[Amendment] Patronisation Incentive Bill

[Omnipotent-Q]

New blood - the Curia needs more of it to get stuff done. Hold up though...there's a problem. Not enough people are patronising. A rate of roughly 3-4 a month - no wonder we haven't got a large number of people to get involved with discussions and suggestions to make the site better. As such this proposal aims to provide incentives for those who patronise successfully and bring new people into the Curia family on a consistent basis. The proposal outlines that you're not eligible if you have more failed patronisation attempts than successful ones to prevent anyone flooding CdeC with duff applications. Essentially the medal aims to push the activity of bringing people into the Curia to increase the abilities of the Curia to be useful in discussing matters involving the site. It is also proposed in the knowledge that increased numbers of useful contributors and posters being citizen's, allows for a greater likelihood of such members been retained over time when they've got the added benefits of citizenship here, as opposed to other forums and competition they may consider posting or contributing on instead.

Proposer: Omnipotent-Q
Supporters: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze, MasterBigAb, Bolonsky ,Okmin, 'Gunny, Irishron, Garbarsardar

Pater Medal Addition

Medium Awards

Medium Awards are awarded for significant contribution to an area of the site. A Medium Award is defined visibly by a postbit icon greater than 30 pixels and less than 40 pixels in both dimensions.

Pater's Civic Crown

The Civic Crown is awarded at the discretion of the Curator in consultation with members of the Consilium de Civitate. The bronze Civic Crown is given if a Citizen has successfully sponsored 3 members through the defined constitutional patronisation process or its prerequisites. Silver civic crown for 9 successful patronisations, gold civic crown for 15 patronisations. A citizen is not eligible to receive a civic crown if they have patronised more failed applicants than successful ones.

Proposed medal concept:
Bronze


Silver


Gold

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

This proposal is not concrete - parts can be changed based on consensus (assuming people even like the idea).

I like the zeal, ambitious undertaking, drive, and creativity used to solve a perceived weakness. However Carrots in place of genuine, self initiated, motivation...I don't know. Let us wait and see what the Mighty Q can summon forth from the abyss with his Devlishly tempting treats....

[Bolkonsky]

Not a bad idea.

[Jom]

If this comes into effect I'm never going to serve on the CdeC again, because I don't want to be confronted on a daily basis with an influx of poor-quality candidates with poorly thought out applications, who have extremely poor chances of being passed, all so their patron can get a medal. Patronisation is something which brings its own rewards; why add yet another medal to the already bloated list of those the Curia controls? If the Curia is in such desperate need of new blood, and that new blood will be an interesting and worthy contributor, they will make themselves known to prospective patrons without the need for what essentially amounts to bribery for people to patronise others.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

If this comes into effect I'm never going to serve on the CdeC again, because I don't want to be confronted on a daily basis with an influx of poor-quality candidates with poorly thought out applications, who have extremely poor chances of being passed, all so their patron can get a medal. Patronisation is something which brings its own rewards; why add yet another medal to the already bloated list of those the Curia controls? If the Curia is in such desperate need of new blood, and that new blood will be an interesting and worthy contributor, they will make themselves known to prospective patrons without the need for what essentially amounts to bribery for people to patronise others.

Yeah...well there's what he just said ^^^ to. A Small speed bump that requires navigation I will admit...

[Omnipotent-Q]

If this comes into effect I'm never going to serve on the CdeC again, because I don't want to be confronted on a daily basis with an influx of poor-quality candidates with poorly thought out applications, who have extremely poor chances of being passed, all so their patron can get a medal.

That's why I said "successful patronisations" not failed one's - such a cheeky tactic wouldn't work.

Patronisation is something which brings its own rewards; why add yet another medal to the already bloated list of those the Curia controls?

This isn't about rewards in a traditional sense. You may think "patronisation bring its own rewards", but others obviously think differently as it isn't happening enough, when honestly, there's plenty of good and worthy people out there. There are plenty of examples of months that have 2 patronisations at most - do you honestly think this is a sustainable amount of people to be coming in? Something's got to give...

[Jom]

That's why I said "successful patronisations" not failed one's - such a cheeky tactic wouldn't work.

There will still be an influx in sub-par candidates hoping that they squeeze through. In short: blanket patronisation.

This isn't about rewards in a traditional sense. You may think "patronisation bring its own rewards", but others obviously think differently as it isn't happening enough, when honestly, there's plenty of good and worthy people out there. There are plenty of examples of months that have 2 patronisations at most - do you honestly think this is a sustainable amount of people to be coming in? Something's got to give...

Sustainable? You make it sound like every day the Curia is haemorrhaging citizens and that more have to be brought in in order to plug the hole. Some of the people who are posting here in the Curia have been doing so for years.

