[Amendment] Patronisation Incentive Bill

[irishron]

Can you be more specific here? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

So it seems that you're looking to find more people who could be citizens in order for them to have a little bonus incentive for them to stay at TWC rather than leave as they would without citizenship. I agree that these good members should be patronised, but is there a need to give current citizens an incentive to patronise more? The funny thing is that if you think citizens aren't patronising enough and you see heaps of members that you think should be patronised you can just do it yourself, or recommend them to someone else. They can even come forward and request a citizen to act as their patron if they wish. Is an award really necessary?

The way I see it, as an incentive, this Bill is a purely selfish award. Rather than exist to recognise contributions to the site as other awards do (roughly), this would only exist as something to strive for in order to get the nice medal. Rather than be seeking to patronise people for their contributions and the acknowledgment that they have done something worthwhile, you'll have people looking to patronise someone in order to increase edge closer towards being given a new shiny medal. The medal is only an incentive to do something that a citizen should do anyway, if not one then another. It isn't a recognition of work or contributions to the site.

That said, I think it might have some good results (by finding people who might otherwise be missed, though the number of members who aren't worthy might become a headache) even if I find the motivation behind it to be retarded. We're all human I suppose and I know people will go nuts trying to get the little things. It just makes me sad that we're apparently so self-serving as to require a personal benefit for doing something that should benefit the site. While this Bill would seek to promote more members into citizenship, it would only be doing it by encouraging citizens to act selfishly for the medal. It's like the manifestation of self-interest being paraded as benevolence. Nobody needs reminding how often the Curia has been accused of only being interested in itself.

Not sure how I'll vote yet. It could have positive consequences, but I dislike the founding premise.

May I disagree with you a little.

Some people will do it for selfish reasons. Chalk it up to part of being human. We are not Gods or Star Wars droids. If it has the positive effect of bringing in more citizens, the end justifies the means in my book. Don't discount it just because of the "human" factor.

[Omnipotent-Q]

Can you be more specific here? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The site survives on its visitors. Anything that encourages repeat visitations - whether it be content, mods to download, or in this case, dishing out shiny things to people you want to encourage to post here more as opposed to some other forum is wholly a good thing. It isn't all about what they can contribute - if they're posting in a responsible manner, behaving et al, then it is good to encourage them to stay by patronising them because they're more likely to return and say read the new content, download mods, get involved in debates.

So it seems that you're looking to find more people who could be citizens in order for them to have a little bonus incentive for them to stay at TWC rather than leave as they would without citizenship.

It helps add points in the sites favour for continuing to visit here for sure - there's members that have posted here for years. Citizenship is a factor in that - take most people who come here. They come because they're interested in Total War - over time that interest might wane, or they become more interested in the "debating side" of the forum. There's nothing wrong with this - in fact even if people do lose a bit of interest in Total War we should still do all we can to encourage them to come back and have the mods to download in their face, the content they might not read if they weren't here.

I agree that these good members should be patronised, but is there a need to give current citizens an incentive to patronise more? The funny thing is that if you think citizens aren't patronising enough and you see heaps of members that you think should be patronised you can just do it yourself, or recommend them to someone else. They can even come forward and request a citizen to act as their patron if they wish. Is an award really necessary?

I am but one man - I cannot change the culture of not enough people being patronised to sustain the Curia as a worthwhile mechanism for encouraging continual contribution and continually visiting the site single handily. Admittedly I am in the middle of the process of getting a few people ready for patronisation but there's only a few people this way inclined. In the past everyone was involved in it - you had a big Patrician badge - people wanted it, and they had it in their face 24/7 reminding them "i've gotta look at bringing more people into the fold". This is exactly the logic of this idea - getting patronisation in people's faces, reminding them constantly that adding a citizen to the mix really can make a difference in helping to retain good members when done effectively.

The way I see it, as an incentive, this Bill is a purely selfish award. Rather than exist to recognise contributions to the site as other awards do (roughly), this would only exist as something to strive for in order to get the nice medal. Rather than be seeking to patronise people for their contributions and the acknowledgment that they have done something worthwhile, you'll have people looking to patronise someone in order to increase edge closer towards being given a new shiny medal.

"That's BS yeah!"


