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

[Tango12345]

Now that the changes I wanted to see have been made, I very close to supporting this.

In any case I do not support it because I believe that it will lead to competitions and probably stealing candidates which later on make citizenship much less and less valuable.

May I ask how exactly?

[Robin de Bodemloze]

I was leaning heavily on supporting this, but Boustro's last point really got me. The effort required on the patron is really minimal compared to that required by other multi-tiered medals. The other thing is this: we should be making the rewards of citizenship more appealing and better known so that more people want to be citizens to begin with instead of this. If any patron patronises anyone for anything but the act itself and the betterment of the site/their client then they're doing it for the wrong reason imo.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Great...we have had some stirring of the pot since yesterday, outstanding! I'll try and respond coherently and with some type order, unfortunatley my hopes of tackling this with orderly bullets, and be neat and tidey has flown right out the door.

I'll tackle a couple of comments then come back for the rest later.

What happens if a patron has gained 3 new clients, gets the bronze medal but then one of the clients screws up big time and is ostrakoned? Does he lose the badge or what?

Hmmm... dunno really. Imo opinion him/her getting sacked does'nt affect things much. They still mentored, guided, and taught. They're offspring don't bear the affects of the award receipient's misteps. Now if it was a loin cloth award or some such, embracing the membe'sr honorable nobility, then that's a different kettle of fish.

But then again, perhaps my interpretation is skewed and I have blinders on? I am looking to market this thing after all...

***
***

Acknowledging them? Great! Giving them a bronze medal for such a tiny bit of work? Sorry, but not if I can help it. For reference, I think I had written about 20-40 hours worth of work for staff publications when I got my bronze quill. To be fairly honest, the idea of somebody getting a medal for writing 3 paragraphs is ridiculous. How much time and effort goes into that? Finding a good member, sending some pm's back and forth and then writing a paragraph... Maybe an hour work, if it's that much?

Patronization should be about giving members a chance to have their say in site matters, rather than a glorification of the patron's client-seeking skills. Still opposed to your bill sorry, Mega

I was leaning heavily on supporting this, but Boustro's last point really got me. The effort required on the patron is really minimal compared to that required by other multi-tiered medals. The other thing is this: we should be making the rewards of citizenship more appealing and better known so that more people want to be citizens to begin with instead of this. If any patron patronises anyone for anything but the act itself and the betterment of the site/their client then they're doing it for the wrong reason imo.

Kay... 1st off I respect where Boustrophedon's coming from, My experiances & views on things around here just don't happen to mesh with his.

Yeah...in retro-spect 3 citizens tendered is obviously low. I'd say bump the Bronze to four and "if" you guys pin me to the wall....5.

Now let's talk about the Patronship a minute. Some say that the act is simplstic and requires little to no effort and that the inactment of this bill would waterdown the whole institution{patronship}.

"If" there are those out there that can spot qualified candidates, scoop them up in a flash, and then dump them willy-nilly on the CdeC with expediance enroute to collecting their trinket{s}.....then obviously they do indeed pocess indepth skills and at least a sprinkle of social panache...

Now I'm not saying that they don't exist but then one must give them their due. They got skills...

I've been here how many years and have accured four kid's and two or three more that just refuse to exit the womb. {I never should have gotten them the HBO upgrade, internet and gieven the Pizza hut gold cards, free delivery inclusive.} My recruting temperment's have spanned from ecruciatingly planned to spur of the moment, call to actions.

Originally I thought the intimate bond with offspring mandatory, but overtime, in spurts I get away from that and just look to give folks their due. Wiggle-worm{Worm}, and {insert birth-name} Mr. Crow {my 3rd and 4th kids} were both unplanned and spontaineous calls to action.

I guess what I'm trying to impart here is that Patronship is Hallow ground for most of us and "If" there are opprtunists here and there....don't let a few rotten apples spoil the barrel.

Garnering qualified cannidates does indeed take skill, and act least a fair bit of footwork. Even if a select few do it without embracing the true spirit of things would I be prepared to take spoil the experiance for everyone else because of a few.....NO, I would not.

