Consilium de Civitate (Civitates Review Panel)

[Mímirswell]

Consilium de Civitate

Proposer: Wild Bill Kelso
Drafted by: Mimirswell
Supporters:

Patronization Act

Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus at a rate of one per month. The granting of Civitateship is determined by a panel of four Patricians and four Senatorii and presided over by the Syntagma Curator. The process for patronization works as followed:

• The Patron reviews the member before recommending him, ensuring the member has at least one hundred posts and is a contributing member of the community.
• The nominee sends a private message to explain his duties and privileges as a Civitate to his Patron which is then sent with a paragraph by the Patron to the Syntagma Curator.
• The panel reviews throughout the month and votes during the last week of the month.
• If the Nominee achieves a two-third majority, the nominee shall become a Civitate.

Candidates are chosen by the Triumvirate and no member may patronize while on the council.

Addendum
A subforum of the Curia titled Consilium de Civitate (CDC) shall be established and viewable only by Senior Magistrates and the Consilium (separate membership group, without a badge) though only members of the Consilium may vote within.

[Sétanta]

I support this as I said in the other thread

[Garbarsardar]

I agree

[Romanos]

support it looks like a more stable system.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Would people wish for any of these notes to be included?

Any applications which are submitted during the voting period will be reviewed by the staff and put on the waiting list for the NEXT month`s review

The panel of senatorii and patricians would rotate between months

Any patrician who is on the panel and has a client under review cannot participate in the discussion and vote about that applicant.

The review panel will be under oath to judge each applicant by his/her merit, not by the lineage of the patron or any past differences they may have encountered with said applicant

The panel discussions will be hidden from view while the discussions are underway, but will be kept for prosterity and viewable by all after the review period is over

[Kscott]

The panel of senatorii and patricians (numbers yet to be decided) would rotate between months

we got enogh senatorri?

Any patrician who is on the panel and has a client under review cannot participate in the discussion and vote about that applicant.

The review panel will be under oath to judge each applicant by his/her merit, not by the lineage of the patron or any past differences they may have encountered with said applicant

The panel discussions will be hidden from view while the discussions are underway, but will be kept for prosterity and viewable by all after the review period is over

agree

So wait a minute, does this mean that the staff will no longer be voting on the Civs?

reading does have its merits

[Muizer]

Would people wish for any of these notes to be included?

Any applications which are submitted during the voting period will be reviewed by the staff and put on the waiting list for the NEXT month`s review

The panel of senatorii and patricians would rotate between months

Any patrician who is on the panel and has a client under review cannot participate in the discussion and vote about that applicant.

The review panel will be under oath to judge each applicant by his/her merit, not by the lineage of the patron or any past differences they may have encountered with said applicant

The panel discussions will be hidden from view while the discussions are underway, but will be kept for prosterity and viewable by all after the review period is over

Yes actually. I think all of these should be included one way or the other.

P.S. As an aside this is the second time today I see a proposal being posted by someone other than the proposer. What does this mean in the context of the legislation act? Who is "in charge" of asking this to be moved to a vote when the time comes?

[Kscott]

erm supportr i do

[Richard the Lionheart]

So wait a minute, does this mean that the staff will no longer be voting on the Civs?

[Garbarsardar]

So wait a minute, does this mean that the staff will no longer be voting on the Civs?

It does not specify so...

Candidates are chosen by the Triumvirate

How? Volunteering? By PM? We need to specify this.

[SoggyFrog]

The purpose this implies is generally to relieve the Magistrates of the duty, no? I'm not totally familiar with the practical state of this process today, so forgive me if I am unfounded. There is similar uncertainty in the definition of a worthy civitates nominee in this review panel as in the previous system, and I had thought that was the chief concern.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

The purpose this implies is generally to relieve the Magistrates of the duty, no? I'm not totally familiar with the practical state of this process today, so forgive me if I am unfounded. There is similar uncertainty in the definition of a worthy civitates nominee in this review panel as in the previous system, and I had thought that was the chief concern.

This is why half of the panel is made up of senatorii (who for the most part have done civiate votes), they will provide their sound advice even if some of the patricians are not "worthy" due to inexperiance. As I said above, one of the main purposes of this panel is to provide patricians with practical experiance, one day they may wish to become quaestors or whatever junior staff positions are available.

[Kagemusha]

I support this proposal.It will lessen the burden of the staff and increases the participating of the non staff Civitates in a matter of site management.Who are better judges for the new Civitates then their fellow and more Senior patrons?

[imb39]

I likie! Take the two bills together and it all makes sense!