Talking to another member - making friends with them, getting to know them - this is a big help in keeping them coming back and is a good contribution of time. Not only that, but it helps encourage the patron to be more active too. You'd have an argument in regards to it being "a medal equivalent to staff contributions" if people couldn't read descriptions of what particular medals are for, but last time I checked....they can.

Can you be more specific here? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The site survives on its visitors. Anything that encourages repeat visitations - whether it be content, mods to download, or in this case, dishing out shiny things to people you want to encourage to post here more as opposed to some other forum is wholly a good thing. It isn't all about what they can contribute - if they're posting in a responsible manner, behaving et al, then it is good to encourage them to stay by patronising them because they're more likely to return and say read the new content, download mods, get involved in debates.

So it seems that you're looking to find more people who could be citizens in order for them to have a little bonus incentive for them to stay at TWC rather than leave as they would without citizenship.

It helps add points in the sites favour for continuing to visit here for sure - there's members that have posted here for years. Citizenship is a factor in that - how many people have you spoken too, of whom you probably wouldn't have got to know at all if the Citizenship system didn't exist? Take most people who come here. They come because they're interested in Total War - over time that interest might wane, or they become more interested in the "debating side" of the forum. There's nothing wrong with this - in fact even if people do lose a bit of interest in Total War we should still do all we can to encourage them to come back and have the mods to download in their face, the content they might not read if they weren't here.

I agree that these good members should be patronised, but is there a need to give current citizens an incentive to patronise more? The funny thing is that if you think citizens aren't patronising enough and you see heaps of members that you think should be patronised you can just do it yourself, or recommend them to someone else. They can even come forward and request a citizen to act as their patron if they wish. Is an award really necessary?

I am but one man - I cannot change the culture of not enough people being patronised to sustain the Curia as a worthwhile mechanism for encouraging continual contribution and continually visiting the site single handily. Admittedly I am in the middle of the process of getting a few people ready for patronisation but there's only a few people this way inclined. In the past everyone was involved in it - you had a big Patrician badge - people wanted it, and they had it in their face 24/7 reminding them "i've gotta look at bringing more people into the fold". This is exactly the logic of this idea - getting patronisation in people's faces, reminding them constantly that adding a citizen to the mix really can make a difference in helping to retain good members when done effectively. Reminding them that patronisation is a good thing that will be rewarded, not just with a nice medal, but friendship that has shown itself to transverse the boundaries of this site on many many occasions.

That said, I think it might have some good results (by finding people who might otherwise be missed, though the number of members who aren't worthy might become a headache) even if I find the motivation behind it to be retarded. We're all human I suppose and I know people will go nuts trying to get the little things. It just makes me sad that we're apparently so self-serving as to require a personal benefit for doing something that should benefit the site. While this Bill would seek to promote more members into citizenship, it would only be doing it by encouraging citizens to act selfishly for the medal. It's like the manifestation of self-interest being paraded as benevolence. Nobody needs reminding how often the Curia has been accused of only being interested in itself..

I am a web expert by trade and I arrogantly do declare that I would consider it truly retarded for someone to vote against this idea - especially because of some kind of ridiculous morality that some how is supposed to exist on a computer games forum. I would be flabbergasted if the proposal failed. This is not me being subjective - this is me being honest.

We've gotta do our bit to keep people here - it is the biggest positive the Curia can have when used effectively. If some people want encouraging to do so using things such as this, then it doesn't matter if they're only doing it for the medal - it is the results that count - the results being, more people interested in the site, hopefully more people discussing site matters in the Curia (a definite plus), greater manpower choices where help is needed on the site (probably) - more good people with the added incentives being a Citizen gives, of which will help these good posters and contributors stick around.

Side comment - for those interested in the development of this idea, Ishan has done some truly sick mock up's that look like just the job for this idea. What's the thoughts? My thought process at the moment is probs stick to these images + a slight deviation for a big 20+ patronisations or something - but perhaps it would be more prudent to keep it simple and use just these three and call it that? Thoughts welcome on this, as well as the name, and the numbers involved for each one

[Genius of the Restoration]

The site survives on its visitors. Anything that encourages repeat visitations - whether it be content, mods to download, or in this case, dishing out shiny things to people you want to encourage to post here more as opposed to some other forum is wholly a good thing. It isn't all about what they can contribute - if they're posting in a responsible manner, behaving et al, then it is good to encourage them to stay by patronising them because they're more likely to return and say read the new content, download mods, get involved in debates.

