FINAL DRAFT #2
Section III - Member Ranks and the Curator
Article I. Ranks
Paragraph 2
Citizens
Article III. Legislative Procedure
Paragraph 1
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Πέος
[Amendment] PMing Citizens when proposals reach voting procedure (VETOED)
FINAL DRAFT #2
Section III - Member Ranks and the Curator
Article I. Ranks
Paragraph 2
Citizens
Article III. Legislative Procedure
Paragraph 1
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by koultouras; August 21, 2012 at 05:29 PM.
You beaut and magical
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
This describes the situation as it currently stands. Citizens, or indeed anyone with an internet connection, can view the threads in Prothalamos and inform themselves about what it means.Originally Posted by koultouras
No it's not. Referenda are a very rare case. Politicians are elected to enact legislation that is too complex for most people to understand. Bills of Parliament are viewable by the public, but the public doesn't always view them because, to be honest, nobody can be bothered. Proposals in the Curia aren't as complex, but that doesn't change the fact that not everyone's interested in what happens here. Members of the public aren't individually sent notices whenever a Bill that gets tabled, because that would be incredibly wasteful.However it is common practice in every law proposal[, at least common practice in RL]
the members of every concil that are(/not) affected by the decission, to firstly be called to attend to and secondly to be handed over the proposal.
This is the standard procedure for every legislating attempt
in every institution.
I don't think there needs to be a process because there's no need to mollycoddle citizens by telling them what they should view. Citizens have the privilege of participating in our little democracy and if they don't participate then that's their choice. It would very arrogant of us to assume citizens want to be involved. I know some citizens who view their citizenship as a simple reward and these people don't want anything to do with the Curia. Let's not get people involved in things they might not want to get involved in. If they care about what goes on, they can turn up and post.The reasoning that Curia is open to citizens and thus this may not be necessairy, is a valid one ofc. However the procedure is lacking as you see basic principals of a collective process wich imho is the purpose of the institution.
a) There is no reason your proposal would lead to unanimous decisions.Projected Benefits:
a) Unanimous decisions or decisions with the highest possible attention and representation of the
citizens ellectorial corpus.
No one can complain if he was invited but choosed not to participate.
One can though do that when procedures like that lack integrity.
As things stand atm, all proposals that affected citizenshp rights, may have taken
another path, or at least the decisions would be as representive as it gets.
b) Elimination of post-voting objections
c) Greater traffic within the Curia, collectivity in decisions and integrity of the proposals
Does anybody complain that they didn't get to participate because they were too lazy to check the Curia?
b) What objections are you referring to?
c) If they want to come to the Curia, they can. All the information they need is there in public view.
Given that I'm in total opposition to this proposal, I won't comment on your second part except to make one thing absolutely clear to you that you still haven't taken on board:
An artifex is a citizen. It isn't a separate category. This shouldn't have to be stated so many times. I can be an artifex, civitate and citizen. There is literally no point in giving different positions to the different citizenship identities because they are interchangable which means they do not exclude anyone or give representation to specific groups as you intend them to.Members of the consilium should be a representative of each citizenship rank within TWC
Example
A Hex, A Magistrate, A Tribune, An Citizen , An Artifex. (or if more members added , the number should ΝΟΤ be even)
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
Referenda are directed to public.
I am speaking for citizens and decisions affecting their rights
It is not a democracy here.
It is a republic where only citizens have the right to vote.
Which in case that was applied within a republic these are the PM s bro.
And yes they are informed, they are handed over the law-proposal text pre-voting
and yes this is obligatory.
Moreover when a proposal is linked to the loss or an expansion/addition of a citizens right.
Stop undemining my law knowledge.
Separation means diffenent nay?
So you again repeat there are NO differences between us after all that ?
So dont you want the proposals to get the maximum attention and unanimity?
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 06:39 AM.
You beaut and magical
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
Yes you can abstain this is a right of yours.
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
First things firts. Some things have to be clarified before adressing the proposal step by step:
There is only one rank, and it is called Citizen!
Civitate and Artifex are destincitions in preference, not in rank.
HEX, Magistrate, Tribune &c. are not ranks, but offices.
That being said, as much as I find your newly kindled activity in the CVRIA commendable, I've some issues with this proposal.