[Omnipotent-Q]

Sustainable? You make it sound like every day the Curia is haemorrhaging citizens and that more have to be brought in in order to plug the hole. Some of the people who are posting here in the Curia have been doing so for years.

Naturally over time forums lose members or fail to retain them - there's a good number of cases of people re-visiting over several years for sure, but I personally don't feel the Curia has any sort of strategic plan for helping to add incentives for patronisation of members as the site membership increases because of Shogun 2.

On thinking about it, maybe the idea above is too complex. What would your feelings be on a simple "Patrician" award - small one, for say patronising 10+ through the system?

I really felt the need to discuss this - I think there's an argument that stimulus could be used to bring more people in here constructively. I'm not sure how considering more people (when the system allows for them to be easily rejected) is such a problem - at least, I've never known more choice to be something that's a nuisance.

[irishron]

Maybe it will work, maybe not. At least it's an idea being put forth. As far as poor applicants and their applications, we have those without this. Look through the applications since transparency was passed.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Maybe it will work, maybe not. At least it's an idea being put forth. As far as poor applicants and their applications, we have those without this. Look through the applications since transparency was passed.

Tis true, tis true...

But is it not worth giving the idea a chance to become an actual notion and proposition before we mud stomp it into the ground? That's directed at those willing to crush this before it ever has a chance draw it's 1st breath and crawl from the muck of creation. "Shooting fish in a barrel" was never considered sporting, hopefully that sentiment shall be extended here.

[Acco]

Interesting proposal. The idea itself isn't that bad, but whether or not citizens will take the stimulus is unknown.

In terms of patronization incentive and removing unnecessary restrictions, I'd recommend the following amendment:

Section III Article II

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. [clipped]

I've pushed for this numerous times in the past and still think it's the right thing to do. It may not apply a direct incentive, but it'll remove restrictions.

[Squid]

How about altering so that instead of 4/8/12/16/20 it has to be 4/8/12/16/20 without failing candidates, or have a a failing candidate reduce the count of a patron? Either of these should reduce or even eliminate the number of fluff patronizations we see.

[Jom]

How about altering so that instead of 4/8/12/16/20 it has to be 4/8/12/16/20 without failing candidates, or have a a failing candidate reduce the count of a patron? Either of these should reduce or even eliminate the number of fluff patronizations we see.

That seems more like something I could get behind: an uninterrupted sequence of 4+ successful patronizations is quite hard to come by, although I'm worried it may lead to some trying to subtly put pressure on the CdeC, and I'm not sure if patronization should be seen as a competition anyway.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

although I'm worried it may lead to some trying to subtly put pressure on the CdeC,

Could you lay this out* for me please...








*explain in layman's terms with some examples.
.

[Omnipotent-Q]

How about altering so that instead of 4/8/12/16/20 it has to be 4/8/12/16/20 without failing candidates, or have a a failing candidate reduce the count of a patron? Either of these should reduce or even eliminate the number of fluff patronizations we see.

This I feel is an ideal solution to most of the issues with this idea - simply have failed patronisation count as a minus in regards to getting a medal like this - Justinian's constraint idea has merit too:

I would tentatively support a version of this bill that only rewards consistent patronization of good candidates... you could, for example, keep the same number of required successful patronizations but also add a % successful rate (as in, 4 successful clients and a 90% pass rate). That could get complicated and be a bit of a headache, though.

There are plenty of examples of percentage uses in the constitution. I quite like the percentage constraint because it would mean if someone really wanted such a medal, they would have to patronise but pick people to sponsor through the process carefully too. I honestly think there are many people in the general membership who fit the bill and we need something bigger to push people to get out there looking, uncovering gem's and bringing what they might be able to offer to the table.

The Patrician rank was never awarded for patronizing someone (at least not in the time I've been on TWC), it was given so that you could then patronize. Citizens used to have to wait 3 months to patronize and then were made Patricians.

You're right, but it was an incentive to patronise - you've got a Patrician badge in front of you every time you post, you're always going to be sniffing around, looking for good people because you're reminded it's a good thing to do/why you've got this badge all the time.

Right...but the CdeC still has to have given fair consideration to the ones that ended up failing

In other words, say the CdeC gets flooded one day with ten applications, of which only two are decent. The CdeC still has to sit through all ten otherwise it isn't doing its job.

Well it is doing it's job - it's job in this regard is to look at a patronisation case and see whether they have the merits to be a citizen, or whether at the time they shouldn't be (along with some constructive opinion's on why - seen by any failed candidate when public). CdeC's job is not to sit back and do as little work as possible. I also think talk of ten per day is an assumption and exaggeration with no real basis - but then, it wouldn't be a major problem anyway - you've got the choice to reject or accept any person as a citizen. Having more choice of people to bring into the Curia is inherently good, not bad. Choice...more choice...always good - I don't know when it isn't. Say you go to get an Ice Cream - you really want a Chocolate one - luckily chocolate's all they got. But heh, what if you went somewhere else and they had chocolate and mint to choose from, and you could have a cheeky mint scoop as well as some chocolate if you chose too - choice is power.

