Rejection of the Staff Proposal for the "New" Curia.

[Gaius Baltar]

Sponsor: Gaius Baltar
Supporters: bdh, General_Sun, Corporal_Hicks, Mudd, Fabolous, SoggyFrog

I propose a complete rejection of the Staff Proposal for the New Curia. This includes the "revised" Staff Proposal for the Curia 2.



1. The proposed realinement is designed to facilitate the "running of the board", when it in fact, attacks processes not involved in those procedures.

2. The proposed realinement redefines the voting class, moving the CVRIA vote to a proposed Patrician class, whose membership conviently vote for each other. Many of the new Patrician class would not meet the stated qualifications for the group as proposed by the Staff. This inequality alone demands rejection of the proposal.

3. Many of the statements made by the The Staff proposal cannot be supported, by either evidence or reason. Allegations about "trust", posting quality and contributions are not defined or are supported by circular arguements. If radical changes are to be enacted, the reasons should be presented in a more logical, verifiable fashion.

4. The current Syntagma contains provisions for dealing with "problems", as presented by the Staff. Utilizing this methodology would be more efficient and logical.

[Perikles]

Hex said keep all discussion in one thread, and closed all other dicussions. A fate that I think this shall follow...

I also reject this proposal utterly...

[Tostig]

I oppose, and the very existance of this thread is evidence as to why I do.

[gigagaia]

My support for this will be nil. The fact that people feel the need to post these kinds of threads only reaffirms my support for the needed change to the entire system as a whole.

[Hader]

Why must everyone be so against this whole staff proposal? Why cant you peoplle accept change? A change that really is a change for the better?

[Muizer]

My support for this will be nil. The fact that people feel the need to post these kinds of threads only reaffirms my support for the needed change to the entire system as a whole.

Except there really is nothing in the proposal that will prevent "these kinds of threads", whatever that is supposed to mean. I am not even convinced it is part of the motivation for the proposal. So far it has been people like yourself, Tostig and Silver Guard that have followed this line of reasoning, while the admins have stated it is a way to have contributions to the site weigh more heavily in hierarchy. Why would you assume that people who have contributed to the site do not have the critical outlook of BDH and Sun here?

[gigagaia]

Except there really is nothing in the proposal that will prevent "these kinds of threads", whatever that is supposed to mean.

A reactionary attack on something designed to improve the quality of the forums as a whole?

Prehaps then, if everyone who supports this wouldn't mind posting a list of reasons as to why they are qualified and trustworthy to assume an adminsistrative role on these forums, making decisions that affect many more people than themselves. I accept that some of you are more than qualified, but the rest? Please, list for me why you as an individual is capable of this.
Show me things you have done for these forum beyond posting in the Curia. Show me essays submitted, jobs done, posts with substantial quantity and heavy involvement in serious issues that does not involved rapping the staff and other such measures. Show constructive work and effort that has been towards making TWC a better place for all members concerned (Curia aside; talk about circular arguments guys: I contribute because I post in the curia, thus I have shown effort worthy to post in the curia). Why do you deserve to affect the future of the forums?

I am not even convinced it is part of the motivation for the proposal. So far it has been people like yourself, Tostig and Silver Guard that have followed this line of reasoning, while the admins have stated it is a way to have contributions to the site weigh more heavily in hierarchy. Why would you assume that people who have contributed to the site do not have the critical outlook of BDH and Sun here?

General Sun has conributed to the site massively.
But our line of reasoning is that threads like this prove that we are unable to handle the potential responsibiliy handed to us by staff. Do you think that staff like the idea of handing important decisions to a body that posts up threads that essentially say: "Outright rejection of the Staff's ideas and its analysis"? And no, this isn't the first time it's happened either.

[Muizer]

A reactionary attack on something designed to improve the quality of the forums as a whole?

Prehaps then, if everyone who supports this wouldn't mind posting a list of reasons as to why they are qualified and trustworthy to assume an adminsistrative role on these forums, making decisions that affect many more people than themselves. I accept that some of you are more than qualified, but the rest? Please, list for me why you as an individual is capable of this.
Show me things you have done for these forum beyond posting in the Curia. Show me essays submitted, jobs done, posts with substantial quantity and heavy involvement in serious issues that does not involved rapping the staff and other such measures. Show constructive work and effort that has been towards making TWC a better place for all members concerned (Curia aside; talk about circular arguments guys: I contribute because I post in the curia, thus I have shown effort worthy to post in the curia). Why do you deserve to affect the future of the forums?


General Sun has conributed to the site massively.
But our line of reasoning is that threads like this prove that we are unable to handle the potential responsibiliy handed to us by staff. Do you think that staff like the idea of handing important decisions to a body that posts up threads that essentially say: "Outright rejection of the Staff's ideas and its analysis"? And no, this isn't the first time it's happened either.