I'm tendering the petition in a noble light. Even if oppotunists appear and are successful, the overall objective is acheived.

If some can't view this in the spirit intended so be it....However not all of us act to fufill purley selfish ends as many depict.

Please look at both sides of the coin, and the possibilites they allow before you prOceed with throwing the baby out with the bath water.

{Ramble on and incoherently much Mega?? Yes, yes most of the time ...}

I must admit I've stopped patronising anyone, mainly because I am not totally au fait with the various members here anymore. I used to be fairly prolific and am probably up there. Like Justy, I was proud to sponsor them and delighted when they contributed more to the site beyond posting. I won't deny that one relationship has turned somewhat sour, but these things happen.

I have to oppose as any reward should be based on the relationships formed and the joy of seeing them develop. I still remember when the limit was only 6 clients. We've moved on very far from those times.

Everyone's feelings and views should be acknowledged and respected, but hopefully come voting time the no votes would be superceeded by the those that embrace the possibilities...

Patronization should be about giving members a chance to have their say in site matters, rather than a glorification of the patron's client-seeking skills.

A guy or gal spots this award and goes.....Hmmm...those three or four folks I have always ment to get around to....Oh look here they are...Folks who got moved from the got to get it done pile, to the back burner are now back in the forefront. Applications tendered, and passed. One of the four embraces the curia and treats citizenship as more than just a badge...

Dat's a win it my book. And as I said before, not all of us are opportunists.....The example of the member who dons the award with pride as their solitary viewable accolade. Yes...no proof that they will and guess what? No proof that they won't

"If" I were to choose to wear an award such as this I would do so with honor and pride. Defuse the nobility in that...no you cannot....

Yes...I'm a used car salesman here trying to get you to try something new, kick a few rocks and see what we can turn over. Folks this is a huge place with all types of diversity, culture and backgrounds. Consider the positives in things....At the end of the day, "if" they don't work you can always tthrow them away and go a different route. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

[Tango12345]

Hmm, that is a fair point...will have to think it over.

[Genius of the Restoration]

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

Because it means the Curia will create another award for itself in order to reward behaviour that doesn't change. If it actually only worked on one person, would you really support the idea? Seriously?

* 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.

You've twisted the argument and drawn an unrelated conclusion. One of the common criticisms levelled at the Curia is that it isn't interested in doing things outside of its own. It takes little interest in assisting the running of the site or forming committees to help do other things. I doubt getting more members will change this, but if you want to argue that then please go ahead. I view this proposal as being sympomatic of this critique. We would be seeking to give rewards out for the simple act of patronisation, something that we should do regardless. If the Curia can't act for the benefit of the site within itself without the need for awards, what chance does it ever have doing something meaningful outside itself where there aren't any shiny trinkets to be found? IMO, bugger all.

* 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.

This doesn't address the question you've addressed yourself. Great, you'd only patronise folks if you knew them. How would that change if this Bill passes?

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

That doesn't address any of the points Aik raised. If you think it's a matter of opinion, back yours up and see how it stands against criticism.

This will help reduce terrible candidates, or people that are unready, which has been an issue in the last couple of months.

Evidence that it has been an issue specific to the last couple of months? You'll always get people proposed without enough contributions IMO. How will this reduce the number of these applications? I think the logical assumption would be that there would be more for a patron to gain by proposing someone so why not give it a go. They'd have nothing to lose in doing so.

I dont think the pool of Curial members will be diluted since the CdeC will uphold their standards. Anyone who isnt ready will be declined. I think we can trust current citizens not to put forward applications that they themselves think will fail since the CdeC have already decided that the proposing citizen is up to a standard and deserving of respect.

I agree that the member of the Curia won't be diluted, because that's a silly concept. The issue I take with the proposal is whether it's worth giving out another award for something that is
1. not a significant contribution in terms of time spent,
2. not a significant contribution in terms of the end result, and
3. something the Curia should be (and currently is) doing anyway.