That's nothing personal, koult, I hope you know that.
Medias res:
I tend to disagree a little, Citizenship is a reward for contributions rendered to TWC.
It comes with some priviledges but without responsibilities. The only responsibility one could tie to being a Citizen is behaviour. But every member is responsible for and can be hold responsible for his behaviour by Moderation Staff. Thus this is not that much different with citizens.
The only thing different concerning this is that a Citizen can be held responsible for his behaviour by his peers and can be removed if he may portray behaviour unbecomming of a Citizen.
That's it, there is no further responsibility, at all!
I know where you coming from, but there is no right for being served information. Citizens have a right to participate, there is no right to be informed. If a Citizen decides for himself that he wants to participate, he will venture to inform himself.
If a Citizen recognizes that he is uncomfortable with a Decision or Amendment or any part of the Constitution regardless of when he might recognize this, nothing hinders this particular citizen from taking his grievances to the CVRIA in form a discussion or a proposal.
This is just no valid comparison and wrong in itself btw.. First of all, we as the CVRIA might be a selfgoverning entity within TWC, but we are most definitely not discussing things that affect people in off the web Life like real governments are doing.
Of what institution, the CVRIA? That may be your interpretation of what the CVRIA stands for, it may happen to not be the interpretation of somebody else.
I suggest to abstain from words like "should". Why should I get informed about something I'm not showing any interest in?
However, if you phrase it like "There's nothing wrong with the possibility to inform other Citizens about the ongoings in the CVRIA." Then I would absolutely agree with you, but forcing your interpretation of how the flow of information "should" be according to your opinion on others is, I'm sorry, the wrong approach in the first place.
While I, in no way, agree with your reasoning, and as much as I do believe in the self-responsibility of every human being, I could imagine something like this being done by either a Curator's Assistant or the CdeC.
Those arguments don't strike me at all. To adress them one by one:
- no decision is unanimous due to only majority wins a poll - admittedly a majority achieved by a singular vote may be considered unanimous but that can happen with low and with high participation.
- nobody can complain as it is, because it's totally up to each and every Citizen's self-responsibility whether to participate or not.
- pure assumption, on which facts do you base your assumption on?
You don't know whether or not more Citizens will participate if you contact them all - granted, one more participant at last is possible.
You don't know whether those who might get active in the CVRIA due to being informed may or may not vote and you don't know how they might happen to cast their vote.
That's the real thing. Traffic, that could be increased, indeed! But that's doubtful, since we -as mentioned above- cannot know whether or not one or some of the informed Citizens may participate.
Where do you come up with this? Since when is collectivity or integrity based upon the number of participants?
Granted, given certain circumstances reaching a quorum indicates integrity, but that's about it.
Superfluous, if your proposal may get through, we already have the CdeC in place. This could easily be delegated to them and made one of their responsibilities or the Curator's.
Besides, there is a crux in your logic, if Citizens should be informed about what is happening in the CVRIA then why on earth should a artificial distinction be made? Everything happening in the CVRIA can or cannot be of the interest of each and every Citizen, it's not up to anybody besides the concerning Citizen what might affect him and what not.
Hold on one moment please, you're proposing a committee and then advertise its benefits with transparency? The situation as is is as transparent as you can get it. Only such a committee would make things less transparent as they are by now.
Totally superfluous and overcomplicating things.
To sum it up, this is not needed.
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
The Const. describes 3 different badges for 3 different aspects of citizenship my dear friend
To make it simplier
They all are equally priviledged but not similarily being given this rank.
Its like the PMS are coming from different partys sort of speak.
We are members of something like a Senate.
This is not like simply being an "elotas" in athens
We are all what you call "polites">citizen.
And we are the governing class of twc.(Aristotle's "archousa takse")
We need to act as a senate.
Are senators in the US not informed @ bill when it reaches proposal?
Arent they handed over the text?
Not every people you see .
I am not saying put this under consideration every each time an affair is prompted.
But only when citizenship is affected.
The proposal of badge reduction is against the Constitution.
The const. expicity says we have the right to choose
and given that right we also have the right to deny any change.
But when that change is not being known by anyone
how are we gonna oppose it.
