[Amendment] Patronisation waiting period adjustment

[Silent Assassin]

tsk tsk too much debate and walls of text about a simple matter.

I will most likely abstain if this goes to vote but I would like to mention 3 things..
- @new citizens, patience is a virtue.
- patrons should help and guide their new clients.
- I'm like y2day(what ishan said about him), just ask Legio but not Jom. He is still angry with me because I've been spamming him with pics of Mirka Federer for a while now. I am sure there are more patrons like us out there.

Completely agree with this

[m_1512]

I think I seen this before.

I Support, Padfoot old boy.

[StealthFox]

Also saint is right about the things being flooded in CdeC, i know how the CdeC works. If the QP forum is flooded with say 10 applications then i can guarantee that not every Councillor can have the time to research on it in one week.

So you're willing to drop the standards by allowing weak clients to pass? Because that will actually happen when CdeC is under heavy load.

This is a valid concern, but it is based on speculation. What if CdeC suddenly comes under heavy load even if the three month rule remains in place? We can address this problem when/if it arises. CdeC could be limited to only ten (just for example) active citizen applications at any given time. Then the Curator would queue apps based on when they were submitted, and when one application is concluded the next one in line would be submitted by the Curator.

[Polycarpe]

I have a feeling of Déjà vu and this time I oppose; the goal is not a race plus it requires a good study and understanding of the Curia and citizen meaning.

[Aikanár]

You forgot just one thing, Ishan, and that's the signature field where I can draw my X

[Harry Lime]

Well, it would remove any suggestion of self-interest.

[Mangerman]

I don't see a reason for it, patience is a virtue and I don't see the benefit of lowering it to 1 month. Three months is nothing in the grand scheme of the Universe.

From personal experience, a citizen application is best nurtured and refinded by the patron and the candidate over the course of several months for maximum succes rate, so at the very least a prospective patron will have three months to cook something up.

Isn't that right Omni?

[Omnipotent-Q]

This is not the first or the last time I've seen this bill. Not just since 2007 as AL says, but it's the most common thing to fail a vote (normally in massive "no" numbers) since the founding of the Curia in 2003. I remember opposing this amendment as far back as '04 on a countless number of occasions.

I don't see a reason for it, patience is a virtue and I don't see the benefit of lowering it to 1 month. Three months is nothing in the grand scheme of the Universe.

From personal experience, a citizen application is best nurtured and refinded by the patron and the candidate over the course of several months for maximum succes rate, so at the very least a prospective patron will have three months to cook something up.

Isn't that right Omni?

lols....well yes sometimes patron's get really busy out of the blue and drop the ball.

I oppose this amendment in the strongest possible terms. I've been a citizen for over seven years now and it has never not been three months in the constitution. There is a bit of a learning curve to the Curia and it is best to leave it a few months so that people can really get to grips with the system. To put things in perspective, it takes typically a week and a half, perhaps two weeks for a patronisation to go through CdeC. It takes two weeks at least for a bill to go through the Curia. Now what is being suggested is that someone will be well versed enough to know fully about the Curia in 4 weeks when not even a single bill or citizenship application is guaranteed to have happened in that time frame. In 3 months, it's a lot more likely a bill has at least been discussed and at least one patronization of a new citizen has gone through.

If anything, it's basic common sense that it should stay three months. The rationale is wholly flawed if you go by the time frames above, and at the end of the day, there are only disadvantages to be gained from this amendment, and not a single non-assumed advantage for it. The status quo has always been the case for the Curia and it's a system that works very well.

[Augustus Lucifer]

We don't want ass-hats voting in ass-hats.

Well, that's not quite why I oppose this measure... but it'll do.

[Lord William]

Well, that's not quite why I oppose this measure... but it'll do.

