[Amendment] Patronisation Incentive Bill, Part II {Pater's Civic Crown}

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Proposer: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
CdeC Support: Bolkonsky,
Additional Supporters: Baron Samedi, Heinz Guderian,

Pater's Civic Crown

The Civic Crown is awarded at the discretion of the Curator in consultation with members of the Consilium de Civitate. The bronze Civic Crown is given if a Citizen has successfully sponsored 3 members through the defined constitutional patronisation process. Silver civic crown for 9 successful patronisations, gold civic crown for 15 patronisations. A citizen is not eligible to receive a civic crown if they have patronised more failed applicants than successful ones.

Proposed medal concept:
Bronze


Silver


Gold



Award parameters:

* The award is tendered for having succesfully patronized X number of citzens. Currently the levels are. Bronze: 3, Silver:9, and Gold: 15.
* To receive the award, the receipient must request it from the curatorship along with prove of the succesfully completed citizenship applications that apply.
* A citizen is not eligible to receive a civic crown if they have patronised more failed applicants than successful ones.


For those of you unfamiliar with this concept, here is the origianl pettition presented by Ominpotent -Q/Mr. Bond.

[VOTE FINISHED: FAILED] [Amendment] Patronisation Incentive Bill ( 12345678)
Mr Bond



The original notion...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Concept: Introduce a small, member acknowelgdegment for bringing new citizens forward. The receipt/display of this award would be optional, with the recipient having to petition the cutratorship for it and also providing the links to the requsite succesful applications.


The Rationale: "Attrition" in the TWC citizenship ranks is part of the ebb and flow of this place. Unfortunately it claims too many of those who invest their thoughts and inspirations here.Time to tweak a few things to try and curb/reduce some of this intellectual bleeding.

Proposed medal concept:
Bronze


Silver


Gold



Proposed levels: Bronze: 3 new citizens tendered. Silver: 9 new citizens tendered. Gold: 15 new citizens tendered.
*Award levels are negotiable
*Applying the award retroactively or applying it from here forward, also negotiable.

For those of you unfamiliar with this concept, here is the origianl pettition presented by Ominpotent -Q/Mr. Bond.

[VOTE FINISHED: FAILED] [Amendment] Patronisation Incentive Bill ( 12345678)
Mr Bond[/QUOTE]


Discourse: Yes I'm playing the part of the used car saleman here and in that I don't care how applications manifest in the CdeC as along as they get there. For those that would say that this would only stimulate the plieferation of "Garbage Applications"...I'll remind you that Patrons once embarressed in said "Garbage reviews" are
"Once bitten, twice shy"...to say the least...

* Folks accepting/displaying the award are optional, at the members descretion.
* Some folks here walk around looking like "French Admirals", and for the most part those folks deserve acknoweldgement and praise beyond measeare.

Well....not all of those that invest themselves here fall into the "French Admiral" display category. Some folks here are'nt into "Bling" and if they choose to display anything at all it would be one or two things at a max. Now...given that Patronization is an honorable/noble enterprize which builds the family lines here, I think this award would make another nice display option for those not predisposed to PDA {Public Displays of Affection Affluence}.

Right then...lets commence with the "Ides of March". There are barrels full of rotten veggies at all the main entrances, please make use the plastic bag recycle bins, once your threw chucking your rotten veggies. TWC being "earthfriendly" and all that:

..."Man the Ramparts" my Brothers/Sisters, "prepare to repel borders!!!!"

Arcana - Wings Of Gabriel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgawyEH-5bQ&feature=player_embedded

{If the link isn't working try back later. you tube fads in and out.}
{my appologies to those without youtube accesss}

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I will be offline til Monday, so those previously in support of this please feel free to take the lead in shoring up the incidental, operational compromises, details, and the like.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 20 (1 members and 19 guests)
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 25 (1 members and 24 guests)
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 27 (1 members and 26 guests)
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 29 (1 members and 28 guests)

The not yet members and loyal lurkers are afoot. Good show chaps...now sign up and let's hear your say
on the matter........

[Boustrophedon]

Sorry Mega, but I have to oppose. Patronization shouldn't be a competition, nor should it be something that is to rewarded with medals in my opinion. I also fear that it may be the wrong incentive and would make people consider members for citizenship just to get that higher medal.

The award artwork looks nice though

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Tis not, young one... I'll beg off going in detph til I get back on Monday. Please hurry up and claim a seat on the CdeC, so that you may see things through a different lense.

