the Curia. Normal members need not see it as councillors although some what accountable to the whole forum, they're not elected into place by the whole forum only the Curia.

I've got to agree with this logic.

**Hesus de bodemloze** · February 17, 2011, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q

Strongly opposed. I don't think the transparency changes have been given enough time since implementation. However, I would consider supporting a motion to limit access to the transparent CdeC to current Civitates only. I don't think there's any need for normal members to see the forum.

Don't forget the trail period of 6 months before being voted on to become part of the constitution.

**irishron** · February 16, 2011, 08:53 PM

Oppose. CdeC still has its closed quarters for discussions we are not a party whether citizen application discussions are visible or not. There is a certain learning curve that goes with this. It's not all fine tuned overnight as much as we wish it. Learn from it.

**Viking Prince** · February 16, 2011, 09:09 PM

For general information there is this abandoned thread:
[ABANDONED] [Decision]Limit transparency forum to citizens

And this proposal would indeed reverse:
[VOTE FINISHED: PASSED: IMPLEMENTED] [Amendment] Opt-In Transparency

So I will strongly oppose this attempt to putting the genie back into the bottle.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 16, 2011, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

So I will strongly oppose this attempt to putting the genie back into the bottle.

Then I would suggest that as a community that we make strides to wards telling the Genie that when he/she borrows the car that they return it with a full tank of petrol and that curfew for genies is firmly 11pm, not 11:01pm. {Lets work to wards guidelines that would allow visibility to be come the standard and not just a failed experiment.}

Transparency has become more of a hindrance than anything else, causing at least three applications to be thrown out

Operator error and a learning experiance for the applicant. Many things here are part of the learning curve to this place. Sometimes it gets bumpy, but it's worth it in the end.

**Nanny de Bodemloze** · February 16, 2011, 09:34 PM

Oppose.

**Viking Prince** · February 16, 2011, 09:35 PM

@Mega

Fixing is more complicated than you may think. The constitution in this area is pasta thrown against the wall. I have great sympathy with a desire to revert the matter back twelve months and start over. However, this is not a serious amendment as written. More like a decision or something.