What where does that logic come, unless you are implying that all citizens are ass hats which in that case it won't matter if more asshats get elected

Waiting 3 months will not give a new level of enlightenment in judging who is good for patronization, it doesn't matter how long you have had the badge it is a hit and miss. Sure there the few that are exceptional which I'm sure everyone notices but no one can patronize cause he has had a patron lined up months ago

My point is that this is a pointless precaution, these people have already worked hard to earn their badges and with the experience they gained through their own applications they should beable to discern the good from the bad .......... Nobody needs to wait 3 months

[Augustus Lucifer]

What where does that logic come, unless you are implying that all citizens are ass hats which in that case it won't matter if more asshats get elected

Not implying anything, just posting a funny Halie quote from one of the previous 800 incarnations of this proposal. I could also have posted:



I don't really oppose this bill from a purely logical perspective. My point is more that we've gone through this over and over since 2007 and in the meanwhile, while the three months was left in place, the Curia has yet to spontaneously burst into flames. You'll note in fact, in the most recent thread I posted in, I supported the measure. But regardless of that the problem this proposal has and will always have is it doesn't address a compelling need, since a Citizen is not precluded from passing a member on to others for patronization if it must be done immediately.

To use another wait time analogy, nobody can run for President in the US before the age of 35. It can easily be argued that there are 25 year olds more competent for the role than certain 71 year olds that apply (*cough* McCain *cough*). It's a fairly arbitrary time period because back when it was written their assumption couldn't have been college graduation and 10 years work experience like we might be able to attribute to it now. Nonetheless there's no compelling reason to change it, as with this. Though I'm willing to bet >50% of people under 35 would vote for it and label it "eliminating age discrimination", and >50% of people over 35 would vote against it because, I don't know, "whippersnappers"? Also... as with this.

[M D]

Ive seen recently certain citizens almost spamming clients, and I don't think thats the right approach we should be endorsing. If we lower this requirement, I can see many 'younger' citizens using it to the maximum. I think with the 3 months the excitement wears off, and you take the CVRIA a bit more seriously, which is probably what the writers of the Constitution sought. I would suggest we remember that, and that clients are not just names on the Signature, but also people we should be guiding through the maze that is the CVRIA.

Oppose.

[Boustrophedon]

Having read through the discussions I still support this bill, but will probably vote abstain if or when it goes to vote.

Both sides have made good arguments, notably Mr Bond and Bolkonsky, but I'm still not sure about this. To me it wouldn't matter if it were three months or one month, but that's the whole problem. I don't oppose it, but neither do I fully support it and so I have decided to keep my support for this but I will vote abstain when the time comes. However the precedents made it quite clear that it would probably fail if it goes to vote, so perhaps we can better just archive this? It's not worth the debate it has generated.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I haven't written anything using dot points in a while, so here we go:

• I don't think the patron matters. Patronisation is a system that should encourage only members that citizens feel are up to the standard to apply.
• The amount of time that someone has to wait is arbitrary. Three months, one month, both require a time loosely defined as sufficient.
• As someone who doesn't think the patron matters, I've opposed this in the past because new citizens could easily just ask another citizen to look at the applicant and patronise for them. That would circumvent the argument that they already know if someone is ready to be a citizen. If that's the case, there should be no trouble in finding someone else to patronise the member. Some people like to make a thing about patronising and being friends, but that's up to them, not mandated and not something I care about so I'm not taking it into account.
• While I think there are arguments to be made for both a one and three month waiting period, in my mind both are acceptable. Having said that, I don't think it's worth changing. If there's a particular member that a new citizen wants to patronise, I suggest that they recommend the member to another citizen. I would recommend this if the waiting time was one month or three, so there's little difference IMO except the arbitrary time period.

[Lord William]

I haven't written anything using dot points in a while, so here we go:

• I don't think the patron matters. Patronisation is a system that should encourage only members that citizens feel are up to the standard to apply.
• The amount of time that someone has to wait is arbitrary. Three months, one month, both require a time loosely defined as sufficient.
• As someone who doesn't think the patron matters, I've opposed this in the past because new citizens could easily just ask another citizen to look at the applicant and patronise for them. That would circumvent the argument that they already know if someone is ready to be a citizen. If that's the case, there should be no trouble in finding someone else to patronise the member. Some people like to make a thing about patronising and being friends, but that's up to them, not mandated and not something I care about so I'm not taking it into account.
• While I think there are arguments to be made for both a one and three month waiting period, in my mind both are acceptable. Having said that, I don't think it's worth changing. If there's a particular member that a new citizen wants to patronise, I suggest that they recommend the member to another citizen. I would recommend this if the waiting time was one month or three, so there's little difference IMO except the arbitrary time period.

