Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
Posts
11,527
[Amendment] Augmenting CdeC Membership
Proposer: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
CdeC Support:
Additional Supporters: Omnipotent-Q, Navajo Joe,
In order to keep things as simple as possible, I move that the CdeC membership be increased by one.
The reasoning behind this petition is.....
* To increase the quality of service to the membership via expanding the current CdeC rooster by one.
* This augmentation also addresses the fact that gaining admittance to the CdeC without previous experience is indeed difficult. This measure is a step to alleviate that impediment.
* Simply put, if you really want to help the membership here's your shot. It's not easy getting in and the difficulty's and issues awaiting CdeC Members once elected is ten times worse. On a good day...
That descriptive may be found here....{that discourse involves posts #2-10 of this thread}
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Thought process:
1. CdeC Pages will have the ability to participate in Citizenship application reviews/Disciplinary cases, but will not be able to vote.
2. Their term in office will be the same as of all other CdeC Members.
3. Two slots will be open to pages and come reelection time, priority would go to newcomers.
4. The initial two Page slots would go two the 4th & 5th CdeC election vote getters. Newcomers would take priority over those with previous CdeC e*piriance.
Reasoning: More involvement best serves the membership.
Number 4 of the Amendment seems rather complicated, someone in 5th place could only have 5 votes, whereas 4th could have 25.. This is also of course guaranteeing at least 5 apply
Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
Posts
11,527
Re: Discussion: [Amendment] CdeC Pages
If my basic math skills could grasp it, I have faith that it's workable. Picking out the top five vote getters should not prove too dificult. If no one applies then no harm, no foul...
1. CdeC Pages will have the ability to participate in Citizenship application reviews/Disciplinary cases, but will not be able to vote.
2. Their term in office will be the same as of all other CdeC Members.
3. Two slots will be open to pages and come reelection time, priority would go to newcomers.
4. The initial two Page slots would go two the 4th & 5th CdeC election vote getters. Newcomers would take priority over those with previous CdeC e*piriance.
Reasoning: More involvement best serves the membership.
This pointlessly makes things more complex. The best solution to your claimed problem is to simply increase the number on CdeC by two full members, if more involvement is what you're after.
Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
Posts
11,527
Re: Discussion: [Amendment] CdeC Pages {Interns}
Originally Posted by Omnipotent-Q
This pointlessly makes things more complex. The best solution to your claimed problem is to simply increase the number on CdeC by two full members, if more involvement is what you're after.
Hmmm... Alright...Naaa, shooting for simplicity here so.....
Open Question:
How would {if at all} would two more voting members affect the CdeC...??..Or perhaps only one...
Originally Posted by Hader
Does everyone really want into the CdeC that badly that we need more provisions for letting others do trivial tasks?
"If" they actually would "participate", more the better for the membership....
Hmmm... Alright...Naaa, shooting for simplicity here so.....
Open Question:
How would {if at all} would two more voting members affect the CdeC...??..Or perhaps only one...
From my objective pedestal, I think it would be prudent to increase CdeC to 15 members to reduce the likelihood of the Curator needing to use a deciding vote. I feel the position is too powerful and if ties can be prevented by a simple committee collective make up, it could be a big bonus.
I think there's a good case for a slight increase in members too. There's people itching to get involved, but many don't get a chance because people who have previously served tend to go for re-election time and time again leaving an easily observable lack of a broad spectrum of opinion in some instances. It would give people who don't get a chance to contribute or have a role in CdeC a fairer shot at adding valued opinions to the decision making process.
If people can be trusted to contribute as "pages" they might as well be full voting members - the election of CdeC members would move away from being a bit of a popularity contest, which it sometimes can become, if there's more spaces to fill, more opinions on potential Civitates being gathered, and hopefully encourage as I think there needs to be, an increase in attempts to patronise across the board.
I think there needs to be a broad review of the CdeC structure to see how it could be improved if I'm being honest - and I don't think pages, interns, more bureaucratic complex nonsense is going to add much value.
Last edited by Omnipotent-Q; March 21, 2011 at 09:08 PM.
I think there needs to be a broad review of the CdeC structure to see how it could be improved if I'm being honest - and I don't think pages, interns, more bureaucratic complex nonsense is going to add much value.
As much as I don't care for the CdeC, if anyone wants some real change, listen to what this man has said.
Does everyone really want into the CdeC that badly that we need more provisions for letting others do trivial tasks?
yes, the tribunal is a much cooler place
I fear the magistrate position isn't that much wanted because they don't get shiny medals.
Anyway, 12 member are more than enough and maybe even too much in my opinion. Of course I could miss things that might have a positive effect on increasing the members of the cdec ... But it is good that you discuss things like this
Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
Posts
11,527
Re: [Amendment] Augmenting CdeC Membership
Originally Posted by Major Darling
So now we will have three sets of 3 councillors and one set of 4?
Are the election parameters a deterrent to your supporting the petition? It was my hope that folks would attack/support the concept, and leave the small print for later...
Edit: For e*ample, if this petition is a dismal failure and tanks, then the implementation criteria doesn't really matter much. Til then though....
Last edited by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze; March 22, 2011 at 06:26 AM.
Reason: grammar
Fort Hood, Texas/Parramatta, New South Wales, Bristol, Tennessee
Posts
11,527
Re: [Amendment] Augmenting CdeC Membership
Originally Posted by Navajo Joe
Supported,
This makes alot of sense, so you do have a majority, although how many Cdec decisions result in an equal split, not many I guess
Hi NJ...
Fundamentally there are three types of citizenship application reviews.
* The Slam Dunk: aka No-Brainier. Spend the review praising the member, and present them up to Mount Olympus. If not a word about the application itself is said, that much the better.
* Still needs seasoning: The member is not yet at citizenship level. The Councilors try to impart encouragement for their continuing efforts and give them advise on on how to achieve their goal.
* The Contested Application: The councilors opinions are split and discourse regarding the applicant is crucial here. Sometimes these scenarios can become very frenetic and swayed votes either way usually decide th outcome.
Th crucial element here is the Councilor investiture which manifests as discourse. That's why I'm always for anything that would help increase that area...
Originally Posted by Navajo Joe although how many Cdec decisons result in an equal split, not many I guess
November 04, 2010, 04:51 PM / PASSED[Artifex] 5-2-2
Here's a good example of a contested application. Unfortunately it's in the vault, thus not publicly viewable. Without the investiture of the councilors the application would have been invalidated.
Last edited by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze; March 22, 2011 at 09:23 AM.
Reason: grammar
Could you please point out these sections, so that said adjustments can be made.
Look at any section. The CdeC area will have to be completely adjusted as will the Curator description.
Could you elaborate on this please.
What's the point of messing up a system that works just fine? I really don't see the need to change anything on the CdeC due to a vocal minority who seem to be dissatisfied with it. There have been no CdeC VonCs, the same people keep getting reelected, and procedurally everything is going just fine. That shows that the majority of people don't think anything is wrong.
[Amendment] Augmenting CdeC Membership
Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