[Spiff]

Any applications which are submitted during the voting period will be reviewed by the staff and put on the waiting list for the NEXT month`s review

Yea that could be included, though it is to a large degree implied i think - could always change it to "The panel reviews throughout the month and votes during the last week of the month. No additional candidates will be reviewed during this week"

The panel of senatorii and patricians would rotate between months

Im not sure about this one, while fair the the patricians it could be argues unfair to the candidates being reviewed. Hopefeuly wouldnt be much of an issue though as people should be voting objectively anyway

Any patrician who is on the panel and has a client under review cannot participate in the discussion and vote about that applicant.

Maybe it could simply be stated that a member of the panel cannot patronise? This would also help make the panel self rotating i suppose.

The review panel will be under oath to judge each applicant by his/her merit, not by the lineage of the patron or any past differences they may have encountered with said applicant

This could probably be also added into the line existing as in "The panel reviews throughout the month and votes only on the merit of each case during the last week of the month."

It is then implied that voting in any other way is probably grounds for censure or ostrakon - a just punishment i think, and no need for an oath.

The panel discussions will be hidden from view while the discussions are underway, but will be kept for prosterity and viewable by all after the review period is over

Perhaps, so long as this isnt a hassle to anyone controlling who is able to see what, and it doesnt encourage people to give unreasoned votes knowing that the Civitates cant complain until the vote is already over. But on the other hand if the panel is to function they should pretty much be free from outside interference


Just some of my views


Anyway

"Candidates are chosen by the Triumvirate"


How? Volunteering? By PM? We need to specify this.

In the other thread i suggested leaving this mainly to their discretion, though guidelines could be in the Bill, such as eagerness to take part, interest in the Curia, knowledge of a wide number of sub-forums etc

[Tom Paine]

I likie! Take the two bills together and it all makes sense!

Which two?

However, I agree. Staff have already a lot of work and the civitate votes take time, whereas this way we reduce your work load and (as it seems to be civitates who complain about civitate quality not staff) we can then take the blame for our own complaints :laughing:

[Aemilianus]

I don't really know if I can say I fully support this. Staff seems better qualified to do so, as they're the ones who will be regulating them. However, I would support if I was compelled to by the arguments.

[Spiff]

The main issue here is twofold

First, the staff have to give a lot of time checking and voting on candidates - time which would be better spent on moderating. Under this bill, the majority of the checking will be done by the panel over the course of an entire month. Staff need only really check to see if a user has any warnings etc which may prevent them from being a civitate. Saves them a lot of time potentialy for them.

Second, with two systems in place to determine the merits of a candidate, a much more thorough assessment can be made than simply by the staff who may not even have time to perform a complete assessment. And if they do - there is no guarentee when it will be complete. Under this system the candidates know they will have their result at the end of the month, and that it has been decided much more openly than before.


Additionaly, this process should help bring back more interest in the Curia by more directly involing the Civitates in one of the processes of the site - by rotating the members of the panel - and should also help to somewhat slow down what is viewed by many as an ever increasing stream of potential civitates (especialy as MTW2 gets closer)

[Garbarsardar]

I support this bill

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Consilium de Civitate

Proposer: Wild Bill Kelso
Drafted by: Mimirswell/reworked by Wild Bill Kelso
Supporters: Mudd, Kscott, Garbarsardar, rome ac, kagemusha, imb39, Antoninus Pious, Perikles, (Spiff and Squeakus Maximus?- no specific statement of support)

Patronization Act

Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus at a rate of one per month. The granting of Civitateship is determined by a panel of four Patricians and four Senatorii and presided over by the Syntagma Curator. The process for patronization works as followed:

• The patron reviews the member before recommending her, ensuring the member has at least one hundred posts and is a contributing member of the community.
• The nominee sends a private message to explain her duties and privileges as a Civiate to his Patron which is then sent with a paragraph by the Patron to the Syntagma Curator.
• The panel reviews throughout the month and votes during the last week of the month. No additional candidates will be reviewed during this week.
• If a nominee achieves a two-third majority, the nominee shall become a Civiate.

Panel candidates are chosen by the Triumvirate and no member may patronize while on the council. Patricians and Senatorii interested in serving on the panel must inform the Syntagma Curator of thier intent to participate. Patricians sitting on the panel are rotated monthly and may not reside on the panel for two consecutive months, while Senatorii may reside on the panel until they resign. If a Senatorii resigns, he may sit on the panel again at a future date.

Addendum
A subforum of the Curia titled Consilium de Civitate (CDC) shall be established and viewable only by Senior Magistrates and the Consilium (separate membership group, without a badge). While the magistrates may participate in discussions only members of the Consilium may vote within.

I only have one more issue that I think needs to be clarified. There has to be some way that a member who passes/fails his civiate vote can view privately his review thread. Is there anyway that a thread can be e-mailed to a particular member if it is requested?

I am sure there are some spelling errors, I will get to those in a bit. For now I have to step outside.