[Amendment] Patronization

**Viking Prince** · February 17, 2011, 12:38 AM

Proposer: Viking Prince
Supporters:

This shall be my contribution to the dueling proposals to amend the tranparancy process for patronization:

Article II. PatronisationAny 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.

The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community.
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.
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.
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.

After two days have passed the Curator shall request a yes or no from the nominee for a two day public comment period. If yes, the Curator shall move the discussion thread to the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum for public comment. A stickied comment discussion thread shall be started CVRIA . The members of the Consilium de Civitate shall not post to either thread during the comment period. After the end of the two day discussion period, the comment thread shall be merged into nomination discussion thread. The new merged master thread is then moved back into the Polita and the members of the Consilium de Civitate may renew their discussion. The Curator then adds a Poll lasting for five days.
~~After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.~~

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.
If the nominee wishes his citizenship application to remain private with no public comment period, the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
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.
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.
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.
If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.

After the conclusion of the vote, whether the examination included a public comment period or not, ~~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.

Rationale -- this will correct the observed problems with the current transparancy rules. The deliberations by CdeC shall be behind closed doors. If the nominee wishes to have a chance for public comment on the CdeC discussion, there will be a discussion period provided. Only citizens will be posting to the comment thread (the nominee will be represented by his / her patron). There will be no give and take with CdeC though. During the public comment period, CdeC will not be posting to the discussion. It is better to have a rule that muzzles CdeC behavior for a short period than to attempt to muzzle member behavior. Well, at least that is my rationale for this proposal.

This will assure that the CdeC discussion thread is not edited prior to the polling. This will also give the citizens an opportunity to also contribute if desired to the discussion prior to CdeC making their final comments and voting. If there is any ommisions to the original application that are material to the prospects for the nominee's success, this will afford a chance to add the needed material to the public record.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 17, 2011, 12:57 AM

Automatic Support..."if" this draws flys to honey. {I'll nix my bill if this gains support. {after the revisions}

It's rough atm, and the curators assistants are gonna skin you en mass if this passes...Be prepared for the drive by....

**Meneth** · February 17, 2011, 01:25 AM

Opposed.
Overly complicated, and I'd much rather just have a clear rule on whether or not applicants can contact CdeC members about their case, like Mega proposed.

**Lord Rahl** · February 17, 2011, 01:40 AM

Don't like it. Things needs to be streamlined and allow the CdeC do what it was intended to do: analyze and criticize applicants without distraction.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 17, 2011, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Rahl

Don't like it. Things needs to be streamlined and allow the CdeC do what it was intended to do: analyze and criticize applicants without distraction.

Well... We now have three bills on the floor. If we get another we'll have a fourth for bridge... I'll bid no trump. Someone pass me a bag of chips and one of those non alcoholic Mickey's beers please...

**Jom** · February 17, 2011, 04:14 AM

This is a strange hybrid between all citizenship applications just being decided by the Curia at large and retaining the CdeC. I don't think that the Curia should have a say in who does or does not become a citizen beyond its right to elect the CdeC, as that's why every councillor is there in the first place.

I oppose this.

**Omnipotent-Q** · February 17, 2011, 06:36 AM

Oppose, for reasons already stated. Hopefully all these bills will be shot down forth with as none of them are going to solve the teething problems with transparency.

However I do nominally support giving some of CdeC's power back to the Curia, but obviously it isn't your intent here and it's all a bit too complex.

**Lord Rahl** · February 17, 2011, 06:58 AM

Is the inherent issue here that applicants simply aren't exceptional enough that CdeC discussion strays from how the applicant deserves to be a Citizen, or that applicants, and/or their potential patrons, simply don't understand how to properly represent the applicant?

If the issue is the former then *insert opinion of the CdeC here* and if it's the latter then it should be the CVRIA's responsibility to provide simple and concise guidelines of how to to non-citizens.

In any case, it's my opinion that the CdeC simply needs to learn to use its own discretion on a greater level. Their job is to criticize applicants in order to decide if they are qualified for citizenship, not to discuss or debate the matter with others (non-CdeC). If they need further information on an applicant then that's fine, ask for it, but the process should not be a back-and-forth between two parties.

**Antwerpen** · February 17, 2011, 07:24 AM

Oppose, why make the system even more complicated? Either leave it transparent or revoke transparency at all, I don't think we need to divide the application judging period into different phases with different transparency extents.

**Nanny de Bodemloze** · February 17, 2011, 08:53 AM

Oppose.

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

Rationale -- this will correct the observed problems with the current transparancy rules.

This doesn't explain the "observed problems"...and assumes everyone agrees there are problems with the rules. I see it differently...what I see are some applicants who haven't demonstrated tact and patience, and some CdeC members who are worried about getting coodies from being contacted by lowly plebs.

The amendment doesn't spell out the problem, adds unnecessary red-tape, and caters to CdeC rather than the needs of the citizenry.

**Pontifex Maximus** · February 17, 2011, 11:13 AM

Why do people need to be able to comment on everything?

**Squid** · February 17, 2011, 12:19 PM

Oppose, no need to create a kangaroo court of the application process.

**Viking Prince** · February 17, 2011, 02:14 PM

I do not feel it appropriate to allow members to view and not comment. I would rather control the viewing and if needed restrict the comments on the elected CdeC. I thought that this was a viable alternative to restricting citizen behavior.

