[Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier, Take II

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · April 26, 2011, 05:31 PM

Proposer: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
CdeC Support: MasterBigAb,
Additional Supporters: Navajo Joe, Okmin, Genius of the Restoration,

The Why & the How of it: As as interim measure, supporting this { [Amendment]Repeal Transparency Restraint } while, better alternatives to this petition are found. This is by no mans the ideal solution, but repealing visibility to our membership just makes no sense.

Clarification: This was not sent to vote the 1st time around, because I thought that all support had passd to this...
[PASSED: IMPLEMENTED] [Amendment] Transparency Restraint
after the above mentioned bill had passed people came and told me that they had few options on the matter because I nver sent the 1st version of my bill to vote.

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.

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.
During the applicant's citizenship review, any communication from the applicant to a member of the CDeC, may be used for assessing the applicant's review. .
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 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, 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.

The original amendment may be found here...

[Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier

**MasterBigAb** · April 26, 2011, 05:36 PM

I assume it depend son the content of the pm then ?
But I am tending to support this as well

**Legio** · April 26, 2011, 05:47 PM

No, too harsh. Depends on what the contact is. If it's 'Hey when does my app end' then it's fine.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · April 26, 2011, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Legio

No, too harsh. Depends on what the contact is. If it's 'Hey when does my app end' then it's fine.

Your...CdeC interpretation, is up to you. Like I said this is meant just as a stop-gap measure til greater minds find a lasting solution.

**Thoragoros** · April 26, 2011, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Legio

No, too harsh. Depends on what the contact is. If it's 'Hey when does my app end' then it's fine.

Agreed.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · April 26, 2011, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Legio

No, too harsh. Depends on what the contact is. If it's 'Hey when does my app end' then it's fine.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Agreed.

So.... In it's place you would have....

**Genius of the Restoration** · April 26, 2011, 05:57 PM

Hmm, I'm not sure about the relating to the application bit, and that it can only work one way. I'd change it to this:

During the applicant's citizenship review, any ~~further~~ communication ~~initiated by~~ from the applicant ~~and sent~~ to a member of the CDeC~~, that relates to the application,~~ may be used ~~as grounds for refusing citizenship~~ for assessing the applicant's review.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · April 27, 2011, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Genius of the Restoration

Hmm, I'm not sure about the relating to the application bit, and that it can only work one way. I'd change it to this:

During the applicant's citizenship review, any ~~further~~ communication ~~initiated by~~ from the applicant ~~and sent~~ to a member of the CDeC~~, that relates to the application,~~ may be used ~~as grounds for refusing citizenship~~ for assessing the applicant's review.

Wording in OP changed to reflect GotR's suggestion.

During the applicant's citizenship review, any communication from the applicant to a member of the CDeC, may be used for assessing the applicant's review.

Originally Posted by Squid

Except it doesn't take into account the patron posting or PMing on the clients behalf.

I did'nt know there was a problm with this? The last application I tendered, I sent supplemental information to the Curator, to see if it would be allowed to be added to the review.

Originally Posted by sinople

Then we can add it ?

I would'nt see why not...

Clarification: This was not sent to vote the 1st time around, because I thought that all support had passd to this...
[PASSED: IMPLEMENTED] [Amendment] Transparency Restraint
after the above mentioned bill had passed people came and told me that they had few options on the matter because I never sent the 1st version of my bill to vote.

**Legio** · April 26, 2011, 05:57 PM

One could make it so that soliciting votes or otherwise trying to manipulate an application would render it null and void: however this is already in practice by the Curator and would be moot.

EDit: GotR's is better imo.

**Legio** · April 26, 2011, 05:59 PM

GotR's post.

**sinople** · April 26, 2011, 07:57 PM

Yes Genius of the Restoration's post seems perfect.

**Squid** · April 27, 2011, 12:23 AM

Except it doesn't take into account the patron posting or PMing on the clients behalf.

**sinople** · April 27, 2011, 02:44 AM

Then we can add it ?

**Navajo Joe** · April 27, 2011, 04:28 AM

Support,

Although I think should read from applicant and patron, as it was the patron that initiated the proposal

**Okmin** · April 27, 2011, 02:05 PM

Support.

**Genius of the Restoration** · April 27, 2011, 05:38 PM

I guess I'll support

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · April 27, 2011, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Genius of the Restoration

I guess I'll support

You should, they're your words....

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · April 30, 2011, 05:57 PM

Mr. Curator: This bill may also go to vote, to support the bill repealing non visibility.

**Omnipotent-Q** · April 30, 2011, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

Mr. Curator: This bill may also go to vote, to support the bill repealing non visibility.

Yes moved to vote sir!

**Jom** · May 01, 2011, 09:00 AM

I don't even understand why this bill is needed. There's nothing to say that PMs/other forms of communication are to be excluded so why does this need to be codified?