This reduces everything the Curia does to relativity though. Why not abolish the requirements for citizens altogether if all you want to do is keep people visiting the site? Let everyone vote on all measures and there you have it, more participation. You said it's not actually about needing new members to "get stuff done", but I don't think wanting more citizens just because it will keep people on the site is a very good reason for increasing the membership of the Curia. How many people do you think the citizen badge currently keeps on the site, and how much do you predict that to increase?

It helps add points in the sites favour for continuing to visit here for sure - there's members that have posted here for years. Citizenship is a factor in that - take most people who come here. They come because they're interested in Total War - over time that interest might wane, or they become more interested in the "debating side" of the forum. There's nothing wrong with this - in fact even if people do lose a bit of interest in Total War we should still do all we can to encourage them to come back and have the mods to download in their face, the content they might not read if they weren't here.

If the Curia is being used just as another way to keep people on the site, such as how you described the D&D, you might as well open it up to everyone. To tie this back to my original reply, I'd like to know why new blood is needed in the Curia. If the argument behind this Bill is that we need new blood to keep people on the site, why wasn't that mentioned in the OP? If that's all it comes down to, there's little point in keeping citizenship as selective. If some citizens stay on TWC only because they are citizens that's fine, but that should never be a concern with citizenship because it is first and foremost a reward for contribution. Desiring someone to award someone citizenship simply to keep them on the site conflicts with the desire to award citizenship only to deserving candidates. The former may come along as an added bonus, but it shouldn't be the focus of what citizenship is about.

I am but one man - I cannot change the culture of not enough people being patronised to sustain the Curia

Why is the membership of the Curia unsustainable?

Talking to another member - making friends with them, getting to know them - this is a big help in keeping them coming back and is a good contribution of time.

This isn't required of a patron. I'm friends with my patron but that only happened afterwards. The other three people who tried to patronise me at different points were never really friends of mine at the time and I certainly didn't really know them well either.

You'd have an argument in regards to it being "a medal equivalent to staff contributions" if people couldn't read descriptions of what particular medals are for, but last time I checked....they can.

Which is relevancy. Just because you can say a medal is for a certain thing doesn't mean it's a worthwhile thing to have. If I wanted a medal for having ten posts in a single thread and people could read that it was for that exactly it doesn't make it worthy of being a medal. Most medals are worth something because they're for significant contributions to the site. How you're arguing patronisation counts as "a significant contribution", as per the wording of medium awards, is beyond me. Compare it to the other awards in this category: mace, quill, screwdriver, CdeC, curatorial service, loincloth (debatable), wiki, robes and artist.

You've also misquoted me. I never said "a medal equivalent to staff contributions", but "contributions to the site as other awards do (roughly)" (with the possible exception of the loincloth depending on your interpretation of contribution, hence roughly). Medals aren't all about staff and I didn't make the mistake of saying that. I'm fully aware they're awarded for different things, but the constant for these awards is that are awarded for "significant contribution", to quote the Constitution, and I don't see patronising four members to be on par with the standard that has been set. My point wasn't about what people thought the awards were for, despite your insistence that I said something that would have that effect, but instead was that patronising four members isn't a contribution to be recognised to the extend that the others are, if it's a contribution that deserves to be recognised at all.

I am a web expert by trade and I arrogantly do declare that I would consider it truly retarded for someone to vote against this idea - especially because of some kind of ridiculous morality that some how is supposed to exist on a computer games forum.

Doing something that is beneficial to someone else because you can and doing so only because you will be rewarded yourself are different things. It doesn't matter that this is a computer games forum. The moral implications of doing something only for self-gain don't suddenly change because it's online. That you can say morality somehow doesn't exist on the forum, and that if someone thinks differently they are being "truly retarded" is baffling. I stand by my point, the motivation this would give for patronising is selfish and purely for individual gain. I'm not arguing the results wouldn't help the site, they might, but the motivation remains entirely selfish.

We've gotta do our bit to keep people here - it is the biggest positive the Curia can have when used effectively. If some people want encouraging to do so using things such as this, then it doesn't matter if they're only doing it for the medal - it is the results that count - the results being, more people interested in the site, hopefully more people discussing site matters in the Curia (a definite plus), greater manpower choices where help is needed on the site (probably) - more good people with the added incentives being a Citizen gives, of which will help these good posters and contributors stick around.

