[Amendment] Patronisation by CdeC members

[Omnipotent-Q]

Proposer: Omnipotent-Q
Supporters: Squid, Major Darling, Ishan, .Mitch., La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham, Genius of the Restoration, The Hedge Knight, Sir Pignans, m_1512, Garbarsardar

This issue has come up time and time again over a long period of time. It's the issue of CdeC patrons posting in their own application threads - it has come up many a time.

Therefore I'm proposing we amend the constitution to be more black and white. CdeC members who are patronising should not be involved in that specific application - no one else has such patron power, and it is important that each and every citizenship application is dealt with on completely equal terms - both in perception, and in reality. Even if it is just a post to provide information (of which is generally rare in applications as it is) - the best course is to do so by PMing someone else on CdeC or one of the Curator's so there's no doubt whatsoever that absolutely no one has any special or extra treatment when it comes to patronising. Other patron's simply don't have the ability to answer questions directly so it's an "unfair tilt", to quote one person who messaged me on this recurring issue.

As for a disadvantage at "losing a vote" when a CdeC member patronises (as is the case now) - this has never ever been an issue. In fact generally people trust the judgement of CdeC members and when one of their colleagues brings someone forward for citizenship, they get listened to more intently. If it is obvious to someone on CdeC that someone should be a citizen - then generally it's obvious to everyone else too.

Basically I propose the addition of five words to the constitution to prevent this issue returning again - it is inevitable it will otherwise.

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.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community.
3. 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. Transparency of the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum is limited to Citizens only.
4. 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.
5. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 neither vote nor post in applications of members they patronize

[Sir Pignans]

Support.

[m_1512]

I support your idea.
It must be equal for both CdeC and Citizen patrons. And also, this bears unfair to even the clients too.





EDIT: Damn! Beaten by someone. Was hoping to be the first.

[Romanos IV]

Support

[The Hedge Knight]

Thankyou very much.

Support.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Support.

[Legio]

If this ends up passing can we add a clause or word about CdeC patrons being able to post the thread in quarters? The way it's currently worded makes it seem like the prospective patron must first PM the Curator or another CdeC member before doing so.

[Omnipotent-Q]

If this ends up passing can we add a clause or word about CdeC patrons being able to post the thread in quarters? The way it's currently worded makes it seem like the prospective patron must first PM the Curator or another CdeC member before doing so.

As in post the application thread in the first place in QP/pol/etc? If that be what you're getting at then I can tinker the wording slightly.....

[Legio]

Yes, that's what I meant.

[Okmin]

Opposed.

[Squid]

Support, but the amendment should actually read "or posting in the application" the word and logically implies that as long as they don't do both its ok. Actually better wording would be to replace everything after must (i.e. starting with abstain) with "neither vote nor post in applications of members they patronize."

[MasterBigAb]

I oppose.
Not taking part in the discussion, ok I can live with that - but not even being allowed to post a little reply after one got asked whether one could provide further infromation/something else what ever...is a bit over the top in my eyes

[Romanos IV]

I oppose.
Not taking part in the discussion, ok I can live with that - but not even being allowed to post a little reply after one got asked whether one could provide further infromation/something else what ever...is a bit over the top in my eyes

If other members don't have this priviledge, why should Councillors' clients?

[Squid]

Why should potential citizens get an advantage by choosing or being chosen by CdeC members as patrons?

[Okmin]

1. All TWC members can send PMs
2. All citizens can post in the CdeC commentary thread

For example, Rahl PM'd some people to get more info on recent cases. They replied and he posted the replies in the QP. So we allow plebs and Citizens to send in info to answer a counsilor's questions, but the patron, just because he's on the CdeC, can't? Abstaining on the vote and not lobbying, okay, I get it. But not being allowed to post at all? Nein, danke.

[Sir Pignans]

1. All TWC members can send PMs
2. All citizens can post in the CdeC commentary thread

For example, Rahl PM'd some people to get more info on recent cases. They replied and he posted the replies in the QP. So we allow plebs and Citizens to send in info to answer a counsilor's questions, but the patron, just because he's on the CdeC, can't? Abstaining on the vote and not lobbying, okay, I get it. But not being allowed to post at all? Nein, danke.

He can use the same channels as normal citizens can.

[Okmin]

Yes, but it would make more sense to just post it himself instead of going to another Cded'er and saying "Hey, can you post this for me? I would do it myself, but I'm not allowed."

When someone else posts it, the post is exactly the same as it would be if the patron posted, but it's apparently the only acceptable way to do it.

[Sir Pignans]

Runs to big a risk of appearing to accidently lobby the Council. Doing it via approved methods is the only way it should be done. For safetys sake.

[Okmin]

So... If I patronized someone and answered someone's question in the QP thread, it could be considered lobbying. But if I had Fortes say it for me, it would be perfectly okay.

Sounds great. No unnecessary steps at all, and I get to say whatever without fear of anyone holding me responsible for it.

[Sir Pignans]

Yes. Unfortuantly, appearences matter. The person posting will know just to post purely the information. The councillor might accidently let something slip.