Maybe it will work, maybe not. At least it's an idea being put forth. As far as poor applicants and their applications, we have those without this. Look through the applications since
transparency was passed.

Hear, Hear!

[Thoragoros]

Well it is doing it's job - it's job in this regard is to look at a patronisation case and see whether they have the merits to be a citizen, or whether at the time they shouldn't be (along with some constructive opinion's on why - seen by any failed candidate when public). CdeC's job is not to sit back and do as little work as possible. I also think talk of ten per day is an assumption and exaggeration with no real basis - but then, it wouldn't be a major problem anyway - you've got the choice to reject or accept any person as a citizen. Having more choice of people to bring into the Curia is inherently good, not bad. Choice...more choice...always good - I don't know when it isn't. Say you go to get an Ice Cream - you really want a Chocolate one - luckily chocolate's all they got. But heh, what if you went somewhere else and they had chocolate and mint to choose from, and you could have a cheeky mint scoop as well as some chocolate if you chose too - choice is power.

It is not supposed to be about 'choice' on the CdeC's part, but a matter of who is deserving, that is why objectivity is so important, and why such a fuss is raised over seemingly 'minor' matters such as CdeC-Patrons voicing their opinion inside of the application thread.

Also, it is not the CdeC's 'job' to be weighted down by applicants who are there solely because their patrons are looking for bling. This part of the site is supposed to be a meritocracy.

[Omnipotent-Q]

It is not supposed to be about 'choice' on the CdeC's part, but a matter of who is deserving, that is why objectivity is so important, and why such a fuss is raised over seemingly 'minor' matters such as CdeC-Patrons voicing their opinion inside of the application thread.

It's all about choice - you look at a candidate, you make a choice on whether they deserve to be a citizen. If you don't have that choice posed to you in the first place then you can't make a decision on it!

Also, it is not the CdeC's 'job' to be weighted down by applicants who are there solely because their patrons are looking for bling. This part of the site is supposed to be a meritocracy.

If constraints are in place, as we've all been talking about, then if they keep putting up people up who fail they won't get any "bling" at all. If it's going to encourage bringing good candidates forward by carefully putting some checks and balances in, then it is good for CdeC to have the choice of considering these candidates who may not even get to their desk at the moment because clearly, we're not active enough as a citizen group patronising people (me included in fact - at least for a couple o' days!)

[Thoragoros]

That's why I said "successful patronisations" not failed one's - such a cheeky tactic wouldn't work.

Right...but the CdeC still has to have given fair consideration to the ones that ended up failing

In other words, say the CdeC gets flooded one day with ten applications, of which only two are decent. The CdeC still has to sit through all ten otherwise it isn't doing its job.

This isn't about rewards in a traditional sense. You may think "patronisation bring its own rewards", but others obviously think differently as it isn't happening enough, when honestly, there's plenty of good and worthy people out there. There are plenty of examples of months that have 2 patronisations at most - do you honestly think this is a sustainable amount of people to be coming in? Something's got to give...

It is happening more than enough. There is no reason for more than several members to be successfully patronized each month.

[T.C.]

The award should be linked more to the contributions of the new citizen (patron? patronee?) rather than simple numbers. This would mean they are awarded for useful recruits

[Thoragoros]

Pater's Civic Crown
The Civic Crown is awarded at the discretion of the Curator in consultation with members of the Consilium de Civitate. The bronze Civic Crown is given for successfully patronising 4 members through the defined constitutional patronisation process or its prerequisites. Silver civic crown for 8 successful patronisations, gold civic crown for 12, the emerald civic crown for 16 patronisations, the ruby civic crown for 24 patronisations, the amethyst civic crown for 30 patronisations.

Those last two medals are some hefty numbers...we're talking 'new houses' numbers.

Consider this, the Imperial House of Hader consists of only around 41 members counting Hader himself, and consists of several Patrons, so...someone reaching the last Crown would have essentially refounded the House of Hader...by himself!

Consider, a perhaps more extreme example, the Legion of Rahl, which consists of 'only' about 83-85 members. Yet the Legion consists of numerous Patrons, whereas under this bill only two amethyst crown holders would, by themselves account for almost the entire Legion.

Perhaps Patronization needs some incentive besides ideals, but I don't think that this is the right way to go, especially not when the Curia is desperately in need of some quality members looking to take an active role in things.