Being a patron at it's core is no small affair. Nor presenting a future citizen a triviality. You are young yet{site age}.
Once you've seen things through a different lense{a CdeC seat, and Patronized a few kids}, your views may perhaps shift somewhat...

The award artwork looks nice though

They are indeed, "the Bee's Knees", "smoking", and "all that and a bag of chips."...

[Ybbon]

That's two separate threads you've used that phrase young {site age}, feeling old are we?

I'm undecided, but I have 2 reservations:

1. As per Boustrophedon, that this provides an incentive to patronise.
2. The problem there is then that a citizen could patronise a "lot" of candidates, and the award is for proposals, if it is to be done, would a better measure not be successfully proposed candidates than simply proposals.

Say we have 2 citizen patrons. Citizen X proposes 12 candidates of which 3 are accepted, Citizen Y proposes 4 candidates of which 3 are successful. In this case Citizen X is getting the same level of recognition for a 25% hit rate as citizen Y with a 75% rate. Whereas it would be clear the candidates of citizen Y are of better standard than X's.

If that can be clarified then I would lean more favourably towards this.

[Baron Samedi]

Count me in as supporter. Twc seem rather dull lately. I don't see a problem with the CdeC possibly having to judge more incoming applications if this will work as incentive. Comes with the job. In the end it's just a simple nay or yay.

[Bolkonsky]

Support.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Question: does this apply retrospectively? I.e. Would the people who currently have X clients all suddenly get medals? I'm ambivalent to which case it is but it should be clarified.

To be honest I'd prefer if it was just one medal for those who reach, say 10 clients, instead of the three-tiered system - recognition for the serial patron but making it less of a competition.

[Jom]

Question: does this apply retrospectively? I.e. Would the people who currently have X clients all suddenly get medals? I'm ambivalent to which case it is but it should be clarified.

To be honest I'd prefer if it was just one medal for those who reach, say 10 clients, instead of the three-tiered system - recognition for the serial patron but making it less of a competition.

That would be an enormous pain to implement, and as much as I enjoy seeing Legio suffer, I think that would be a little too much.

And I still don't think there's a need for this. If someone can point out to me a large number of people who have been languishing without the citizenship they've deserved for years, then it would perhaps add strength to this proposal, but at the moment I think that plenty of people are patronised each month and there hasn't been some huge dropping off in applications. I am going to repeat my concerns that I raised just over a year ago: that this will lead to an influx of poorly conceived citizen applications, all because someone wants a medal, especially if this won't apply retroactively, which I don't think it should for the reasons stated above.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

That would be an enormous pain to implement, and as much as I enjoy seeing Legio suffer, I think that would be a little too much.

And I still don't think there's a need for this. If someone can point out to me a large number of people who have been languishing without the citizenship they've deserved for years, then it would perhaps add strength to this proposal, but at the moment I think that plenty of people are patronised each month and there hasn't been some huge dropping off in applications. I am going to repeat my concerns that I raised just over a year ago: that this will lead to an influx of poorly conceived citizen applications, all because someone wants a medal, especially if this won't apply retroactively, which I don't think it should for the reasons stated above.

If we were to have a singular award at say 10 clients, would there really be that many guys who would need it retrospectively?

[Jom]

If we were to have a singular award at say 10 clients, would there really be that many guys who would need it retrospectively?

I'm not sure about that, but I think in at least some cases it would be very difficult to verify. Anyway, that's just the smallest of my objections; I've already mentioned my main one.

[m_1512]

I support actually, but with a few changes to it.

@Mega: I'd prefer the award going for successfull applications, not for merely proposing. Also, the number and levels of medals can be changed.

@robinzx: You got a point. This I believe can be remedied by having the procedure as patron being proposed for award. It can save the trouble of searching out patrons who have left TWC for good or on long absence.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Ah, a year in the making. I was wondering when this would pop up again. I oppose. There's a lengthy discussion between Mr Bond and I in the second half of that thread if anyone wants to read it. I can't be arsed to type it out again right now, but maybe I will if someone posts something I disagree with.

The Rationale: "Attrition" in the TWC citizenship ranks is part of the ebb and flow of this place. Unfortunately it claims too many of those who invest their thoughts and inspirations here.Time to tweak a few things to try and curb/reduce some of this intellectual bleeding.

I don't think this is a good argument. This Bill would primarily be aimed at replacing retiring citizens, not keeping them here. "Intellectual bleeding" will occur if this passes or doesn't.

