[Amendment] Transparency Restraint

[Antwerpen]

Proposer: Antwerpen
Supporters: Pontifex Maximus, Søren, Jom, jimkatalanos, Legio, Heinz Guderian, 'The Hedge Knight, Omnipotent-Q, Viking Prince, y2day, Gigantus.

Reasoning: During the transparency period we have encountered many problems which served as causes to invalidate numerous prospective Citizenship applications. Even though transparency brings us problems, repealing all of the related Curial reforms is a step too radical, and we should give transparency another chance. But how many Citizens caused CdeC cases
to be invalidated during the transparency period, not counting tech mistakes and not enough councilors voting? Zero. And how many of those cases were invalidated due to the applicants or their patrons crossing the line themselves? Well, pretty much all of them.

By proposing this reform, I am proposing to revoke the transparency rights of the QP forum for the Peregrinii. By doing this, we shall rule out any chance for the applicant to ruin his application. This might sound a bit harsh, but this idea seems more rational than any overcomplicated attempts to preserve full transparency and keep the system from falling apart.

I also propose a 1 month trial period to test this out. However, this condition may be excluded from the final version of the reform. If we encounter no problems during the period, I don't see a reason why wouldn't Curia ratify it permanently.


------------------------------------------------------------------

Article II. Patronisation

Any 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.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community.
3. 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. Transparency of the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum is limited to Citizens only.
4. 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.
5. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.

After the conclusion of the vote, 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.

[Viking Prince]

We are currently driving the transparancy off of the full member status. I would be interested in knowing whether it is a problem from a technical aspect to drive this off of citizen. We do have a host of user groups that may need to be changed with viewing permissions.

I would like to hear from the tech guys before making a decision on this proposal.

Also of note of the 19 threads related to transparancy:
[ABANDONED] [Decision]Limit transparency forum to citizens

Regardless -- I do believe that the final threads should be visible to noncitizens as a guide to help them in their quest. Examples of success can indeed improve chances of future successes.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Politely Opposed.

This does not serve ALL the membership, of which Not-Yet-Citizens make up the vast majority. Yes transparency is having growing pains as any infant does, but curtailing visibility due to them does not seem like the way to go....IMO.

I fully applaud the overall intention of the bill though...

[Antwerpen]

1) It is technically possible, just as it was possible to make the Content Forum visible only to those who are a part of the Content Staff. I have done that on a free and WAY less developed forum engine and I can't see a reason for it to be impossible here.

2) Yes, but it is dated July 2010. Back then we did not know how many problems we may encounter with transparency driving applicants off road.

3) I also agree that the final (i.e. concluded) threads should be visible to Peregrinii, but that's what the Citizen Antechamber is for. It remains visible to Peregrinii and is not in any affected by this reform.

Cheers.

[Viking Prince]

1) It is technically possible, just as it was possible to make the Content Forum visible only to those who are a part of the Content Staff. I have done that on a free and WAY less developed forum engine and I can't see a reason for it to be impossible here.

2) Yes, but it is dated July 2010. Back then we did not know how many problems we may encounter with transparency driving applicants off road.

3) I also agree that the final (i.e. concluded) threads should be visible to Peregrinii, but that's what the Citizen Antechamber is for. It remains visible to Peregrinii and is not in any affected by this reform.

Cheers.

.

I aree that it is technically feasible. I am more concerned about the practicality and the work required to establish and maintain the permissions. I will still wait for input from the members that would need to implement the policy.

So are you suggesting a differant permission set for the discussion threads in addition to the permissions we alreay have?

[Antwerpen]

.

I aree that it is technically feasible. I am more concerned about the practicality and the work required to establish and maintain the permissions. I will still wait for input from the members that would need to implement the policy.

So are you suggesting a differant permission set for the discussion threads in addition to the permissions we alreay have?

Not exactly, I suggest setting the QP forum view permission to Citizens only.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Support

[Søren]

Support.

[Jom]

Sure, why not.

Support.

[jimkatalanos]

Support.

[Legio]

This sounds quite reasonable. Support. However, what is to be done if a citizen/patron is feeding information to their prospective client?

[Heinz Guderian]

Might be fun, support

[The Hedge Knight]

Support, seems a good idea.

[Viking Prince]

By proposing this reform, I am proposing to revoke the transparency rights of the QP forum for the Peregrinii. By doing this, we shall rule out any chance for the applicant to ruin his application. This might sound a bit harsh, but this idea seems more rational than any overcomplicated attempts to preserve full transparency and keep the system from falling apart.

This will only encourage the patron to keep the member "informed". Not to mention any other 'interested' citizens. I also cannot believe that the one month trial period will be sufficient to assess anything. Either do it or do not.

I am not saying I oppose this, but I am not certain that this is a solution over my 'over complicated' proposal. I do not view my proposal as 'over complicated' though -- just for the record.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

By proposing this reform, I am proposing to revoke the transparency rights of the QP forum for the Peregrinii. By doing this, we shall rule out any chance for the applicant to ruin his application. This might sound a bit harsh, but this idea seems more rational than any overcomplicated attempts to preserve full transparency and keep the system from falling apart.

Back in the good old days before gaining citizenship, I always heard the great citizens of this forum tell us "little ones" that we must take our "lumps" and grow from the bumps and bruises of experience.

How are folks to learn if everyone takes the easy way out? Sometimes what is easiest is not best....

[Antwerpen]

Having thought over it, I decided that it is better to exclude the trial period from the final version of the bill. It's not a reform that great or radical to fear.

If any of the supporters disagree with excluding the trial period, please state so and I will delete you from the supporters list.

Cheers.

EDIT: @Legio and VP: this amendment is not a panacea to all the Curial problems - but it is designed to make things better. This way we can block the applicant from raiding the CdeC after seeing something they count as injustice - just as in a recent case of Rebel Jeb. If he could not see the thread, he wouldn't have started to bug the councilors, and his application would be valid. But if the patron keeps the applicant informed, they both would keep a low profile: if the applicant starts "bringing justice" to the CdeC, the patron's espionage would be found out.

[Lord Rahl]

I have an idea. After the CdeC decides on an applicant, perhaps they, along with their patron, should have the option of receiving a transcript of sorts of the CdeC's discussion. This would let the patron and applicant, whether the applicant was promoted or not, to be able to see exactly what was said of them and why the CdeC's decision was what it was. This option would allow the CdeC to discuss and decide on an applicant without any disruption from who they're currently discussing and deciding on. It also gives transparency to the applicant and patron. This doesn't stop an applicant or patron from defending the patron against the CdeC's decision after the decision, but they can easily be let known that the CdeC's decision is final and debating specific points will not be done.

Thoughts? I don't know if that will work...

[Omnipotent-Q]

I have an idea. After the CdeC decides on an applicant, perhaps they, along with their patron, should have the option of receiving a transcript of sorts of the CdeC's discussion.

Well they'd be able to see the thread if they were successful anyway nay?

I support this: I've proposed it more than once in nearly every transparency thread so it would be rude not to I guess.

However I think it would be far far better just to have Consilium de Civitate not visible to normal members. There's no real need why it should be - the councillors are accountable to Curia and staff, and I've not heard an actual reason why it is necessary for anyone and everyone too see it unless they're a citizen.

[Viking Prince]

I can support this. I will promise to continue proposing further mischief as I see the need though.

[Antwerpen]

Moved to vote, Gentlemen.

P.S. The deleted part is not included because it is not valid, I left it here just for the record.

Cheers.