An anti-constitutional law-proposal has been proposed by Squid
and if i didnt rush to oppose it , would probalbly have been moved to vote.
So again , being a senator, doesnt mean being a responsible so to attend every curial vote.
But the curia needs also to have its "hands washed" in case someones find that
a law(even if anti-constitutional ) has been passed without him knowing
when and where this was decided.[/QUOTE]
Self responsibility works dually
First the curia needs to inform the citizens
and if they choose to abstain it is their un-responsibility....
This is the standard procedure not?
Also see my latter post to GOR.
Actually unanimous is probably impossible but representative as much as it gets is obviously needed.
I happen to believe that this will improve envolving
ANd even though not participating , while informed, that is their right. But since the didnt practice it, no one can object
True.
Integrity is coming from smth that has been voted from all interested parts of a community.
An anticonstitutional law was about to be passed.
This is why i Propose a const. council.
check above....
You have the right to oppose my friend , no hard feelings
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 07:20 AM.
SS Forum Moderator
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
The Constitutional Consilium, how does it fit alongside CDEC, is it a replacement or do they operate separately to each other.
My largest concern is that the more decision making, bureaucracy you build into a system, then the more complicated it becomes and the less likely that folk will want to be involved.
Koultouras,
Please don't take this as a dig, as it is not, but I have seen you very little in the Curia, but in last 24 hrs you have posted alot. Why is this issue of representation now so important toi you?
'Proud to be patronised by cedric37(My Father and My Guardian)
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
I can read the constitution koultI'm fairly known for being a constitution-pedant by now
I've put the paragraphs in spoilers because they are not essential to the question what a rank is. Ranks are Peregrinus and Citizen.
We, the CVRIA, are not the US Senat or any other off the web government, we are the CVRIA.
If it is your desire to enact something, like this, than it's your right to discuss it and eventually it might pass or not, but the comparison with the procedures of off the web governments are just not striking true.
Concerning your remarks concerning Squid's proposal. It is not unconstitutional! No proposal can be unconstitutional since the very process of them being discussed and put to vote is constitutional. This is the way change can come to CVRIA, regardless of what kind of change that might be.
It would even be constitutional to get ridd of the CVRIA and the Constitution by an amendment.
That being said, if I take your principle idea of informing Citizens about the ongoings in the CVRIA, then I can imagine something usful for the CVRIA being rooted in it, say in a publication of the CVRIA or the such.
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
A const. council would have prevent the inconvenience such as the oneI can read the constitution koult
I've put the paragraphs in spoilers because they are not essential to the question what a rank is. Ranks are Peregrinus and Citizen.
We, the CVRIA, are not the US Senat or any other off the web government, we are the CVRIA.
If it is your desire to enact something, like this, than it's your right to discuss it and eventually it might pass or not, but the comparison with the procedures of off the web governments are just not striking true.
Concerning your remarks concerning Squid's proposal. It is not unconstitutional! No proposal can be unconstitutional since the very process of them being discussed and put to vote is constitutional. This is the way change can come to CVRIA, regardless of what kind of change that might be.
It would even be constitutional to get ridd of the CVRIA and the Constitution by an amendment.
That being said, if I take your principle idea of informing Citizens about the ongoings in the CVRIA, then I can imagine something usful for the CVRIA being rooted in it, say in a publication of the CVRIA or the such.
we have in Bagde reduction, where we are almost got emotional, (if not already did)
and having the corpus of citizens divided, (which is terrible...aint it?)
And if mind serves i remember from my short pass from law school
an anti-constitutional law to be one either proposed and thus overruled
or passed and re-vised.
For example some of the austerity measure in greece need to be/ have been revised
as anticonstitutional....they were though voted for by
3 out of 6 parties. (or smth like that)
There were (3/6)voices that said the measures do so are, even before voting.
and now they try to find someway to revise them.
And again before this reaches to citizens
there is also an intermediate process
Which means double checking.(imho this is good)
As one last thing i d like to say ...(I asked GOR @it)
given that unanimity is being propably impossible, i shall think the latter is possible, cuz it enables participation andSo dont you want the proposals to get the maximum attention and unanimity?
will probably have more representation on each decision.
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 08:01 AM.
