[Amendment] Ban on CdeC-member patrons posting in their client's application

[Jom]

I really, really wish I didn't have to make such an obvious amendment, but from this post in a recent citizenship application I think I have to do so.

Proposer: Jom
Supporters: Ishan, Thoragoros, Squid, Irishron

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 are forbidden from posting in their client's application, and must abstain from voting on members they patronise.

The reasoning behind this is fairly common sense: those citizens who don't have a CdeC councillor as a patron cannot have their patrons post in the thread to defend them or add details to their application. This shouldn't really have needed to be codified, but apparently it does, and I believe in the playing field being as level as possible for all applicants.

[Genius of the Restoration]

A couple of questions:
1. Would a VonC do the same thing without codifying the precise error itself?
2. It's a naughty action that gives the applicants an advantage but I'm unsure just how punishable it should be. I wouldn't put it very high on a scale of one to heinous for instance. Codifying the wrong would make it hard to avoid punishment, which I can only imagine would be suspension from CdeC for a time period or removal of rank. I'm unsure about censure, as this would only be to do with CdeC performance, which is beyond the daily expectations of citizens. Would that be too far for the wrong committed?

[Jom]

Opposed, I don't see why Patrons cant comment on the merits or anything else that crops up of their applicants thread, if other Councillors cant stand criticism then they should'nt be in the job... it ridiculous to think otherwise in my opinion.. however patrons should abstain in the vote,I should have thought that obvious?
Like I have always said establish some protocols or we are just going to arrive at this sort of proposal.. get the rules down in black and white.
Ongoing citizenship applications, does and donts
You can refuse to take notice all you want, but until there are rules firmly established, then these sort of "self defeating proposals/amendments" will occur constantly.Logic dictates there should be set rules.

This is trying to put down some set rules. This isn't about defending other councillors from criticism; this is about clients with a CdeC member as a patron having an unfair advantage due to their ability to post whatever they like in their client's thread whilst normal patrons don't have that luxury. They have to just PM a member of the CdeC and hope their their opinions get a proper hearing; they can't debate directly with the people who are deciding their client's case like a CdeC member can.

A couple of questions:
1. Would a VonC do the same thing without codifying the precise error itself?
2. It's a naughty action that gives the applicants an advantage but I'm unsure just how punishable it should be. I wouldn't put it very high on a scale of one to heinous for instance. Codifying the wrong would make it hard to avoid punishment, which I can only imagine would be suspension from CdeC for a time period or removal of rank. I'm unsure about censure, as this would only be to do with CdeC performance, which is beyond the daily expectations of citizens. Would that be too far for the wrong committed?

I don't think anything as drastic as a VonC should take place but it should perhaps invalidate the citizenship application, as was the case a while back when a member of the CdeC edited their client's application to add in more details, something which was felt to have invalidated the case.

[imb39]

This old chestnut. I have ridden roughshod over this in the past and I feel wholly justified. I think by disbarring the propsective patron from voting you are making it unfair on the candidate - he has one less person to vote for him, afterall. One would hope that the CDC member would have made a carefully considered call already so his positive vote is just an extension of that. This rule really annoys me, well it did when I was on the CDC.

Opposed as I'd get rid of the rule anyway.

[Jom]

This old chestnut. I have ridden roughshod over this in the past and I feel wholly justified. I think by disbarring the propsective patron from voting you are making it unfair on the candidate - he has one less person to vote for him, afterall. One would hope that the CDC member would have made a carefully considered call already so his positive vote is just an extension of that. This rule really annoys me, well it did when I was on the CDC.

Opposed as I'd get rid of the rule anyway.

I'm not making the change about voting. That's already in the Constitution and has been in there for a long time, so that's something of a moot point when it comes to this amendment as that's not what I'm amending, although I will address it anyway: although it's true that the client is effectively having one "yes" vote removed, by lowering the number of voters from 12 to 11 it's effectively making it easier for the client to pass anyway as the client has to gain 60% of the vote from 11 people instead of 12, so in the end the patron having to abstain doesn't make much of a difference in terms of the ease of his client passing the vote.

[Omnipotent-Q]

This old chestnut. I have ridden roughshod over this in the past and I feel wholly justified. I think by disbarring the propsective patron from voting you are making it unfair on the candidate - he has one less person to vote for him, afterall. One would hope that the CDC member would have made a carefully considered call already so his positive vote is just an extension of that. This rule really annoys me, well it did when I was on the CDC.

Opposed as I'd get rid of the rule anyway.

I agree with the wise words of the legendary imb. The mathematical oppostition is absurd - you have 4 voters for example, one proposes something - you're guaranteed 25% of the votes if he has a vote - if he doesn't as a proposer, you're guaranteed 0% of the vote - why? Because you want to ignore the guy who's done the most research on the applicant because he could well be "biased" as a result of this objective search for someone to patronise. I can't be the only one who see's the blatant flaw in that logic?

I do not see how CdeC councillors can't make judgement calls when it comes to patron's doing the obvious - supporting those they patronise. It isn't rocket science by any means - you either agree with what the patron says, or you don't - it's not like the patron's posting in a thread because he happens to be on CdeC with an elaborate plan to pull the wool over your eyes or trick you - he's giving his opinion rationally and it should be respected and researched like any other patron viewpoint given. I think any attempt to censor such viewpoints would be a horrendous mistake when the Curia could be concentrating on bigger matters....and oh, have I got some peaches of considerations to look at in a few short days.