[Aikanár]

Ah, a year in the making. I was wondering when this would pop up again. I oppose. There's a lengthy discussion between Mr Bond and I in the second half of that thread if anyone wants to read it. I can't be arsed to type it out again right now, but maybe I will if someone posts something I disagree with.

Indeed the discussion between you and Q, starting on page 5 of the thread, is worth reading!
You very much summed up my mind about the matter.

Oppose!

Besides that, we're granting medals as a recognition for merit about and contributions to TWC.
How is patronising somebody a contribution? What merit goes with sponsoring the citizenship for a fellow member?
It's not like patronising somebody would be much of an effort.

Why reward a neglectable to non-existing effort with something?

[m_1512]

I have explored some of the counter arguments for this proposal and simply came to the conclusion that there is little reason to oppose the proposal. Brief summary of these arguments:

* It will lead to more poor quality applications  if applicants fail they are most likely to be motivated to improve their list of site contributions = twc profit in the long run. In the end only deserving citizens will get the badge anyway (yes I have good faith in the CdeC). If necessary introduce constraints/failure penalties. Poor quality apps will always be there no matter what.

* More work for CdeC  Comes with the job. In the end it’s a simple yes or no. CdeC job is not to do as little work as possible.

* It won’t serve as a good incentive anyway  So what’s the harm done if even it does for 1 patron?

* Citizens will sponsor just trying to get the badge / it is selfish  So more potential citizens on this site is a bad thing? Don’t think so. Give them the bling bling if they desire so. No big deal. Results (= twc profit) have more weight in this matter. Much much more than the motivation itself.

* There are no or not enough potential citizens out there anyway  That's complete BS. I know folks that could easily become citizen it they really wanted to be so. Just be a little bit realistic here, some members are modest and will not approach citizen for sponsoring them if they desire citizenship.

* If you are of the opinion to support the proposal, then why no patronize all those potential citizens yourself?  I personally only would patronize folks if I would give myself the time to get to know them good enough. Time I am personally lacking, but this might not be so much of a problem for other patrons.

Those are some arguments, even beats the one by GotR in the last proposal.
Hats off, Sir!

I don't mind supporting this, but to be honest I would only do so if it was a reward for successful applications, rather than simply putting applications up. I don't see the need for a reward if nothing concrete has come out of it.

I see we are of similar mind.
What do you think, Mega?

Indeed the discussion between you and Q, starting on page 5 of the thread, is worth reading!
You very much summed up my mind about the matter.

Oppose!

Besides that, we're granting medals as a recognition for merit about and contributions to TWC.
How is patronising somebody a contribution? What merit goes with sponsoring the citizenship for a fellow member?
It's not like patronising somebody would be much of an effort.

Why reward a neglectable to non-existing effort with something?

I don't understand why you consider it a non-existing effort. There is effort involved.
-> Finding potentials, as you cannot possible be acquaintance of all possible potential clients.
-> Acquaintance. You have to use a definite approach.
-> Working on the application itself.
-> Preparing to face the ire if you displease somebody.
Even if the above is not a significant effort, it still a effort.

And what is the merit of it?
Citizenship = Reward for contributions + Retention of good members.
So, is that not a contribution, indirectly?

[Aikanár]

I don't understand why you consider it a non-existing effort. There is effort involved.

No problem, I'll explain why I consider the mere part of the patron a neglectable to non-existing effort.

-> Finding potentials, as you cannot possible be acquaintance of all possible potential clients.

Finding members who contributed is not a hard task, it comes naturally by frequenting and reading the fora.

-> Acquaintance. You have to use a definite approach.

Really? Would you care to elaborate this? What kind of definite approach does it require?

-> Working on the application itself.

Are you really calling this work? Seriously? Ok, you're totally entitled to your opinion.

-> Preparing to face the ire if you displease somebody.

How come? And besides, how can this be considered an effort?

Even if the above is not a significant effort, it still a effort.

Ah, uhm, if you think so, ok

And what is the merit of it?
Citizenship = Reward for contributions

Which is the merit of the client and not the merit of the patron.

+ Retention of good members.

Proof?

So, is that not a contribution, indirectly?

A contribution to TWC? Nope.
A contribution to the CVRIA? Maybe, but an totally replacable, in regards to the site and the CVRIA the patron himself is a totally irrelevant figure. It does not matter, at all, who patronised whom when it comes to contributions to and benefit for TWC.

The entire process of patronisation is dedicated to the recognition of contributions ending in the reward being the promotion in rank. It's 100% about the Applicant. The patron only exists because of tradition and because the system works, but the patron is irrelevant concerning the contributions of an applicant.