= the ends justify the means. I'm not convinced it's worth fawning to self-interested medal-seekers by creating a medal that doesn't fit in with the award provision it is being proposed for.

Oppose.

[Genius of the Restoration]

That's almost exactly what I said, except I'm unsure whether the ends are justified. I haven't discounted it just because of the human factor, I think that's clear in the final sentence of the post you quoted. I'm balancing the scales and undecided which way I'll vote.

[irishron]

Fair enough.

[Okmin]

I like those medals. Maybe go with the same numbers as the PoTW awards - bronze 3-8, silver 9-14, gold 15+

[Admiral Piett]

Speaking for myself here, I dunno if other citizens, especially civitates have the same problem as me.

The reason why I have not yet officially patronized anyone is because I have offered openly with some good candidates but they see no particular good reason to go through the effort of having themselves 'judged' on their performance. They see it as coming to the site and contributing according to their own standards, rather than an outside system. (Unfortunately some take this to the extreme with repeated infractions) Ontop of this, good candidates are very intimidated about undergoing the whole thing. And the really good posters in the D&D area are few. I see the Civitate rank as a prestigious achievement of good posting and good attitude in discussion. Unfortunately, even some civies engage in outright malicious and hostile debate tactics, even here in the Curia. This is very common in the D&D and it's not something I wish to promote more of.

This is why I'm personally against the current movements for a more inclusive Curia.

[Okmin]

Speaking for myself here, I dunno if other citizens, especially civitates have the same problem as me.

The reason why I have not yet officially patronized anyone is because I have offered openly with some good candidates but they see no particular good reason to go through the effort of having themselves 'judged' on their performance. They see it as coming to the site and contributing according to their own standards, rather than an outside system. (Unfortunately some take this to the extreme with repeated infractions) Ontop of this, good candidates are very intimidated about undergoing the whole thing. And the really good posters in the D&D area are few. I see the Civitate rank as a prestigious achievement of good posting and good attitude in discussion. Unfortunately, even some civies engage in outright malicious and hostile debate tactics, even here in the Curia. This is very common in the D&D and it's not something I wish to promote more of.

This is why I'm personally against the current movements for a more inclusive Curia.

So what you're saying is you think they would bring more "malicious and hostile debate tactics" to the Curia? Or are you saying the ones who would be useful in the Curia don't want to go through the trouble of applying for citizenship?

(In the latter case, you could "pull an Okmin"... i.e. get the guy awarded a Phalera/Opifex, thus bypassing the normal application process )

[irishron]

So what you're saying is you think they would bring more "malicious and hostile debate tactics" to the Curia? Or are you saying the ones who would be useful in the Curia don't want to go through the trouble of applying for citizenship?

(In the latter case, you could "pull an Okmin"... i.e. get the guy awarded a Phalera/Opifex, thus bypassing the normal application process )

There are a couple I could "pull an Okmin" but they prefer their member anonymity

[Admiral Piett]

So what you're saying is you think they would bring more "malicious and hostile debate tactics" to the Curia? Or are you saying the ones who would be useful in the Curia don't want to go through the trouble of applying for citizenship?

(In the latter case, you could "pull an Okmin"... i.e. get the guy awarded a Phalera/Opifex, thus bypassing the normal application process )

Lol, well medals are harder to achieve for civies I think.

As for your question, its both. I don't want to give more people badges that aren't really deserving of being seen as a good standard for others to try to shape their twc personality off of. And many of the good guys simply aren't interested.

[Bolkonsky]

Nice medals. I can support this I guess. Assuming it doesn't work, it won't do any major harm and can always be reversed.

[Omnipotent-Q]

Ok I've edited my initial post for what I'd consider more or less a final version unless there's major objections. I've also explained as succinctly as possible the obvious potential benefits if this was a successful venture. Supporters wouldn't got a miss like!

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support.

[MasterBigAb]

Support

[Bolkonsky]

Support.

[Okmin]

Support.

['Gunny]

Though I originally did not like the idea, I have noticed

A citizen is not eligible to receive a civic crown if they have patronised more failed applicants than successful ones.

which I think may be enough to get my hesitant support

[Genius of the Restoration]

Anybody care to respond to my post? A supporter can give it a bash if they like.
If that's too much to ask, can someone at least tell me why this is proposed to be a medium award?

