Client Limit Removal Bill

[Fabolous]

Client Limit Removal Bill

Sponsor: Fabolous
Supporters:

The sentence "Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus at a rate of one per month." in the Patronization Act is changed to read "Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus for Civitateship at any time."


Bill stolen from Simetrical. :wink:


The new act would read as follows:

Patronization Act

Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus for Civitateship at any time. The granting of Civitateship is determined by the Consilium de Civitate. The process for patronization works as follows:

1. The patron reviews the member before recommending him, ensuring the member has at least one hundred posts and is a contributing member of the community.
2. The nominee sends a private message to explain his duties and privileges as a Civitate to his patron which is then sent with a paragraph by the Patron to a Senior Magistrate.
3. The Senior Magistrate then opens a thread and vote in the Consilium de Civitate section and the proposed civitates is then discussed and voted on.
4. If the nominee achieves a two-third majority, the nominee shall become a Civitate.

If a Peregrinus fails his civitates vote he must wait a minimum of one month before being put up for vote again. Members must abstain from voting on those they wish to patronize.

[Simetrical]

I, of course, support. Quality contributors do not occur at the rate of one per month; they crop up on an irregular basis that does not merit time limits. This certainly won't result in a flood of bad Civitates, because the CdC will weed them out, and the CdC is hardly overworked.

[Last Roman]

I support this bill

[Evariste]

I support as well, it's the next logical step.

[Publius]

I should think by being of the rank of Patrician, there is a level of trust in that person's judgement that we need not have such limitations. I would support, as I have faith in the patricians class to in a manner befitting their position and also recognize said individuals for civitateship. Their decisions still must go through the CdeC lets remember

[Richard the Lionheart]

I support this bill.

[Belisarius]

Nope, for the same reasons this always has failed.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Nope, for the same reasons this always has failed.

Those reasons being?

[Mímirswell]

Past Bills concerning limits to Patronization:
Client Limit Removal Bill
Client Limit Revision Bill
Clientele Restrictions

[Aemilianus]

Ehh....I think this is something I'll have to look at arguments for and against in order to make a final decision. I'm leaning towards no, but I think I'll take a look at things before giving my support or dissent.

[imb39]

No, I like the 1/month.

[Niles Crane]

I would support it if the bill was changed to 'Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus for Civitateship at the rate of three per month. That way it will feel as there there's no limit. Because who is going to nominate more than three every month?

Something like that, I'm new to the Curia.

[Fabolous]

I would support it if the bill was changed to 'Any Patrician can nominate a Peregrinus for Civitateship at the rate of three per month. That way it will feel as there there's no limit. Because who is going to nominate more than three every month?

Something like that, I'm new to the Curia.

Theres no reason to have a limit that doesn't effect anything, then we might as well have no limit. And really, if someone nominated four good people in a month, then I wouldn't care. Or even if they got 3 that passed and one that failed.

No, I like the 1/month.

Reasons?

Ehh....I think this is something I'll have to look at arguments for and against in order to make a final decision. I'm leaning towards no, but I think I'll take a look at things before giving my support or dissent.

Well mostly this stems for my inability to see any reason why this limit exists. Its not like the CDC is busy, this month we are having less than a vote every two days. I could probably handle 20x that. Further, I do not see why someone should not be able to have two civs per month if they find good ones.

[imb39]

Reasons?

It's one of those 'gut feelings.' It simply feels right. Besides, Asterix will end up with over 50 by the end of they year. We need this limit for others!!!

[Fabolous]

It's one of those 'gut feelings.' It simply feels right. Besides, Asterix will end up with over 50 by the end of they year. We need this limit for others!!!

Gah, I cannot debate your gut feeling.


And if your gut doesn't like this bill, wait to see the one I am planning to propose if this one passes.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Fab, well urm for purely selfish reasons, I support this.

[Aemilianus]

....do you seriously have 13 clients?

Hahahahahahaha....I can see why people would vote no on that....*still laughing*

[imb39]

Why have any limits on anything? I like to have a reasonable relationship with my clients and I find that 1/month allows for that...

[Fabolous]

Why have any limits on anything?

Sometimes things need limits. I don't take this as one of those times.

I like to have a reasonable relationship with my clients and I find that 1/month allows for that...

But you would not have to patronize more than once a month, you could still do it yourself just once a month.

[gigagaia]

Sometimes things need limits. I don't take this as one of those times.

I'll tell you why I disagree with this.
Given the furore and uproar over the past little while about new civitates being under-quality and that BS, I like the fact that we have limits in place.
It forces the Patrician to sit back and evaluate the canditate a little bit more with a bit more sobriety than simply "Oh! What a catch!" It forces them to then consider what makes this candidate better than the multidudes of others they have on their plate ready for patronization. Thus it instills in the patrician, the class ultimately responsible for the quality of civs, a sense that granting civitateship is less so a right, but moreso a responsibility, which is how it ought to be. Patricians should carefully consider each potential civitate in earnest as to why they are more deserving than the rest. Only then will the quality of civitates "improve." (assuming for a moment that it has decreased)

Plus, it also stops some of these cases where some Patricians swoop up two or three peregrini at once, leaving some Patricians with noone, or who end up choosing a lower quality civ because they want a client.

I would not support removing the limits in entirety, but if you raised it to two per month, I would support that.