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
What division? People disagree, so what? We're entitled to disagree with one another. There is nothing wrong in discussion and disagreement.
Even though discussion or disagreement might be regarded by some as troublesome, supferfluous, over-complicating or even as nuisance that does in no way change the fact that it's nothing to worry about.
In contrary if there is a TWC spirit -besides modding- then it's that discussion, disagreement and debate is one of the chief foundations of this site. In fact TWC or his predecessor focused on debating long before it focused on modding.
I, just for myself, don't want somebody to think for me. I, again just for myself, am highly fond of self-responsibility. And finally I don't want somebody to decide for me what they think might effect me or not.
On TWC, and we're talking about TWC here, an unconstitutional Amendment, and that's how you called Squid's Amendment, is something that is forbidden by the Constitution or runs in contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, if any other, there could never be any change to this document.
Do you really consider abandoning two badges runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? If so, could you please provide us with your definition of sad spirit?
Spoiler for slightly off-topic, just a personal remark, if the Curator might happen to declare it off-topic, then please delete this part:
This may be true and since I don't know about it trust you, but that is just not relevant for the case in question. The CVRIA and how it operates within the confines of TWC is defined and described in the Constitution and is expanded by Decisions.
It is in no way relevant to us what functions how outside these confines.
So it's checks and balances what you're asking for? Fair enough.
But we do have everything in place for that.
Last edited by Aikanár; August 09, 2012 at 08:17 AM. Reason: added spoiler description
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
yup, discussing is not calling someone a strawman just cuz someone has disagreed with ya.
and why should we not keep civil....?
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...3#post11845963
this is only you , unfotunatelly.
And really , what would it be to send a PM to all parts involved is it
that much????
Do what makes the Curia look stellar, and un-touchable, and if someone moans
then you can always say..."well we did informed you..."
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post11845628
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post11845731
Once an institution is governed by indetical rules, hmm
yes it needs to uphold the rules to the last.
WHy giving us voting priviledge without embracing the rest of the given right?
I take this is either one-sided, or double-standards mate...it might be only me though.
Let me have some reservations.
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 08:27 AM.
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
Nothing is stopping Citizens from doing so. As long as you don't advertise voting for or against something you're free to contact Citizens to inform them that something happens.
Only advertising for and against is expressis verbis forbidden by the Constitution.
So basically what you like to have added can be done by now by each and every Citizen who might like to invest his time doing so.
Just because two different institutions operate similar in one way or the other does not translate the rules of one to the other by default.
Of course!
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
I also would like to commit in public
that i will not have my Tos revision proposal asked to be
taken under these new ruling I propose.
Just in case someone would fear that.
You have full authority to suspend me permanently, remove all my ranks and medals, in such a case.
Thank you.
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 09:52 AM.
I am not special - I am a limited edition.
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
Nevermind.
Last edited by Gigantus; August 09, 2012 at 10:59 AM.
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Concil and Affairs of Citizenship
Yes sir , let me elaborate.
I am saying.
1) Pming every citizen(or smth alternate) with the link of the proposal/not the prop.itself.
The alternative could also be defined by those supporting the proposal.
I dont know though whether a global announcement will do any good.
Most of us (at least i do) have bookmarks directed to our places of interest
So once again a Pm must be more appropriate
Now why some should be personaly addressed so to
have them interested?
I suspect this is an unconvenient question.
Probably cause citizens mostly tend to follow curia.
I happen not to condemn that , neither i say artifexes e.g. should not even bothered
But when citizenship affairs are being disscused we should all citizens be informed @that
even if we latter choose not to participate.
What my dual proposaly may help avoiding?
In the badges proposal we have something proposed against a) Priviledges and recognition
of a certain class of citizens , b) smth that is anti-constitutional.
Both of the hype that sourrounded it would be easily killed before even reach the corridors of
the prothalamos.
Here is why this is anti-constitutional
a)
Contributing members of TWC have the opportunity to become a Citizen of the Forum as per Article 2 below. Once a member becomes a Citizen, they can then choose between 3 different badges. Artifex, designed for those who are modders, Civitate, designed for those who have contributed to the debating side of the Site, whether in TW or non-TW, and Citizen, for those who associate with both.b)hmmm an act against the constitution ,anyone???....and the rights being sourced by those.