[Omnipotent-Q]

Anybody care to respond to my post? A supporter can give it a bash if they like.
If that's too much to ask, can someone at least tell me why this is proposed to be a medium award?

I edited my initial post to explain more clearly and succinctly why this is something we should try:

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.

I didn't think you got the point of why I was attempting this with such lines as:

If some citizens stay on TWC only because they are citizens that's fine, but that should never be a concern with citizenship because it is first and foremost a reward for contribution.

This is outright opinion and doesn't stand up to fact. It is and always has been first and for most, a complex system of helping to retain the forums most important members by valuing their presence by giving them a badge and becoming friendly and more in the know about them through the patronisation processes. This outright reality has saved the Curia from being deleted down the years on more than several occasions - the Curia hasn't been saved from getting deleted because someone made a case that it's only to reward people on the forum who other people on the forum think are great. It's because the best members - the one's who contribute the most, get recognised yes, but they also a brought into the system where it is easier to keep them posting here than it would be if they're a normal member. For example if Albert Einstein was on the forum and you wanted to keep him posting here, not any of the numerous other forums or sites on the web, then you'd try making him a Citizen as the added benefits are recognised by Albert Einstein as being better than that of posting on another site or forum with no such system.

Why is the membership of the Curia unsustainable?

Basic numbers. We used to have a higher percentage of the site membership in the Curia than currently and it is easliy arguable that discussions on site matters were more useful as a result as discussions were focused and larger amounts of opinions were sought from stakeholders in what I'd describe as "multiple groups". For example modders are pretty well represented here on the whole - RPG's are not. How can we discuss something in the Curia we know not what?

Honestly - it is in my humble opinion and experience that if we don't start patronising more people and become more inclusive to members that the site would be advantageous in retaining, then we are missing the true aged old purpose of the Curia and given some time, the Curia will eventually die from lack of bodies. Either we carry on the downward decline, or we do something about it.

Here's me at least trying to think of something. Trying to give something a go to improve the Curial process, so that the core benefit of the Curia system is enhanced. I'm sorry you don't see that - in fact I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't see this, because really, it's blatantly obvious we should give this at least a try. That's not even me saying that being biased - this is me having looked at this problem for hours objectively and come up with a low risk solution that could be attempted.

Which is relevancy. Just because you can say a medal is for a certain thing doesn't mean it's a worthwhile thing to have. If I wanted a medal for having ten posts in a single thread and people could read that it was for that exactly it doesn't make it worthy of being a medal. Most medals are worth something because they're for significant contributions to the site. How you're arguing patronisation counts as "a significant contribution", as per the wording of medium awards, is beyond me. Compare it to the other awards in this category: mace, quill, screwdriver, CdeC, curatorial service, loincloth (debatable), wiki, robes and artist.

It is a significant contribution, in that if someone were to go patronise 15 people, and the 15 people become more likely to post here as they've "the bigger stake" illusion or factor, than another forum where they have not - then it's a worthwhile contribution. Other forums including competitors and any other site where you can discuss games, get involved in debates or RPG's et al.

This is simple logic here - encourage people to go out and look for people that are adding something to the forum, or could add something in their opinions on matters the Curia discusses - but then once they've found them, like with your patron, they work together on the application, get to know each other - then they get the badge. What's the pattern? As time goes on they're being pulled in more and more, they're involved with the site more and more in the sense they get more interested - as a result they become more likely to stay and post here, more likely to be interested in contributing to the site as a member of staff perhaps. So you ask, is patronising a good or significant contribution? Relatively - I think patronising on 15 occasions is more of a contribution in real value terms than some of the contributions who have the Wiki medal.

This is a no brainer concept. Either you support improving the system so the Curia retains the inherent value of citizenship (so obviously not just opening the doors up) as to improve the site as a whole through a good system of rewards for encouraging people to help retain and get to know members.....or we can all carry on in the old pompous way of not attempting change, not attempting initiative and throwing out the most absurd thinly veiled arguments of "medal is too big" at ideas because we want to keep the place too exclusive and we don't want to dumb down the value of our citizen badges by having more people have it - even with my Albert Einstein example, if he became a citizen, some would be annoyed because one more citizen makes their badge just that little bit less rare. It is the single most irritating thing in this Curia I have seen since Year 0 here. I'm not saying that's what you think Genius, but you're making a fine job of emulating someone who would have that opinion.