Well said, though why should a citizen lose a possible patronage over a technicality such as time

just abolish the wait time

[Ishan]

Well said, though why should a citizen lose a possible patronage over a technicality such as time

just abolish the wait time

And what's the real gain of curia or TWC here, that is, if someone can expand his family tree before 3 months?

[Lord William]

And what's the real gain of curia or TWC here, that is, if someone can expand his family tree before 3 months?

Well you wont have to deal with this proposal once every couple of months, so it saves the curia time whereas the 3 month rule offers no real benefit

[Genius of the Restoration]

Well said, though why should a citizen lose a possible patronage over a technicality such as time

just abolish the wait time

This goes back to dot point number one; who the patron is shouldn't matter (according to me). If it doesn't matter who the patron is, there's nothing stopping the new citizen from asking an older citizen to act as patron for the applicant as per dot point three. The applicant shouldn't lose out, because a suitable patron should be found. If one can't be found from all the citizens, you'd really have to ask if this candidate was a good choice in the first place.

There have been citizenship application cases recently where people being patronised have committed the odd faux pas and it has effected the case. Do you not see this as a potential issue if a patron were to similarly pull off the odd faux pas, because they're not as familiar with the citizenship application process as much as they could be?

Sure it's a possibility, but it's only a matter of probabilities, nothing concrete. We had a real doozy a while ago where a patron didn't actually support his client! I guess the lesson there is that you're always going to end up with patrons that know the system better than others and can guide the applicant more. Two months extra isn't a guarantee of quality, there's no saying that the patron actually frequents the Curia in the first place for instance, but it's something that can help. As I said, it's arbitrary and where we draw the line is based off where we decide to place it and the relative weight of the pros and cons of increasing and decreasing the wait time.



Note that I'm not advocating change in line with this proposal. I'm just saying that I can see the logic behind this but don't find that logic persuasive enough to change the system. The current system works and I can see only two reasons that might cause trouble:

• a new citizen didn't want to recommend a potential applicant because they wanted to collect 'em all. This is obviously selfish and detrimental to everyone else involved. Or,
• a potential applicant wants only a specific person to be their patron. IMO, if they're going to be fussy about it, then they should just deal with it.

These problems would still be unresolved if the wait time was reduced to a month. I don't view this change as substantive and oppose it because all it does is reduce the extent to which these problems exist at the expense of providing more opportunities for experience in the Curia. Abolishing the wait time entirely is a different kettle of fish and not one that I fancy either.

[Omnipotent-Q]

I haven't written anything using dot points in a while, so here we go:

• I don't think the patron matters. Patronisation is a system that should encourage only members that citizens feel are up to the standard to apply.
• The amount of time that someone has to wait is arbitrary. Three months, one month, both require a time loosely defined as sufficient.
• As someone who doesn't think the patron matters, I've opposed this in the past because new citizens could easily just ask another citizen to look at the applicant and patronise for them. That would circumvent the argument that they already know if someone is ready to be a citizen. If that's the case, there should be no trouble in finding someone else to patronise the member. Some people like to make a thing about patronising and being friends, but that's up to them, not mandated and not something I care about so I'm not taking it into account.
• While I think there are arguments to be made for both a one and three month waiting period, in my mind both are acceptable. Having said that, I don't think it's worth changing. If there's a particular member that a new citizen wants to patronise, I suggest that they recommend the member to another citizen. I would recommend this if the waiting time was one month or three, so there's little difference IMO except the arbitrary time period.

There have been citizenship application cases recently where people being patronised have committed the odd faux pas and it has effected the case. Do you not see this as a potential issue if a patron were to similarly pull off the odd faux pas, because they're not as familiar with the citizenship application process as much as they could be?

Well said, though why should a citizen lose a possible patronage over a technicality such as time

just abolish the wait time

Let me guess my friend. You'd be able to patronise right away if this change was made?

[Legio]

Well you wont have to deal with this proposal once every couple of months, so it saves the curia time whereas the 3 month rule offers no real benefit

'Just let it pass because we will never shut up about it and I am going to sit here holding my breath until you pass it'?


What a truly compelling argument.