[Amendment] Patronisation Incentive Bill

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Heck the numbers can be played with, the salient point is whether the idea has merit.

I think so...

Bring quality members to the curia and receive recognition for it. I can se e that. A marketing scheme that has a positive outcome for all concerned. To some like me the bling is not crucial because I already have a row of it. But to others more naked than I, there is a certain allure. At this point we must also admit to and prey on the membership's vanity.

Utilize vanity for the common good, a win win scenario, except for the foreseeable onset of frequent CdeC Councilor stress brakes & panic attacks...

[Thoragoros]

But to others more naked than I, there is a certain allure. At this point we must also admit to and prey on the membership's vanity.

What a sec...I just realized I'm walking around totally naked!

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

What a sec...I just realized I'm walking around totally naked!

Hit that Rolodex{address book} Baby!!!!..........

[Squid]

Heck the numbers can be played with, the salient point is whether the idea has merit.

[Belisarius]

*looks at his family tree*


Think I better abstain lol.

[Okmin]

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.

I would support this unless someone had a really good reason why we have to wait so long. Or maybe just change it to one month? Let people get settled in the Curia for a while.

Anyway, about this proposal, I like the concept but as pointed out there are some potential flaws. Maybe we need a different kind of incentive, or conditions like failure penalties (which would need to have something to do with the vote count; e.g. don't penalize anyone if the application failed by three or fewer votes or something like that).

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

e.g. don't penalize anyone if the application failed by three or fewer votes or something like that).

I'd keep it simple, pass or fail. Once you start tracking close calls, it gets really complicated...

[Acco]

Failure penalties practically destroy the purpose of the bill. If you add penalties, the stimulus is gone and patrons will become more stingy. Perhaps it'll result in fewer but more successful applications, but that's not really the goal here.

[Jom]

Failure penalties practically destroy the purpose of the bill. If you add penalties, the stimulus is gone and patrons will become more stingy. Perhaps it'll result in fewer but more successful applications, but that's not really the goal here.

Shouldn't the goal of the Curia to always be to gain a small number of very successful applications rather than higher numbers of people who just squeeze through?

[Justinian]

I don't know how I feel about this. I don't want to see rampant patronization of undeserving candidates -- without some kind of punishment for spamming clients in the hopes of getting a medal, I think this could have pretty disastrous consequences. However it is true that not enough people are being patronized. In the spirit of something new happening, 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.

Oh and to nitpick on one thing:

we used to have the Patrician rank for those who patronise

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.

[Thoragoros]

Choice in judgement and choice for choice's sake are two entirely different things, Curator.

You wrote,

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.

As if to imply that we are choosing between candidates based on preference, and so increasing our number of choices would be a good thing, when in fact preference has nothing to do with it. Our 'choice' is supposed to an entirely objective one based upon how we view citizenship and what warrents it.

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!)

You are placing constraints on the bling. You are not placing constraints on how many applicants a single 'patron' can submit.

[Omnipotent-Q]

You wrote,

My ice cream analogy might suck ok - but I'm sure you know what I'm trying to say from my last post.

You are placing constraints on the bling. You are not placing constraints on how many applicants a single 'patron' can submit.

From my understanding, your argument is that people will spam CdeC for "bling". However they won't do that if they know doing so in a way that isn't constructive with "as many fail candidates as possible" won't get them it. In short - it doesn't change the current system whereby failed candidates won't get you anything - in fact, it doesn't even involve failed patronisation attempts so your whole premise that it some how does is completely faulty. If someone brings in lots of successful applications then good on them - they're making a good impact and the behaviour should be encouraged.

[Thoragoros]

From my understanding, your argument is that people will spam CdeC for "bling". However they won't do that if they know doing so in a way that isn't constructive with "as many fail candidates as possible" won't get them it. In short - it doesn't change the current system whereby failed candidates won't get you anything - in fact, it doesn't even involve failed patronisation attempts so your whole premise that it some how does is completely faulty. If someone brings in lots of successful applications then good on them - they're making a good impact and the behaviour should be encouraged.

The CdeC has to take the good with the bad, and the current system ensures that the vast majority of cases brought before us are Citizen-Patrons who truly believe their candidate has done something noteworthy.

That is pure meritocracy for Citizens, and that is how this aspect of the site aught to run.

At current, the vast majority of Citizens are Citizens because their patrons believed in them, not because thier Patrons were looking for bling or credit. That is a good thing.

[Omnipotent-Q]

The CdeC has to take the good with the bad, and the current system ensures that the vast majority of cases brought before us are Citizen-Patrons who truly believe their candidate has done something noteworthy.

How does this change that? All this is doing is encouraging more people too look to patronise people - they won't patronise people if they don't believe in them for sure, but this aims to encourage people to go out into the rest of the forum with an open mind, looking to see who's made good contributions, who they believe in, and who could be worthy of being a citizen. This is an extra carrot to make more people do that - if someone wants to propose candidates for the lols, then there's nothing to stop them doing that already.

No one's going to propose someone for patronisation in any system we have if they don't believe in the case they're making.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

bugsoscar22

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. , 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.

The Bronze Civic Crown... {for 4 successful patronisations }
The Silver Civic Crown...... {for 8 successful patronisations}
The Gold Civic Crown ..... {for 12 successful patronisations}

&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*

Yes Ladies & Gents, visualization, for-the-win. Now where to go from here...

1. Have some kind of public scoreboard? For tracking/display/public pride?

2. Have some kind of penalty? Three unsuccessful applications in a row and the Patron is barred from submitting applications for ?????

&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*

Carrot or stick, or both??????? You make the call........ embrace the possibiliteis and give them a chance.

[Omnipotent-Q]

1. Have some kind of public scoreboard? For tracking/display/public pride?

The Curial list of citizen's is being re-done at the moment to add more information - it could accommodate another table column with this information. Retroactive, or non-retroactive though?

2. Have some kind of penalty? Three unsuccessful applications in a row and the Patron is barred from submitting applications for ?????

Ten minutes? lol j.k, no more than a month, no less than a week if we go down that road in my opinion.

I will see if anyone else wants to throw some more opinions out, then change the initial proposal later for a probable rinse and repeat for more opinions!

[Jom]

2. Have some kind of penalty? Three unsuccessful applications in a row and the Patron is barred from submitting applications for ?????

I don't think people should be barred from patronizing for a period just because they've had a spate of unsuccessful applicants. In fact, that's a rather ridiculous suggestion which goes against the whole idea of this award: to get more people into the Curia.

[Thoragoros]

But isn't this Ammendment simply treating one of the symptoms the Curia is suffering from as opposed to the problem causing these symptoms? The problem is Participation. If we had more participation, we would have more people getting patronized.

We could Patronize the entire site and that wouldn't make a bit of difference if the Curia can't attract people and keep them attracted.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

But isn't this Ammendment simply treating one of the symptoms the Curia is suffering from as opposed to the problem causing these symptoms? The problem is Participation. If we had more participation, we would have more people getting patronized.

We could Patronize the entire site and that wouldn't make a bit of difference if the Curia can't attract people and keep them attracted.

Hmmm...

My local soup kitchen + Meals on wheels program runs an add in the paper...

Open House: All positions wanted. Spend Saturday and Sunday morning with us and get a season pass to blockbuster video worth $500.

I show up, spend the two mornings there and think that that place and the folks there are the best thing since "sliced bread."

Moral of story: I tried something new{that I had never done} because of an offered incentive. As it turns out I'm damn good at it and invested in the program.

Kay...Transpose the scenario to TWC...."execute."

[irishron]

Is not patronizing new citizens part of participation?