What are the different approaches to Patronization?????

* Personal attatchment and profound understanding with offspring: Alot of folks don't patronize very much because to them it is a very personal/private enterprize. {Most of the applicant names shoved under my door come from folks just like this}.

This was parroted by some members in the last attempt to pass this Bill, but I should repeat here that it isn't a requirement of patronisation. When Jom offered to patronise me, I hadn't talked to him at all. By the end of the process, we'd exchanged a handful of sentences, most of which were about the application. There simply isn't a requirement for what you're describing.

Joe blow citizen



.....................

So aimlessy wondering thru the D&D I happen upon this guy. What do I see? Someone who has at least 3 kids here and is proud of the fact. Does that give me a warm quishy that this member had the option and choose to implement it? Yes it does..Indeedy do....

This justifies any award you can ever think about giving. Of course an award that can only be given to citizens is a motivating factor to becoming a citizen. That doesn't justify the existence of the award in the slightest. Why not give an award for Most Hilarious Curial Dissident? It would have the same effect as the current Bill. It's a non-argument.

That would fall under the subpar applications, that supposedly would flood in. Like I said the 1st one or two of these put on public display would deter the rest....

What? How would they deter the rest? Is CdeC suddenly going to start taking the patron's desires into consideration when judging the applicant? There's also the point that there is no guarantee of public display of applications since applicants can choose to have make their application private.

[m_1512]

Good changes.
I am considering on supporting it.

Just a few things I wanted to discuss.

Currently the levels are. Bronze: 3, Silver:9, and Gold: 15.

Bronze: 3

Silver: 9

Gold: 15

???: 25

As Omni had stated numerous times, Siblesz's record is 23. So, I thought an award for breaking that record would be in place.

To receive the award, the receipient must request it from the curatorship along with prove of the succesfully completed citizenship applications that apply.

Could you possibly make it such that it is not requested by the recipient. It could be either nominated or conferred (by Curator and CdeC).
That way, it seems more honorable.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Because it's such an honourable award and all...

[Aikanár]

I'm very curious why nobody is bringing up one of the chief arguments for the last attempt: benefit for the entire site due to the gain of traffic.

If you really want a medal for, say, patronisation, then why not make patronisation an effort worth being recognised as a contribution to the site and thus being award-worthy.
Create a CVRIAL publication in which the patrons f.e. post articles about their clients, how they became aware of them, what the clients contributions are, what kind of a nice person etc. pp. ah well posting about fellow board members... I see.
Found a committee in the Forum Magnum, invite full members who are not citizens to join this task force and call it "Operation under the radar" or the such and evaluate members and bring them forth for citizenship.

Of course this is not serious while it ain't that absurd either. What I mean is, besides all what was brought forth against and for this proposal, if you want to adress a problem which supposedly seems to exist with this award to solve it, why don't you do it in a way that you create a contribution worth of the award first?

If it really is about finding those who deserve it and bringing them forth for citizenship then I expect better than just an award for something completely random and interchangeable with no real contribution to meassure or comparison, which in the end seems utterly self-serving and btw. defying of those medals that really are handed out for solid contributions that one can grasp.

[Silent Assassin]

This sums it up more then perfectly

Patronization should be about giving members a chance to have their say in site matters, rather than a glorification of the patron's client-seeking skills. Still opposed to your bill sorry, Mega

I fail to see how this could improve the site as a whole IMO. The contribution is not from the Patron but from the member who applies, why would the Patron be rewared for something as minor as this honestly?? THe only thing the patron does is help the member to prepare his application other than that the contributions are all from the member applying himself.

I oppose as I don't see why would a reward for Patrons would benefit the whole site I can honestly say that I would support the RPG awards, proposed by Pontifex a month ago before this, sorry Mega

[imb39]

I must admit I've stopped patronising anyone, mainly because I am not totally au fait with the various members here anymore. I used to be fairly prolific and am probably up there. Like Justy, I was proud to sponsor them and delighted when they contributed more to the site beyond posting. I won't deny that one relationship has turned somewhat sour, but these things happen.