We can discuss it elsewhere in a thread where it is relevant. Please address the assumption both you and Tostig appear to make there is a connection between adopting the staff proposal and preventing "this kind of thread"

[gigagaia]

We can discuss it elsewhere in a thread where it is relevant. Please address the assumption both you and Tostig appear to make there is a connection between adopting the staff proposal and preventing "this kind of thread"

But our line of reasoning is that threads like this prove that we are unable to handle the potential responsibiliy handed to us by staff. Do you think that staff like the idea of handing important decisions to a body that posts up threads that essentially say: "Outright rejection of the Staff's ideas and its analysis"? And no, this isn't the first time it's happened either.

And this is a relevant place. The staff have said contribution is a necessary element to earning your franchise. So if you are going to reject that premise, then you should prove that all of you who are doing so, are not simply doing it because you'd rather not lose your vote.

[bdh]

1. The proposed realinement is designed to facilitate the "running of the board", when it in fact, attacks processes not involved in those procedures.

Wow, that makes sense.

2. The proposed realinement redefines the voting class, moving the CVRIA vote to a proposed Patrician class, whose membership conviently vote for each other. Many of the new Patrician class would not meet the stated qualifications for the group as proposed by the Staff. This inequality alone demands rejection of the proposal.

That makes sense too.

3. Many of the statements made by the The Staff proposal cannot be supported, by either evidence or reason. Allegations about "trust", posting quality and contributions are not defined or are supported by circular arguements. If radical changes are to be enacted, the reasons should be presented in a more logical, verifiable fashion.

Thats the most important piece of all.

4. The current Syntagma contains provisions for dealing with "problems", as presented by the Staff. Utilizing this methodology would be more efficient and logical.

You're right, we should attempt to actually use the current system to deal with problems before we dismantle it.


Honestly, all of these concerns are drawn up in simple fashion, point by point, just asking for someone to come up and logically explain (with evidence) why the proposal is a good idea. Why on Earth is no one willing to do that? Is it so hard to provide an example of someone who shouldn't be a Civitate? Is it so hard to show how this Civitate is disrupting the site? Is it so hard to try and Ostrakon that Civitate before overhauling the system? If you just go through this process with one Civitate, and then you name multiple other Civitates, maybe you wouldn't get so much resistance.

[General Sun]

I support this bill one hundred percent. The staff proposal in its current form is an utter sham.

[bdh]

And this is a relevant place. The staff have said contribution is a necessary element to earning your franchise. So if you are going to reject that premise, then you should prove that all of you who are doing so, are not simply doing it because you'd rather not lose your vote.

If somehow, some way, we win this,

I'll resign and reject any repatronization.
Do you accept my proof?

Edit:
If that is unacceptable, I am ready and willing to resign right now as per your request.
Even better, I will submit myself to Ostrakon.

[gigagaia]

If somehow, some way, we win this,

I'll resign and reject any repatronization.
Do you accept my proof?

Edit:
If that is unacceptable, I am ready and willing to resign right now as per your request.
Even better, I will submit myself to Ostrakon.

That is not proof that you are capable. Willing to sacrifice what is, at this moment, a superficial title or submit to an Ostrakon which has no grounds in no way contributes to TWC as a better place.

Merit + Effort.

Show me your merit, show me the effort that you have made.

[bdh]

That is not proof that you are capable. Willing to sacrifice what is, at this moment, a superficial title or submit to an Ostrakon which has no grounds in no way contributes to TWC as a better place.

Merit + Effort.

Show me your merit, show me the effort that you have made.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39035
I developed a mapping technique(mainly by making it publically avialable) that allowed people to exploit my own personal hobby of Geo Interspatial Systems to develop incredibly accurate maps for RTW.
This or similiar methodologies have been used in RNJ, RTR7, ITW, and other mods.

My merit is my stalwart persistance.

Now, say the word, and I will resign.

[Tostig]

Resign please.

There you go, that was two words. Toodles.

[Professor420]

why do you think that installing a body of patricians who have contributed and are contributing to the site will prevent this kind of thread?

Well, I'll just quote myself, since I think I did a good job before but non-staff seemed to ignore most of it:

My reasoning is that, though there will always be drama where people are allowed to debate things they feel strongly about, this 'drama' has reached a critical mass, and has made the Curia entirely ineffectual.
There must be a way to regulate the less productive members in the Curia, but self-regulation could lead to a non-stop series of Ostrakons and demotions and even more drama. Allowing oversight by the Civitates makes sure that those Patricians responsible for more drama than productivity are removed.
The creation of the Civitas-Honoratus (tentative) is so that, even in elections as sour as the recent Tribunous, the elected/promoted members are still qualified. There doesn't need to be a worry about any sort of coup attempt or unqualified, unproven individuals taking power.
So, if Civitas-Honoratus are the staff's patricians, why do we need them at all? This sounds just like the staff's proposal, really. Well, without any way for the unproductive members to be removed, its just a matter of time before the Curia once again becomes a disfunctional soup of qualified Patricians. Personally, I do not feel it expedient that even with the current mechanisms to remove a Patrician, this weeding can be done. Patrician removal by other Patricians, via the staff's proposal, would likely create much bad blood, and would put the discussion about it amongst Patricians, causing, that's right, drama. By moving the issue of Patricianship to the Symposium, where there are less pressing matters to be taken care of (the Curia is the much more important political body and is for deciding things, the Symposium is only for debates and suggestions amongst the Civitates), it removes the drama from important Curial matters. The goal is to achieve some sort of transparency, while relegating the ever-present drama to less vital and official forums.