That said, when this here would pass, it would be irrelevant how less or much of a neglectable effort a patron might have put into the applications of his clients. One patron could have just posted a single line for each of his 15 clients and receive a gold medal, while another one might have written 5000 characters in each of the three applications of his clients and receive the bronze medal. So what kind of indication is this?
One patron could be lucky and patronise 9 childs under a very very very lenient and ignorant and only yes-saying CdeC thus gaining the silver medal while another patron might be unlicky and most of his clients get dismissed because of the councillors being more hardcore.

Do you want a reward for patronising contributing members?
Isn't the fact, that a member chose you as a patron, in itself the reward?

I'm very sorry, oppose!

[m_1512]

No problem, I'll explain why I consider the mere part of the patron a neglectable to non-existing effort.

Finding members who contributed is not a hard task, it comes naturally by frequenting and reading the fora.

Really? Would you care to elaborate this? What kind of definite approach does it require?

Are you really calling this work? Seriously? Ok, you're totally entitled to your opinion.

How come? And besides, how can this be considered an effort?

Ah, uhm, if you think so, ok

Which is the merit of the client and not the merit of the patron.

Proof?

You are entitled to your notions too. But not that your notions are the only right ones.

A contribution to TWC? Nope.
A contribution to the CVRIA? Maybe, but an totally replacable, in regards to the site and the CVRIA the patron himself is a totally irrelevant figure. It does not matter, at all, who patronised whom when it comes to contributions to and benefit for TWC.

Isn't CVRIA a uniques aspect of this site? I believe TWC would be like some other just-so forum if not for such many unique aspects.

The entire process of patronisation is dedicated to the recognition of contributions ending in the reward being the promotion in rank. It's 100% about the Applicant. The patron only exists because of tradition and because the system works, but the patron is irrelevant concerning the contributions of an applicant.

That said, when this here would pass, it would be irrelevant how less or much of a neglectable effort a patron might have put into the applications of his clients. One patron could have just posted a single line for each of his 15 clients and receive a gold medal, while another one might have written 5000 characters in each of the three applications of his clients and receive the bronze medal. So what kind of indication is this?
One patron could be lucky and patronise 9 childs under a very very very lenient and ignorant and only yes-saying CdeC thus gaining the silver medal while another patron might be unlicky and most of his clients get dismissed because of the councillors being more hardcore.

If you'd had read my earlier post, you would know that I am not agreeing to this exact proposal. I would support in event of some changes. I'll send Mega a PM soon.

Do you want a reward for patronising contributing members?

No. I never said that I wanted this award, and you would never find me nominating my name for such.

Isn't the fact, that a member chose you as a patron, in itself the reward?

More so, I consider forming new friendships through this as the greatest reward.

[Baron Samedi]

I have explored some of the counter arguments for this proposal and simply came to the conclusion that there is little reason to oppose the proposal. Brief summary of these arguments:

* It will lead to more poor quality applications  if applicants fail they are most likely to be motivated to improve their list of site contributions = twc profit in the long run. In the end only deserving citizens will get the badge anyway (yes I have good faith in the CdeC). If necessary introduce constraints/failure penalties. Poor quality apps will always be there no matter what.

* More work for CdeC  Comes with the job. In the end it’s a simple yes or no. CdeC job is not to do as little work as possible.

* It won’t serve as a good incentive anyway  So what’s the harm done if even it does for 1 patron?

* Citizens will sponsor just trying to get the badge / it is selfish  So more potential citizens on this site is a bad thing? Don’t think so. Give them the bling bling if they desire so. No big deal. Results (= twc profit) have more weight in this matter. Much much more than the motivation itself.

* There are no or not enough potential citizens out there anyway  That's complete BS. I know folks that could easily become citizen it they really wanted to be so. Just be a little bit realistic here, some members are modest and will not approach citizen for sponsoring them if they desire citizenship.

* If you are of the opinion to support the proposal, then why no patronize all those potential citizens yourself?  I personally only would patronize folks if I would give myself the time to get to know them good enough. Time I am personally lacking, but this might not be so much of a problem for other patrons.

[Tango12345]

I don't mind supporting this, but to be honest I would only do so if it was a reward for successful applications, rather than simply putting applications up. I don't see the need for a reward if nothing concrete has come out of it.

[Boustrophedon]

Still don't think patronizing members is medal worthy. It really seems too self-serving..