[Hader]

I agree with the wise words of the legendary imb. The mathematical oppostition is absurd - you have 4 voters for example, one proposes something - you're guaranteed 25% of the votes if he has a vote - if he doesn't as a proposer, you're guaranteed 0% of the vote - why? Because you want to ignore the guy who's done the most research on the applicant because he could well be "biased" as a result of this objective search for someone to patronise. I can't be the only one who see's the blatant flaw in that logic?

I do not see how CdeC councillors can't make judgement calls when it comes to patron's doing the obvious - supporting those they patronise. It isn't rocket science by any means - you either agree with what the patron says, or you don't - it's not like the patron's posting in a thread because he happens to be on CdeC with an elaborate plan to pull the wool over your eyes or trick you - he's giving his opinion rationally and it should be respected and researched like any other patron viewpoint given. I think any attempt to censor such viewpoints would be a horrendous mistake when the Curia could be concentrating on bigger matters....and oh, have I got some peaches of considerations to look at in a few short days.

Well put.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I agree with the wise words of the legendary imb. The mathematical oppostition is absurd - you have 4 voters for example, one proposes something - you're guaranteed 25% of the votes if he has a vote - if he doesn't as a proposer, you're guaranteed 0% of the vote - why? Because you want to ignore the guy who's done the most research on the applicant because he could well be "biased" as a result of this objective search for someone to patronise. I can't be the only one who see's the blatant flaw in that logic?

Logically, it doesn't make sense, but it makes no difference practically.

60% of 12 = 7.2 Number of non-patron councillors needed to pass is 7 as well as the patron to make 8
60% of 11 = 6.6 Number of non-patron councillors needed to pass is 7

I have more of a trouble with medals, because then the proposer might actually tip the balance. In CdeC, the one vote doesn't matter.

[Jom]

Logically, it doesn't make sense, but it makes no difference practically.

60% of 12 = 7.2 Number of non-patron councillors needed to pass is 7 as well as the patron to make 8
60% of 11 = 6.6 Number of non-patron councillors needed to pass is 7

I have more of a trouble with medals, because then the proposer might actually tip the balance. In CdeC, the one vote doesn't matter.

I agree with the wise words of the legendary imb. The mathematical oppostition is absurd - you have 4 voters for example, one proposes something - you're guaranteed 25% of the votes if he has a vote - if he doesn't as a proposer, you're guaranteed 0% of the vote - why? Because you want to ignore the guy who's done the most research on the applicant because he could well be "biased" as a result of this objective search for someone to patronise. I can't be the only one who see's the blatant flaw in that logic?

I point all of this out here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...00#post9497000 and imb agreed with my reasoning but GOTR has made a nice summary and I can go over it again for you if you like. If you have 4 voters and the proposer cannot vote, then the amendment only needs to convince 2 people of its merits (66%), which is identical to if the proposer COULD vote, as the amendment would still need 2 other people to vote for it even if the proposer were to vote yes. This is largely done for the sake of decorum and to avoid complicated split votes where the patron become the decider.

[imb39]

Bah!

[Jom]

Bah!

Is that a grudging concession of defeat?

[imb39]

Is that a grudging concession of defeat?

Neither. It's a 'miserable little compromise.'

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I'd support saying that a CdeC patron may not alter the citizenship application once posted, and that any & all additional material {if any} pertaining to the citizenship review must be forwarded to the Curator ship for submission.


However mandating that a CdeC Councilor must remain silent....

Bah!

What's more Intellectual Meh...

Here's my only post in my last offspring's application. Please show me how it was in any way disruptive to the proceedings...Given all that had transpired I thought it helpful to clarify that the councilors were just doing their jobs.

I wear the Mantle of mandated abstention from these proceedings. excellent work Gentleman/Ladies. Pass or fail, it does not matter for on this day you as a collective have served the client well...

Bravo!!! and stand united against whatever end, whenever the dust settles here in these proceedings...

[Applicant] Worm,[ Patron] Mega Tortas de Bodemloze ( 12)

[Ishan]

I don't really see a reason not to add this as patrons that are not CdeC members can't participate in their client's application, so CdeC members shouldn't be given any privileges just because they can post in the QP forum.

If this is not done then patrons should also be able to post in their client's application as well and another thing also comes in mind that citizens should also participate in their referrals just like the tribunal.

Then again these are applications and disciplinary actions sent to the CdeC to be reviewed not a debating contest.

@Mega
We are here to discuss the situation not about the recent doings of Thora and MBA.

[Hader]

What's the CdeC?

[irishron]

What's the CdeC?

Not helping.

[Hader]

Not helping.

Then my point has been made.


If we continue to codify every little discrepancy we find within the inner workings of the curia, little will get done for the site long run.

[Jom]

Then my point has been made.


If we continue to codify every little discrepancy we find within the inner workings of the curia, little will get done for the site long run.

It's not really a little discrepancy. It strikes me as the logical other half to the part which is already in the Constitution: councillors whose applicants are in front of the CdeC must abstain.

[Hader]

It's not really a little discrepancy. It strikes me as the logical other half to the part which is already in the Constitution: councillors whose applicants are in front of the CdeC must abstain.

Did they abstain from voting?

[Ishan]

CdeC support, since the abstain thing is already there and i know it's obvious enough not to debate on for your own client as a CdeC member but due to the recent event i see no harm in mentioning this as well in the constitution.

In such a case the application should be invalidated, that is for the curator to decide etc. I think we need to work on this part more, the consequence that is.