Well, I will reiterate, that ALL the suggested proposals are merely postponing another crisis, staff included. The difference between the Staff proposal and the Civitate proposals are merely that the Civ proposal would bloat the Patrician rank quicker, by making it easier to become a Patrician.
No matter who the Patricians are, no matter how qualified, no matter how much Merit and how much Contribution, there will always be drama. And as the number of Patricians, even those of the highest calibre, increases, so too will drama, to the poin that the Curia will not function (as is the case now).
I think the discussion should focus on the concepts the Staff laid out, which make sense. That is, only the most qualified individuals should be members of the Curia. The counter-proposals are merely reactions to the staff, making it easier to become a Patrician. The staff seems to want to eliminate the hoopla alot more than some Patricians, who are unwilling to lose their rank or watch their patrons lose their rank. But almost all of the discussion so far has not addressed a fundamental fix... all the suggestions are merely different degrees of purges that will temporarily slim down the size of the Curia.

They are still applicable, and since the Staff went a route similar enough to what I suggested, I won't just paraphrase them. The basic concepts still hold true. Also, the proposals I refer to are pre-the newest staff proposal.

[Lusted]

1. The proposed realinement is designed to facilitate the "running of the board", when it in fact, attacks processes not involved in those procedures.

The proposal has been made for these reasons:

Members of TWC,

Events both past and present have convinced senior staff that the Curia and Civitate rank is suffering because we (staff) do not trust it's ability to advise us on matters. The initial solution to our problems were a series of staff organized proposals that created councils (CdC, CoW, CoP) to help advise us. While they solved the basic problem (and they have functioned well); we have essentially created an elite class of civitates and created an entirely new set of problems. Some believe that destroying the councils would resolve this problems and others are sure that the councils are the only solution availible.

However, after much discussion (within the various threads in the Curia, within staff and via PMs and MSN); staff has come to believe the problem is more pervasive. We believe the problem results with giving members the right to have input into the site by sheer quality of their posts instead of being measured by the efforts they have put forth in helping improve the site. Thus, we seek to initiate a series of reforms as detailed below that will create a voting class that Staff will trust as well as enact greater standards to uphold the standards of the Curia and Civitate class.

Please tell me where in there it states it is designed to help facilitate the running of the board.

2. The proposed realinement redefines the voting class, moving the CVRIA vote to a proposed Patrician class, whose membership conviently vote for each other. Many of the new Patrician class would not meet the stated qualifications for the group as proposed by the Staff. This inequality alone demands rejection of the proposal.

Unlike how currently civs vote in civs. Oh wait they do through the CdeC, just like how in the proposal Patricians will be voted in by the Patricians who make up the CdeC.

3. Many of the statements made by the The Staff proposal cannot be supported, by either evidence or reason. Allegations about "trust", posting quality and contributions are not defined or are supported by circular arguements. If radical changes are to be enacted, the reasons should be presented in a more logical, verifiable fashion.

The reasons for the reforms i quoted above. Nowhere in it does it state anything about trust. Yes, it does say about posting quality and contributions, and how at the moment you have to be a person with high quality posts to be able to have input on the site, instead of in the proposal where it will be based on contributions.

4. The current Syntagma contains provisions for dealing with "problems", as presented by the Staff. Utilizing this methodology would be more efficient and logical.

For changes as large as the one proposed the way senior staff have gone about it is the best way.

[bdh]

Please tell me where in there it states it is designed to help facilitate the running of the board.

If its not going to facilitate running the board, why is the staff bothering to do this? The staff should retain its focus.


Unlike how currently civs vote in civs. Oh wait they do through the CdeC, just like how in the proposal Patricians will be voted in by the Patricians who make up the CdeC.[/QUOTE]
You completely ignored his accusations of favoratism.

The reasons for the reforms i quoted above. Nowhere in it does it state anything about trust. Yes, it does say about posting quality and contributions, and how at the moment you have to be a person with high quality posts to be able to have input on the site, instead of in the proposal where it will be based on contributions.

It says trust right there. In fact, its the most important line!

Events both past and present have convinced senior staff that the Curia and Civitate rank is suffering because we (staff) do not trust it's ability to advise us on matters.

Somehow contribution=trusts. It makes sense at face value, but does not hold up to scrutiny. Of course, I don't want to claim that contribution=anything. Please explain why contribution=trust. Support the assertion.

For changes as large as the one proposed the way senior staff have gone about it is the best way.

A claim you haven't justified.

[imb39]

A question for Gaius, really. Do you trust me?

I suppose I will throw it open to others too. I fully support the proposed reforms and am somewhat troubled by some of the ideas that are coming out. So my question is there to be answered.

If the answer is no - then can you be explicit and say why not. My hide has thickened over the months.

[Fabolous]

A question for Gaius, really. Do you trust me?

Do I trust you to always do what you think is best? Yes. Do I trust you to always do what is best? I trust no one that way, not even myself.