This is the long and short of it - If we don't do something about patronisation and get more members that are of use to the site in here to get more opinions off them and to help keep them posting here, then the Curia will continue to fail on what has always been the biggest benefit of the system and that's keeping people here. If nothing is done stimulus wise to encourage the behaviour of helping to keep good posters and contributors here, it might be a couple of years down the line, maybe a couple of months....but the Curia will become so exclusive, so detached to the realities of the site and forum that it will die because of the lack of bodies. It might be a couple of months down the line, maybe a couple of years, but if this fails and patronisation is not encouraged or doesn't pick up, then people will look back at this idea in hindsight and say "oh there was one guy who had an idea to solve this problem, shame we couldn't think about doing something at the time. If only we didn't oppose on the basis of the size of the medal!".

[Genius of the Restoration]

This is outright opinion and doesn't stand up to fact. It is and always has been first and for most, a complex system of helping to retain the forums most important members by valuing their presence by giving them a badge and becoming friendly and more in the know about them through the patronisation processes. This outright reality has saved the Curia from being deleted down the years on more than several occasions - the Curia hasn't been saved from getting deleted because someone made a case that it's only to reward people on the forum who other people on the forum think are great. It's because the best members - the one's who contribute the most, get recognised yes, but they also a brought into the system where it is easier to keep them posting here than it would be if they're a normal member. For example if Albert Einstein was on the forum and you wanted to keep him posting here, not any of the numerous other forums or sites on the web, then you'd try making him a Citizen as the added benefits are recognised by Albert Einstein as being better than that of posting on another site or forum with no such system.

I disagree with you here. I don't think the incentive to stay is as prominent as you say it is with citizenship. Citizenship isn't set up in a way that lends itself to a focus upon retention. Retention from the badge may exist, but it's far more of a by-product. Your example isn't very strong in supporting the suggestion that it is "first and for most" (did you mean 'foremost' as the saying, or for most?) about retention.

"becoming friendly and more in the know about them through the patronisation processes"

This isn't recorded or required. The Curia hasn't shown much interest in the patron/client relationship in recent times, and my own experience with 4 potential clients seems to indicate that getting to know someone through the patronisation process isn't omnipresent. On the otherhand, the fact that citizens are given a vote as a reward is a privilege that is recorded in the Constitution. And for your comment that "It is and always has been first and for most" about retention, I present imb's outline about the Citizen from here Citizen Contributing members of TWC have the opportunity to become a Citizen of the forum as per the Patronization section of the Syntagma. There are two ranks of Citizen, one is elevated for their contributions to the Total War Community (Artifex), the other is elevated for their contribution to the Common Community (Civitate). – note, this aspect might change depending upon legislation currently voted on. All Citizens of TWC have limited rights to post within the Curia forum, as stated in the Curia section of the Syntagma. All Citizens are granted access to the Symposium. All Citizens may nominate other members for Citizenship as per the "Patronization" section of the Syntagma. This suggests to me that citizenship is much more about rewarding contributing members. If you read the patronisation section in the same constitution imb proposed you wont find anything about the relationship there either. So I think it's safe to say "becoming friendly and more in the know about them through the patronisation processes" isn't an essential element in citizenship, and it certainly hasn't always been the focus either.

Basic numbers. We used to have a higher percentage of the site membership in the Curia than currently and it is easliy arguable that discussions on site matters were more useful as a result as discussions were focused and larger amounts of opinions were sought from stakeholders in what I'd describe as "multiple groups". For example modders are pretty well represented here on the whole - RPG's are not. How can we discuss something in the Curia we know not what?

If it's a stakeholder problem with groups that are excluded then the issue at play here is surely the requirements for citizenship. If RPG players are having their citizenship applications knocked back because they aren't contributions, you'll want to change the requirements. Encouraging people to patronise wont help balance out your "multiple groups" if they're just going to get denied anyway. I support some change in how we judge contributions btw, so if you drop this amendment I'll join you in that crusade

Honestly - it is in my humble opinion and experience that if we don't start patronising more people and become more inclusive to members that the site would be advantageous in retaining, then we are missing the true aged old purpose of the Curia and given some time, the Curia will eventually die from lack of bodies. Either we carry on the downward decline, or we do something about it.