I have to oppose as any reward should be based on the relationships formed and the joy of seeing them develop. I still remember when the limit was only 6 clients. We've moved on very far from those times.

[Aikanár]

Ok Mega

I'm opposing this, as stated because of as well stated reasons. But let's take another approach, the one Q himself mentioned in his former proposal.
Let's give this a trial go, shall we?
According to the constitution everything which is amended retroactively needs a special retroactive clause. Let's skip this clause and DON'T make it retroactive.
Furthermore enact it with a given trial, add a trial time of say, six? Six months is more than enough to evaluate whether or not this amendment does what everyone supporting are assuming it to do: get more people patronised for the betterment of the CVIRA and TWC.
Will you add a clause that this shall be discussed and voted upon in 6 months again? If it does not pass then, it will be struck out of the constitution and all medals possibly awarded till then will be nullified.
Just make it a trial, officially, and see if it really does anything you and everybody in favour is implying.

What can you loose?

PS: For all that might argue that it's not possible to earn a medal in six months, well Maximinus Thrax would've earned bronze in one and a half month.

PPS: I'm still opposing this and I'm not seeing any contribution in the mere act of patronisation, but I'm willing to give this a trial go to evaluate whether or not this might benefit the CVRIA and TWC.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Re: Command & Control: Re: Patron Maleficence

Pater's Civic Crown

The Civic Crown is awarded at the discretion of the Curator in consultation with members of the Consilium de Civitate. Since the award is optional, a request from the receipient would be tendered to initiate the award process. 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.

To my thinking that should take care of any shady Patron shenanignas. If the patron is found not to be worthy, then simpley reject the award request.

Now to tackle the rest starting with Aikanár's last post...

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Ok Mega

I'm opposing this, as stated because of as well stated reasons. But let's take another approach, the one Q himself mentioned in his former proposal.
Let's give this a trial go, shall we?
According to the constitution everything which is amended retroactively needs a special retroactive clause. Let's skip this clause and DON'T make it retroactive.
Furthermore enact it with a given trial, add a trial time of say, six? Six months is more than enough to evaluate whether or not this amendment does what everyone supporting are assuming it to do: get more people patronised for the betterment of the CVIRA and TWC.
Will you add a clause that this shall be discussed and voted upon in 6 months again? If it does not pass then, it will be struck out of the constitution and all medals possibly awarded till then will be nullified.
Just make it a trial, officially, and see if it really does anything you and everybody in favour is implying.

What can you loose?

PS: For all that might argue that it's not possible to earn a medal in six months, well Maximinus Thrax would've earned bronze in one and a half month.

PPS: I'm still opposing this and I'm not seeing any contribution in the mere act of patronisation, but I'm willing to give this a trial go to evaluate whether or not this might benefit the CVRIA and TWC.

Let's give this a trial go, shall we?
According to the constitution everything which is amended retroactively needs a special retroactive clause. Let's skip this clause and DON'T make it retroactive.

Trial period....kay works for me...

[Aikanár]

If you do it for trial, I'd like to see the phrasing and if you get enough supporters, then, for the benefit of all TWC, I will vote in favor regardless of me being generally in opposition to this, because then I'd like to see what this will achieve - opposition is one thing, trial and error another, the benefit for TWC a whole other story.

PS: I still see no contribution worth awarding, but I want to see the supposed effect.

PPS: I don't mind the possible increased workload for CdeC, since this is what we got elected for.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Mega - good points but you don't address my main concern, and therefore I must still oppose.

Disregarding for a moment whether "social panache" (read: "forum age") is worthy of a medal, the key to increasing Curia activity is to make it more interesting and inherently worthy of more time invested. The relatively large number of current citizens active elsewhere in the forum but not in the Curia (admittedly I'm postulating but I'm fairly confident if the Hex have stats they will fit my theory) surely indicates that the issue is not simply the rate of patronisation vs. rate of attrition, but rather the level of interest people have in posting in the Curia. Seriously, besides the CdeC and these debate threads what else gets posted in? If this holds then incentivising patronship simply doesn't help solve anything, and a medal for doing so becomes hollow.

