Reader's Note: Instances of [...] within the text indicate that the text between the above and below text is not altered in any way by this amendment, but is excluded for some semblance of brevity/focus. In general though, even where [...] is not present, text not in INS or DEL tags is unaffected. It should also be noted that some of the unaltered text may differ from the Constitution at time of writing, since I copied over the changes made by the passed amendment Preservation of the CdeC good conduct period which have not yet been included.
[...]
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.
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. The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Patronization forum.
A CdeC member opens a thread in the CdeC Forum.
A CdeC member responds to the corresponding thread in the Patronization forum, denoting that the proposition has been moved to discussion.
After two days have passed 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 Councilors 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, and asks the applicant whether they want the application to be made public or kept private. Public cases are kept in the Antechamber, viewable to all members; private cases are kept in the Archives, viewable only to the CdeC.
If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.
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.
[...]
The Curator shall be elected by the procedure in Section 2 Article 2, with the addition that the Curator shall post the mandate for the job in the Qualifications thread.
The Curator shall hold his office for a period of three months from the day they are elected. If the Curator is absent (has not logged into the site) for 7 days without giving notice of an absence, or if the Curator is absent for more than 15 days regardless of notice, or if the Curator resigns, the Curator is automatically removed from office along with any appointed staff.
Any decisions of this office shall be held over until a replacement is elected.
Where such a decision is time-limited, time from the moment the Curator is removed shall not count towards the limit and will continue only from when a new Curator is elected. When the Curator has been absent for the time prescribed, the CdeC shall appoint a Pro-Curator. The Pro-Curator shall be the longest serving current Councilor CdeC member. Where multiple members were elected on the same day, the Pro-Curator shall be the member with the highest number of votes in the CdeC election. Should the qualifying Councilor CdeC member intend to stand for Curator, he may not become Pro-Curator and the next longest serving member is appointed.
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
To achieve apotheosis and Curia vote, the nominee must be supported by three fourths of non-abstaining Councilors elected members of the Consilium de Civitate. The nominee must have served as a Hexagon member (or previous equivalents), made a clear and distinguished contribution to the community and provided exceptional service to TWC in their capacity as an administrator. They cannot be nominated within three months of resigning.
Any Citizen can nominate a former Hexagon member and does so by PMing a Consilium de Civitate member. The Consilium de Civitate will create a thread within the Consilium de Civitate Forum to investigate the legitimacy of the nominee’s accolades. The Consilium de Civitate has the right to request any and all relevant material from the Staff to ascertain this, with the approval of the Hexagon Council. The Consilium de Civitate will discuss the nominee and his qualifications for at least a week before the vote is held.
Should the nominee receive the support of three fourths of non-abstaining Councilors Consilium de Civitate members, the Curator shall create a discussion in the Prothalamos lasting at least three days and then move the nomination to vote as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 3. The vote shall last one week and the nominee shall require a two-third majority of non-abstaining votes to become Divus. A nominee who fails the vote is not eligible to be nominated again for a six month period.
[...]
[...]
The Consilium de Civitate Service Medal is awarded to former Councilors members of the Consilium at the discretion of the Curator. The bronze medal is given for two completed terms as Councilor a member of the Consilium de Civitate; the silver medal is given for four completed terms; and the gold medal is given for six completed terms; the emerald medal for eight 12 completed terms; the ruby for ten 18 completed terms; and the amethyst medal for twelve 24 or more completed terms. The Curator is only eligible if he served the sufficient number of completed terms outside his capacity as Curator. These medals shall be awarded to all those who qualify, past and present.
Rationale of Major Change
There is one major change, the addition of the Intern position and all that entails.
The underlying idea of internship is simple and is utilized in almost every private sector. When you are looking for a (reasonably advanced) job, the employer generally wants two key things: education and work experience. Education in real scenarios generally means BS/BA/MA/PhD. In the Curial context, an education can be displayed by way of participation in the debate thread, showing that you know what your job will be and you have a good understanding and mindset. Work experience can be harder to get. Why? Because if every job wants work experience, and in order to get work experience you need a job that... requires work experience, you're in a bit of a conundrum. This isn't mandated on TWC, but it's poignantly obvious in the vote results that incumbents have a massive advantage, and this is one of the major factors.
The solution to this in real world scenarios is internship (or freelancing in some fields, but that's not analogous). An internship allows an employer to have relatively little financial risk associated with the hiring due to the fact it isn't a paid position. Therefore they can give ambitious and otherwise qualified candidates much needed experience which may translate into entry level job opportunities. The same idea holds true for the Curia. In order to see how candidates who've never been on the CdeC perform, we need to see them in the context of actual cases. The way we can do that without electing them is to elect interns and remove any risk associated with it due to interns not having a vote.
