[Amendment] Patronisation waiting period adjustment

[MasterBigAb]

Oppose for the reasons already stated before me.

[Ishan]

Hmm so just because, in curia, a certain bill isn't passing for quite some time we should pass it because then we don't have to see it again?

[Lord William]

yes exactly

there is no real grounds to refuse this amendment other than that the no button is closer, so i dont want to vote yes

[Ishan]

I feel like this dog right now:
Pointless repetitive bill----><----m3.

[Lord William]

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

This doesn't really affect me since my 3 months are almost up within a week, this won't even pass before than.

'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'?

That is not a valid argument, I could say the same thing about your reasoning to maintain the 3 month rule
"let's not pass this because I am to lazy to change the rules"
That is not an argument

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.

As you said it won't matter to the applicants cause they can just go to another patron. what of the citizen who wanted to patronize someone but because of the time issue he wasnt allowed and lost a patronage opportunity..... Why should they have to lose a possible client, it makes no sense

[Dark Storm]

Legio and LW

It is not a valid argument yes, however it does not make up our entire argument, or even part of our argument. I'd say we have some strong arguments as does the opposition against the bill. Let's not get caught up on that point

Ishan

Ishan, I'm sorry that it feels that way, however some may not see it as a pointless bill, I for certain don't, thought it might be a tad repetitive.

Genius

Genius, a lot of that makes sense and I understand that you may not be swayed one way or the other. As for a new citizen not recommending a potential applicant to another citizen, that is indeed, selfish, however it is not asked of Citizens older than three months to recommend potential applicants to other citizens, in case that applicant would prefer another patron, so why should a two month old citizen recommend applicants they think have the ability?

Also, yes, you're right a potential applicant may want a specific person to patronise them, I was the same. It wasn't me being fussy, it's just I happened to have known that person on the forums since I started here, and I was very happy when they offered. I don't see it as fuss. Certainly you could say the applicant should just wait but, if they are really that suitable, why should they?

Bond

Omni (Mr Bond) I know you say you have been opposing this bill for years and I respect that, I was just wondering what changed your mind this time the bill was proposed as opposed to last time, when you actively supported it?

[Ngugi]

Oppose to the idea.

Many argument for and against with merit has been proposed, but unless it's up to discuss weither there should be any limit at all, which possibly would be a more valid debate, then the only question here to me seems to be if a new citizen shall have the option to try to patronize another appointed member - not when a new citizen shall have the option to try to patronize another appointed member. And that is not quite the same thing as I view it.

Since the appealing member in question apperently is concidered to have a shot at citizenship (or an appeal after either 1 or 3 or 6 months would be a waste), then there is nothing stopping him/her from attempting to become one at any given time. Further, it should be encoruaged based upon the members own merits.
Either as the member self contact a +3 months citizen or, more interesting here, a new citizen can, if haste is of the essence, recomend him/her to another, older citizen to help out. The only draw back is that the new citizen can't be the patron.

And if it boils down to that this draw back is the only hard reason to make a change, which seems the be the logical conclusion, then the patron do not honestly put the appealing members contributions first but himself's or herself's chance to be patron to that appointed member or simply to be able to be patron fast. Not much of an argument to me for why there should be a change of rules.

Possibly it may be so that the member truely want a special person to be his/her patron and that shall be respected. That the member has apperently been ready to wait for the new citizen to, and it's not for granted, become citizen in the first place is admirable, but not convincing as reason to why the rule should be changed.

Just my two cents.

[Okmin]

Moved to vote

[Acco]

I voted yes, but the waiting period in total should just be abolished. It's nonsense to believe that there's some type of "citizen puberty" that magically disappears after 3 months.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I voted yes as well.

The members of the cdec still have the final say on the application, no? The patron's job is to spot a worthy member and recommend it for citizenship, something that can be done by both recent and older citizens. After all, what matters is the candidate, not the patron. It also serves as a motivating factor for the recently appointed citizens to prove that getting the badge was not their primary aim and that they want to actively contribute to the site. What's more noble than presenting another worthy addition to the family of the citizens?

[Silent Assassin]

I voted yes as well.

The members of the cdec still have the final say on the application, no? The patron's job is to spot a worthy member and recommend it for citizenship, something that can be done by both recent and older citizens. After all, what matters is the candidate, not the patron. It also serves as a motivating factor for the recently appointed citizens to prove that getting the badge was not their primary aim and that they want to actively contribute to the site. What's more noble than presenting another worthy addition to the family of the citizens?

You are right in your statement Manuel, the CdeC Councillors have the final say while voting for all candidates but I can say that in my first term I've seen Patron's less prepared then the candidates so for me that says something, it rings a Bell. Patience ius a virtue and a good quality and for me the 3 months is fine like that, it has been sionce 2007 and m any failed trying to change this, why change something that ain't broken.

As for no difference and the puberty comment from the poster above I agree in part and only because some people are more mature and knowledgeable then others, often it makes the difference between a good Citizen and a bad one. I've seen Staff referrals where we were wondering why this guy was given the badge in the first place, as it was clear that he an attitude problem.

Like I have mentioned before what is the rush, there is no gain, benefits for the Patron to patronize someone on the first day you become a Citizen.

Anyways I think we could go on and on about this and I'm sure if this fails again we will see this proposed again and probably from a new Citizen again.

I voted no BTW

Regards

SA

[Acco]

Like I have mentioned before what is the rush, there is no gain, benefits for the Patron to patronize someone on the first day you become a Citizen.

There is no rush, but there is no reason for a waiting period either. The way I see it, all citizens should be able to patronize. If a citizen feels ready to patronize, then so be it. They have contributed significantly to the site, possibly for years, and have been vetted by the CdeC, the body that will also vet the candidate that they propose. If a citizen doesn't want to patronize, that is perfectly fine too. It's a choice, and I see no reason to limit that choice. The "citizen puberty", as I called it, is a blanket restriction, limiting choice and not taking into account the diversity of experience of all citizens (new citizen doesn't mean new member), and thus it should be struck down.

[Legio]

Vote finished - failed.

[Legio]

This sort of bill is always made just after someone is patronised and doesn't feel like waiting. It's either this or removing the wait for applying for Curial office. Needless to say, I'm opposed for reasons I've probably stated over a year ago.

[Legio]

That is not a valid argument, I could say the same thing about your reasoning to maintain the 3 month rule

It's actually your argument:

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

Hmm so just because, in curia, a certain bill isn't passing for quite some time we should pass it because then we don't have to see it again?

yes exactly

there is no real grounds to refuse this amendment other than that the no button is closer, so i dont want to vote yes