Aik: I suppose it is unreasonable to oppose a trial, so I will not, but I can't help but think of the butthurt that will inevitably occur should the trial fail and people are stripped of their trinkets

[Aikanár]

^This!

I doubt that this proposition changes anything besides possibly breaking Legio's postbit

Still, I'm somewhat keen to give it a trial go and ... see it fail, ultimately, seriously, I mean Mega, why not put all the effort in an initiative to get more people involved in the CVRIA and/or make the CAPITOL a place dedicated to more than "just" a rehearsal of Halie Satanus' Ferris Wheel + posting vids in the Lyrics thread (mea culpa).

Edit robin:
Yep, agreed, it's as serious as the proposition not to disgrace anybody but you know.
All the seriousness about something so irrelevant, especially the one intended to receive the award... a useful idea for participation of the CVRIA, best with invited regular full members, to enrich this place and to do something - I still think the CVRIA should do it's own publication though - or, at least, do something to make sure that those get promoted who deserve it...

But really, not with something rediculous like this, thus the trial: can you think of something less serious than amending the constitution with a trial and ready to fail amendment?

[Magicman2051]

Oppose.

While the trial seems interesting its results would be irrelevant without at least one control group to determine whether or not it was of any benefit at all. A valid way of defining benefit would have to be established also.

[Genius of the Restoration]

We could just have a poll where citizens could identify themselves as only wanting to patronise members if there was an award in it for them. I'm sure it would be a successful exercise.

Seriously though, does anyone want to come out and say it would affect their approach, or are we going to continue on about this affecting some hypothetical citizens with nobody claiming to be remotely associated with that position?

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Seriously though, does anyone want to come out and say it would affect their approach

Irrelevant to whether some will change their approach without "coming out and saying it", sadly.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Diatribe:
It is sad. Yet we have multiple people proclaiming the value of this Bill on the basis that it will effect a change of behaviour for these unidentified and unquantified citizens. But gosh no, it won't have any influence on us, just those other citizens. There seems to be a collective effort by citizens to bury their heads in the sand about this. We don't know how many people it would influence because nobody has said it would influence them. We don't know how much of an influence it would be on those people. But hey, more medals for us right? Baron Samedi claimed that it should be supported "even it does for 1 patron". Not really a lofty goal to aspire to, is it? I wager that the Community RPG Award would have had a much higher influence, and I wasn't even a supporter. If we're clutching at straws to invent medals that can possibly give some benefit to the site, the Curia should at least apply it equally and also create medals for the activities of non-citizens too, especially as they would actually be doing something with the site as opposed to just patronising people. Or maybe the Curia could just do something itself for the benefit of other members instead of seeking other members so it can continue doing not much. Some citizens were opposed to creating that medal on the basis that not everybody was eligible. I see no similar objections here for this medal.

And let's design it so that it seems honourable, because needing a medal to do something that citizens should really be doing anyway indicates that we're such honourable people.


I believe there are some citizens who genuinely think that this award might help the Curia and don't just want to pass it in order to get a medal. I respect you're attitude. Just consider that the people you're rewarding with this Bill are exactly the people who make the Curia such a bad place to get things done in. The people who only want a medal, who won't do anything unless there's a reward for them. The people who wouldn't volunteer to assist the site, who want no place in an active Curia. The people who won't patronise someone for the good of the site, even though they received this patronage themselves. This desire to only act if there's a tangible reward is the antithesis of what I believe we should be doing. Fawning to the hypothetical group and rewarding them for their incalcitrance legitimises their position.


At least, that's my opinion. Disagree if you will. For those that support this Bill, I posted three key points earlier and I'd appreciate it if you could answer them:

The issue I take with the proposal is whether it's worth giving out another award for something that is
1. not a significant contribution in terms of time spent,
2. not a significant contribution in terms of the end result, and
3. something the Curia should be (and currently is) doing anyway.

Come at me etc.