This setup allows aspiring candidates to participate and gain valuable experience. They can still participate in the discussion and even state how they would have voted, they simply don't have a counted vote. By the end of their internship, they'll have a list of cases they can direct voters to that show how they perform in real scenarios. That provides them a much better platform and chance against incumbent Councilors, especially if Councilors underperformed. Which is another important point. Interns have everything to prove, whereas Councilors can get complacent, so by introducing more new users with vigor and passion we also encourage sitting Councilors to up their game, and that results in the best possible outcome for applicants and appellants because everyone is looking at matters in depth.
In summation: no risk, plenty of reward, easy to implement and manage. Questions?
Rationale of Minor Changes
There are three minor accompanying changes(read: bugfixes).
The first minor change is that throughout most of the document the phrase 'Consilium de Civitates member' and similar terms which are intended to refer to the twelve elected Councilors have been changed to read 'Councilor' or 'Councilors'. The other distinction would conceivably refer to the Curator and Hex as well, plus Interns with the major addition, so this makes it clearer. Not all instances have been changed to this phrase because some are intended to refer to all four groups, or the three elected groups, as a whole.
The second minor change is in the first line of Section III Article IV, where I've removed the part pertaining to a 'Qualifications thread'. Such a thread has never existed or been used in the last two years, and it's unclear what such a thread is intended for, but it was probably a precursor to the debate threads and therefore unnecessary now.
The third minor change is to the CdeC Service medal, which changes the terms for the ruby/emerald/amethyst medals to 8-10-12 instead of 12-18-24. The reasoning for this should be obvious. 24 terms on the CdeC is 6 years worth of service, since each term is 3 months. Ignoring the fact that's a ridiculous number which will never happen, the current staff equivalent medals cap at 3 years for Amethyst. 12 terms is 3 years, so the change makes it at least a bit more feasible and useful.
Shamelessly pasted from the failed Amendment that Augustus Lucifer proposed in late August of 2010.
So, becoming an Intern is not a direct path into the CdeC? As in, Interns aren't the only ones that can be chosen to become Councilors? Another way to put it would be, must someone be an Intern first in order to be a Councilor?
I think their role needs to be focused a little more, at the moment they have no role only to dicsuss things. I think there should be one intern from each modding section (per game lets say) and their role should be to advise on applications, based on their experience with/around the candidate in question.
Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there.- Josh Billings The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.- George Orwell
This would be a good way to get more people involved in the process. I'd go for:
1) Can vote normally like Councillors
2) Elected monthly
3) Can only serve one term out of every three
4) Remove the 3 month time-in-rank requirement for interns
This would be a good way to get more people involved in the process. I'd go for:
1) Can vote normally like Councillors
2) Elected monthly
3) Can only serve one term out of every three
4) Remove the 3 month time-in-rank requirement for interns
Obviously I support my own proposal, though it be marred by the ghetto stylings of the OP.
Originally Posted by Lord Rahl
So, becoming an Intern is not a direct path into the CdeC? As in, Interns aren't the only ones that can be chosen to become Councilors? Another way to put it would be, must someone be an Intern first in order to be a Councilor?
No, assuming the bill is verbatim what I posted, Internship was/is intended as an optional showcasing of one's ability to weigh in on real cases as a participant in the body. As it stands the only way sans popularity for a prospective new Councilor to "get the start" is the debate thread, which tends to consist of recycled platform questions with very few wrong answers since it's all generalization. It also tends to focus us on the wrong things, such as just how hard of a hardass the person is on disciplinary cases, as opposed to the merit of their line of reasoning in reaching whatever the conclusion may be. Being able to actually weigh in on cases allows you to show a specific thought process and methodology which is nothing but talk in a what-if scenario.
Originally Posted by T.C.
I think their role needs to be focused a little more, at the moment they have no role only to dicsuss things. I think there should be one intern from each modding section (per game lets say) and their role should be to advise on applications, based on their experience with/around the candidate in question.
That's a bit of a different thing. I tabled a similar discussion addressing that issue but it didn't really go anywhere or come to anything formal. The goal of this proposal was to give an opportunity to eager new folk or returning old geezers, so that they could prove their worth and leverage experience in future votes, without making a direct impact on applications during that trial period(no voting), thereby removing any risk associated with a bad choice(even more true now with everything already transparent).