I don't think it'll die from a lack of bodies, but they wont be as diverse as the site that's for sure. I don't know if diversity itself is something to be targetted though. I mean, to be diverse, you're going to need a quota of members from all over the forum, and once you start doing that you're upsetting the reward system that it is by wanting to give it more easily to some than others.

Here's me at least trying to think of something. Trying to give something a go to improve the Curial process, so that the core benefit of the Curia system is enhanced. I'm sorry you don't see that - in fact I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't see this, because really, it's blatantly obvious we should give this at least a try. That's not even me saying that being biased - this is me having looked at this problem for hours objectively and come up with a low risk solution that could be attempted.

Sorry
I see what you're trying to do, I just disagree with the method.

It is a significant contribution, in that if someone were to go patronise 15 people, and the 15 people become more likely to post here as they've "the bigger stake" illusion or factor, than another forum where they have not - then it's a worthwhile contribution.

Don't just take the gold level one. It'd be like me saying a significant contribution is only for a gold mace. For the bronze, you need to patronise three people. Three people you don't need to know at all. That would be three paragraphs worth. It might keep a couple of people on the site when you do a lot of patronising, but do those members really deserve a medal for contributions if the minimum required work is so low?

This is simple logic here - encourage people to go out and look for people that are adding something to the forum, or could add something in their opinions on matters the Curia discusses - but then once they've found them, like with your patron, they work together on the application, get to know each other - then they get the badge.

I shouldn't get personal, but you brought me up... We didn't work on it together. I wrote it and sent it to Katsumoto, he wrote his bit and posted it. I didn't see his paragraph before it went up, nor was I required to. It was the same with Jom before that.

What's the pattern? As time goes on they're being pulled in more and more, they're involved with the site more and more in the sense they get more interested - as a result they become more likely to stay and post here, more likely to be interested in contributing to the site as a member of staff perhaps. So you ask, is patronising a good or significant contribution? Relatively - I think patronising on 15 occasions is more of a contribution in real value terms than some of the contributions who have the Wiki medal.

I've experienced a far different pattern than you. My pattern is that a patron has contacted me about citizenship and I've said yes, written a paragraph, sent it, and that's about it for the patronisation process. I don't doubt that being a citizen makes someone more likely to stay at TWC, but I really, really don't think patronisation itself is a contribution worthy of praise and reward. If you think 15 times is more work than a Wiki medal, why don't you start the medals there rather than 3? Writing up stuff in the wiki is much more of a contribution than patronising three members, at least in my experience, because you have to do stuff, whereas you don't really need to do much for the other. Sure, you can, but it isn't a requirement.

This is a no brainer concept. Either you support improving the system so the Curia retains the inherent value of citizenship (so obviously not just opening the doors up) as to improve the site as a whole through a good system of rewards for encouraging people to help retain and get to know members.....or we can all carry on in the old pompous way of not attempting change, not attempting initiative and throwing out the most absurd thinly veiled arguments of "medal is too big" at ideas because we want to keep the place too exclusive and we don't want to dumb down the value of our citizen badges by having more people have it - even with my Albert Einstein example, if he became a citizen, some would be annoyed because one more citizen makes their badge just that little bit less rare.

Well thanks for dumbing this debate down into 'improvement' versus 'the old pompous way'. Come on, is it really that simple? Can I not just hold a different opinion on how the Curia should evolve? FYI, the medal is too big comment was an attempt to goad you into replying, though I don't see why I should need to. Seriously though, is there a reason it is medium sized? A smaller award would be less of a recognition of work and much more accurate.

It is the single most irritating thing in this Curia I have seen since Year 0 here. I'm not saying that's what you think Genius, but you're making a fine job of emulating someone who would have that opinion.

I just oppose this proposal. I don't oppose people becoming citizens who are worthy of the title. I don't care if it would make the bage more common. Thank you for the caricature, but I don't emulate them very well. Shall I make comments about you now?

Don't think I need to address the final paragraph, I've said my piece on what it contains already. Apologies if I don't reply again for a while, I'm going to be off doing a walk for a week or so in a couple of days.