CAN--->RIGHT.!
This proposal stood on the ledge of getting to be voted.[remember when i jumped in right?]So unless the constitution changes we have the right
to choose any badge we like, and to deny any alteration of the badging system
within that [potential] constitutional change proposal.
Which again since it hasn t been proposed , and hasnt been supported and hasnt been voted,ends the conversation
Bye!.
For or against ....does it really matter, my friend?
We have smth that it hasnt been thoroughly examined before taken to public.
On a potential support of my bill The Magistrate of the Council/or the artifex e.g. of my proposal , would have pointed its contrast to the constitution/and or the rights affected
and the votes would go against it , before even getting to public
On the other hand since it refers to rights granted, rights that we most of us
nomatterwhat we are (artists/politicians blah, blah...) have achieved by contributions
it is obligatory imho to have them 1st informed, for they are about to loose/or gain a right.
(aka smth granted for their contribution)
So the Curia will not be to be held to account in case of latter (allthough fair/unfair)objections.
One must need to be 1stly dragged into the curia so to get involved ,sometimes unfortunately.
And that will get citizenship affairs disscusion as attended as it gets.
Also since the counsil only decides the bowing of a matter in citizenship affairs or not
it will propably wont have to send pms every single time.
@as for reasons loosing you
sometimes you need to be descriptive so to show your point.
I hope u reconsider.
all in all(3rd time i am writting it i know...)
Dont you want the proposals to get the maximum attention and [if possible unanimity] and greater representation?
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 12:31 PM.
I am not special - I am a limited edition.
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Council and Affairs of Citizenship
You do realize that I removed all that comment nearly half an hour before you posted your wall of text? So forgive me if I am not responding. I rather vote instead - if you can decide which proposal we are actually supposed to vote for.
Somehow I can't imagine that three proposals in one thread are 'constitutional'.
Πέος
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Council and Affairs of Citizenship
why three?
I am proposing smth that is attached to another.
1)Pms for matters of citizenship in all affairs concerning their rights
2)Whos to judge which do?
Constitunal Council members will advise that according to their positions
a) a hex can advise techical wise/
b) The magistrate and the tribune can advise as for "anticonstitutionality"
c) A citizen-politician to advise as for citizens-politician rights
d) An citizen-artifex to advise for citizens-artifexes rights
I on purpose suggest to be given 2 slots to the ones handiling justice within TWC.
You see one can not work without another.
From where i stand, they also can not be either proposed separately or supported separately.
But if you have smth to advise as for that , i d be happy to hear
edit.
i am not a quick typer, if thats our only problem here btw.
Last edited by koultouras; August 09, 2012 at 01:20 PM.
Breatannach Romanus
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Council and Affairs of Citizenship
If this is for PM concerning CURIA and citizenship matters i am supporting the notion.
To be honest I find the notifying PMs/mails really handy in my job in UK .
Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
Luís de Camões
I am not special - I am a limited edition.
Re: [Proposal] Constitutional Council and Affairs of Citizenship
I am just irritated by your rather free application of the adjective 'unconstitutional' without stating a reference - by now it has become rather synonym to me with "against koulthouras' opinion" here in the curia.
Ergo the interpretation that 'can' equals a right. The use of the word 'can' indicates an option in the English language, not a compulsion or even a right.
But that is just my personal view.
Regarding the multiple issue:
You are proposing a PM notification when an issue gets raised in the Curia.
You are proposing that proposals get scrutinized before made public with a view on the legitimacy
You are proposing that the scrutiny is done by a certain set of members
Whereas I am willing to accede that the second and third proposal have a connection I do fail to see why they should fall together with an individual proposal. Seeing that this confuses the issue I am simply going to vote NO on that principal alone.
Having a set of people\members scrutinizing any proposal before it gets tabled will get a major\oversized NO from me as it completely negates the spirit of proposals. It gives in principle gagging rights to a selected number of members.
Sending PMs to every member has been limited to urgent notices in the past (and as far as I know is only possible to a very restricted number of admins). During the six years of my membership I can only recall the one that urged members to change their passwords when there was a possibility that security might have been breached.
Having PMs from that source on a regular base for regular matters simply undermines that. NO here as well.
Posting Permissions