Originally Posted by Sřren
This would be a good way to get more people involved in the process. I'd go for:
1) Can vote normally like Councillors
2) Elected monthly
3) Can only serve one term out of every three
4) Remove the 3 month time-in-rank requirement for interns
I wouldn't be against 1) per se, but I chose to make it a non-voting position in the original proposal so that there's a much greater likelihood of net positive. Even a non-voting person with input can sway opinion and offer compelling debate points that result in votes being cast a certain way, which is good. But a voting person who's untested can prove to be unthinking or negligent and appreciably impact the results in a negative fashion through dilution.
2) and 3) I'm fine with, neither here nor there. 4) I also am fine with, but it's one of those cardboard sign issues I'd rather not attach to an initial proposal for fear that it could result in dissenting No votes which might otherwise have been Yes to the crux of the idea.
Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
Not necessary and needlessly complicates everything.
Ever the fuddy duddy. Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
Originally Posted by Viking Prince
I love you Legio and I think there is some merit to more people to be included in the conversation. However, I am not certain this is the best means to such an end. I would rather see Hex participating a bit more and perhaps those that have served previously. I want more experiance to bear on the participation rather than eager voices. Perhaps something along the lines of emeritus in the moderation staff would be a better step towards more participation in the discussions.
That's again more like the discussion I linked to above. Both of these goals can be pursued independently if handled correctly.
Originally Posted by Hesus de bodemloze
Why voting and not making every citizen part of the CdeC then? If 12 isn't enough and we should wider spread things let's just make every one part of the group.
Opposed for several reason already stated.
That's a silly argument, I think you know that. 12 is perfect but 16 might as well be everyone and their mum? The only reason we have any affinity for 12 Councilors is because it's what we've traditionally operated with, though astute older members will recall that it was once 16 Councilors(and before that it was staff, which was not necessarily enumerated). There's nothing special about the number 12, it has no magic property of consensus, nor does it necessarily allow for the perfect mix of cohesiveness and breadth of experience. It's just an amount. 12 with 4 greenhorns is just another amount, no different than if 4 Hex decided to spontaneously show up and hop in the discussion.
Last edited by Augustus Lucifer; March 01, 2011 at 06:56 AM.
And adding more popularly elected people to the mix will change that how?
Oppose.
Hah, exactly. Because we all know the interns won't be elected because they are popular.
Originally Posted by 'The Hedge Knight
Because in my opinion it is nothing more than a popularity contest with no though put out towards qualifications or balance.
What exactly qualifies someone to be a good CdeC councilor, in your eyes, and which councilors do not display them? Also, what sort of "balance" do you mean?
edit- Legio, make the awards amendment a separate proposal and I would support that.
Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; February 26, 2011 at 03:37 PM.
And adding more popularly elected people to the mix will change that how?
Oppose.
Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan Click for my tools and tutorials
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein
The CDeC has problems, and one of those problems is not a lack of popular members.
I didn't know we had problems......
Hell you spend an hour or so looking into an app and because you don't post what others have already stated or what is obvious then you have a problem? I feel the CdeC does a good job of awarding the people that have contributed to TWC.
I hate to do this.............
Not trying to make excuses for the lack of posts but, the people serving in the CdeC have issues that come up during a term. Take myself, this last term I have dealt with very serious RL issues...Hell I haven't posted much but I must say I have sacrificed alot the last few months to do the job...... If you don't like the fact I haven't bothered to post redundent findings then don't vote for me next time. Hell I'm not running for the position anyway...... If we have missed on a person please PM me and let me know what i missed and I will try to educate myself a bit so I don't mess up next time.
Next time someone let me know we have problems, I feel like I just come home and my wife has taken the kids and went to her moms house. I got to check these forums a bit more.
Originally Posted by Thoragoros
The CDeC has problems, and one of those problems is not a lack of popular members.
I didn't know we had problems......
Hell you spend an hour or so looking into an app and because you don't post what others have already stated or what is obvious then you have a problem? I feel the CdeC does a good job of awarding the people that have contributed to TWC.
I hate to do this.............
Not trying to make excuses for the lack of posts but, the people serving in the CdeC have issues that come up during a term. Take myself, this last term I have dealt with very serious RL issues...Hell I haven't posted much but I must say I have sacrificed alot the last few months to do the job...... If you don't like the fact I haven't bothered to post redundent findings then don't vote for me next time. Hell I'm not running for the position anyway...... If we have missed on a person please PM me and let me know what i missed and I will try to educate myself a bit so I don't mess up next time.
Next time someone let me know we have problems, I feel like I just come home and my wife has taken the kids and went to her moms house. I got to check these forums a bit more.
Actually...I'm defending the CDeC.
If you read past that one line you'd see that I'm saying this is an unnecessary change. So...don't stab you're allies in the back, because we actually agree on the topic.