As I understand the problem -- currently the applicants are viewing the CdeC discussion and cannot resist the urge to "correct" some impressions or comments. Please do not treat this as some high stakes test that has all your future riding on a single answer to a single question. Accept the fact that a dozen humans are going to rummage through your past on TWC and will come up with a dozen impressions and valuations. In the end, the specific impressions are not what is important though. In the end, all that matters is whether a sufficient number of the councilors are willing to vote yes on the application. Whether they think some particular contribution is valued or garbage is not important. So do not think it necessary to correct every minor false impression. And if the vote is not sufficient this time, then come back in a month or two with a better resume. Ask how to improve what you have to this point and continue to enjoy being a member of TWC.

My first question to the applicants would be -- where is the patron? Why is the patron not advising the nominee to sit and have patience? Why isn't the patron assuring the nominee that all communication should be handled by the patron? Perhaps this is not even a problem with the transparancy process. Perhaps this is more a problem of patrons not taking a bit of responsibility to being a patron.

There has been a bit of a fuss made regarding some need for formal rules. I do realize we all like to know the rules before playing a game. But not all activities in life are akin to playing a game. Most of life is filled with all sorts of informal rules and quietly observed conventions. We are always in danger of violating some unspoken rule so we move cautiously forward. We do not want to be seen by others as the proverbial bull in a china shop. The patronization process like life, is more a convention than a formal rule book or procedure. I do believe it is best left as unspoken and informal rules.

Personally, I am not certain that there is a problem needing a fix with the current rules. Unlike many who have voiced their displeasure with the current transparancy, I think it is workable. I also think that the applicants need to understand that they are applying for citizenship. Being on your best behavior is always a plus, but even more criitical when you are asking others to closely examine your personal history. If an applicant fails due to personal behavior during the application process, well that is a bit of a self inflicted woulnd. You have my sympathies, but I think we would all prefer to be treated as adults here.

Now if you still feel the need to regulate member comments, please consider this proposal to regulate the viewing rather than the commenting. If you see a need for the transparancy, ask yourself how much transparancy is needed to achieve the Curia's goals. If you simply want to assess the elected members of CdeC, perhaps all we need to do is post the discussion threads after the votes. If you are concerned with CdeC 'cleaning' the discussion threads prior to the release, then a more open posting process such as we now have is more suitable. If you agree with Ponti that it might be time to take a giant step back to the older ways, well his proposal is also an option.

Just remember that we need to come to a fairly broad agreement on whatever direction we choose to head in. That will mean some compromise by every citizen participating in the polling.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · February 18, 2011, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

I do not feel it appropriate to allow members to view and not comment. I would rather control the viewing and if needed restrict the comments on the elected CdeC. I thought that this was a viable alternative to restricting citizen behavior.

As I understand the problem -- currently the applicants are viewing the CdeC discussion and cannot resist the urge to "correct" some impressions or comments. Please do not treat this as some high stakes test that has all your future riding on a single answer to a single question. Accept the fact that a dozen humans are going to rummage through your past on TWC and will come up with a dozen impressions and valuations. In the end, the specific impressions are not what is important though. In the end, all that matters is whether a sufficient number of the councilors are willing to vote yes on the application. Whether they think some particular contribution is valued or garbage is not important. So do not think it necessary to correct every minor false impression. And if the vote is not sufficient this time, then come back in a month or two with a better resume. Ask how to improve what you have to this point and continue to enjoy being a member of TWC.

My first question to the applicants would be -- where is the patron? Why is the patron not advising the nominee to sit and have patience? Why isn't the patron assuring the nominee that all communication should be handled by the patron? Perhaps this is not even a problem with the transparancy process. Perhaps this is more a problem of patrons not taking a bit of responsibility to being a patron.

There has been a bit of a fuss made regarding some need for formal rules. I do realize we all like to know the rules before playing a game. But not all activities in life are akin to playing a game. Most of life is filled with all sorts of informal rules and quietly observed conventions. We are always in danger of violating some unspoken rule so we move cautiously forward. We do not want to be seen by others as the proverbial bull in a china shop. The patronization process like life, is more a convention than a formal rule book or procedure. I do believe it is best left as unspoken and informal rules.

Personally, I am not certain that there is a problem needing a fix with the current rules. Unlike many who have voiced their displeasure with the current transparancy, I think it is workable. I also think that the applicants need to understand that they are applying for citizenship. Being on your best behavior is always a plus, but even more criitical when you are asking others to closely examine your personal history. If an applicant fails due to personal behavior during the application process, well that is a bit of a self inflicted woulnd. You have my sympathies, but I think we would all prefer to be treated as adults here.

Now if you still feel the need to regulate member comments, please consider this proposal to regulate the viewing rather than the commenting. If you see a need for the transparancy, ask yourself how much transparancy is needed to achieve the Curia's goals. If you simply want to assess the elected members of CdeC, perhaps all we need to do is post the discussion threads after the votes. If you are concerned with CdeC 'cleaning' the discussion threads prior to the release, then a more open posting process such as we now have is more suitable. If you agree with Ponti that it might be time to take a giant step back to the older ways, well his proposal is also an option.

Just remember that we need to come to a fairly broad agreement on whatever direction we choose to head in. That will mean some compromise by every citizen participating in the polling.

Transparency is indeed experiancing growing pains, as any infant does. If any standing CdeC Board is comprised of folks who show "investiture" like that shown above, then indeed it is in good hands and the ship shall surely right itself and return to its given course.

**Thoragoros** · February 27, 2011, 06:34 PM

I oppose.

Frankly, this seems like more red tape, and right now, TWC's upper echelons need less red tape as opposed to more. Also, we should first clear up the thing about applicants and their contact with the CDeC during the application process.