Amendment to the Patrician Rank section

[Muizer]

Patrician

Patricians are people who have proved they are good posters (as conferred by the rank of Civitate or Artifex), are interested in TWC and have made a good contribution to it, and who therefore deserve the right to have some say in the running of TWC.

• Patricianship is awarded for contribution to TWC (Appendix A). None of these contributions provide automatic Patricianship however, but they do allow you to be nominated. In addition to those contributions the member must have at least one month’s experience as a Citizen and have no active warnings at the time of the election. Patricians are expected to contribute to the developing the site. Involvement in the Curia is part of that.
• Patricians have the same rights as Citizens but are the only members who can vote on legislation and post in the Curia and Curia Vote forums. Furthermore, patricians may not accept staff positions unless they are winners in Curial elections with no less than 3 non-vetoed candidates on the ballot.
• All Patricians can nominate Citizens in accordance with the Patronization Act. If a Citizen's nomination fails the Consilium de Civitate (CdeC) vote, the Patrician cannot patronise again for two months.
• Patricians are nominated to the CdeC by a member of Senior Staff or a member of the CdeC (who cannot then vote on the nomination). There is no patronage link (as per Patrician/Citizen relationship). Patricians are voted into their rank by the CdC on a 75% vote. Appendix A indicates possible criterion for promotion from Citizen to Patrician. It is not exhaustive.
• Either the CdeC or the Senior Staff can revoke a Patrician's status back to either Artifex or Civitate on a 75% majority vote.

I might as well refute this before it is raised: No, the added clause in no way interferes with the Trium's right to appoint whoever they want as moderator. It is only binding to patricians in that capacity after all.

[imb39]

So, a Patrician has to resign their Patrician status if they wish to be appointed Staff? Ummm.... Why? I am tired - so humour me.

[Silver Guard]

I didn't see it saying that Imb...
It says that Patricians can only become staff if no more then two of their competition resign, personaly i don't see the point...surely this interferres with the staff's ability to punish those rigging the elections or behaving badly elsewhere, effectivly meaning if the staff remove 3 from the elections the rest should have to resign....surely it should be their choice?

[Publius]

surely it should be their choice?

I would agree. It seems like we are trying to legislate ourselves out of free will.

[imb39]

So, if they were appointed, what happens? There is no election for them to have run in.

[Garbarsardar]

I might as well refute this before it is raised: No, the added clause in no way interferes with the Trium's right to appoint whoever they want as moderator. It is only binding to patricians in that capacity after all.

So a patrician has to relinquish the rights of his rank if he is appointed as staff member. So the future staff will not be able to exercise Patrician rights as voting and posting in the Curia?

[Kagemusha]

I have been thinking about this for a quit a while and came to conclusion.Well many may not like my opinion about this but, im leaning towards the old system where Tribuonos werent voted in by Curia but appointed by the Senior staff. This might sound un democratic, but i think that Curia should not create the moderator team but the Senior moderators should have the ability to pick their team. The current system allows both ways, but to be honest i dont see it creating anything but fuss.

[imb39]

I have been thinking about this for a quit a while and came to conclusion.Well many may not like my opinion about this but, im leaning towards the old system where Tribuonos werent voted in by Curia but appointed by the Senior staff. This might sound un democratic, but i think that Curia should not create the moderator team but the Senior moderators should have the ability to pick their team. The current system allows both ways, but to be honest i dont see it creating anything but fuss.

Well, originally the first line moderators (ULs) were appointed. The only rank that was voted on was Quaestors. At the moment, this sysem, which worked quite well in my opinion, does not facilitate this - the Curia votes on front line moderators subject to the veto. Of course, we had one or two admins voted on too, but they were an exception.

Garb has pointed out my concerns but much more clearly. I just cannot see the logic behind this.

[Kagemusha]

Well, originally the first line moderators (ULs) were appointed. The only rank that was voted on was Quaestors. At the moment, this sysem, which worked quite well in my opinion, does not facilitate this - the Curia votes on front line moderators subject to the veto. Of course, we had one or two admins voted on too, but they were an exception.

Garb has pointed out my concerns but much more clearly. I just cannot see the logic behind this.

Maybe it would be better to go to a system where the Tribunous are appointed. That would allow the Senior staff to pick the team they think would work best together.Since the Tribunous is now both quaestor and Urbanis something.. Maybe the Curia could vote on the Praetors? I back this up by, that a vote on the Praetors would be more suitable, since the ones who see the moderators actions are the Citizens who the moderators try to moderate. And if the Patricians and site elders are the ones that are active contributors and have the largest experience of the things past, they could elect the Praetors amongst the Tribunous? Ofcourse this could be completely out of the question in Senior Staffs eyes.
But the bottom line in my mind is that when choosing staff the "Staff leaders" should be able to create just the kind of team they think would be the best for the job.

[Perikles]

Neither can I, unless this is another knee jerk reaction to a moderator being appointed by the *shock horror* the site admins.

[imb39]

I seriously doubt whether you'd get to much support from Hex itself over that suggestion. One possible suggestion is to go back to the UL/Q system.

[Kagemusha]

I kind of expected that.But you never know if you dont ask.

[imb39]

Quite The election of moderators is a tricky one and makes us a very rare beast indeed. I would hate for this to be lost. I also remember other ideas previously floated about having some moderators elected and others appointed. The ratios between those groups varied between 50:50 and 75:25 (or there abouts).

At the end of the day, though, we need to see what we currently have. Any problems have not been as the result of elections per se, rather the conduct AND reaction to said conduct.

[Mímirswell]

The Junior Moderator rank can be chosen by Staff (via appointment) or by Curial Election. The Syntagma implies that the former be more rare than the latter but it actually tends to be more appointments than elections. Hopefully this trend will change as I personally believe that the Curia is more than able to handle this task both effectively and without an outbreak of tension. However, this bill accomplishes little other than a veiled criticism of the recent appointment.

1. It would essentially force a Patrician to serve the site as staff or the site as a Patrician unless he was voted upon. This creates needless tension between Staff and Curia.
2. Staff would be more inclined to pick from the Civitates rather than the more experienced Patricians for the purpose of moderation since any such appointment would put the candidate in an uncomfortable position.

I am well aware of the concerns of many who wonder what the purpose of this new Curia is to become if the Senior Moderators routinely choose to ignore it's sole purpose (to advise) and I frankly share these concerns. But this bill is the improper way to do this and it will only serve to reinforce the view such as those already stated in this thread that all out appointment is the best methodology.

[Muizer]

Let me make the intention clear. As I said in the Lower House, I think it is undesirable if patricians accept appointments without a vote. I am proposing to include this explicitly in the syntagma by imposing a sanction on it.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Let me make the intention clear. As I said in the Lower House, I think it is undesirable if patricians accept appointments without a vote. I am proposing to include this explicitly in the syntagma by imposing a sanction on it.

so, let me get this straight....

Someone contributes a lot to the site and is recognised by their peers and is eleveated into the Patrician class.

At the same time, someone else merely posts consistantly well and is made a civitate.

Then along come the Triumvirate and, recognising the very specific skills of both, make them staff members by appointment.

The Patrician, who has contributed a lot to the site, then loses their rank if they accept, the Civitate, who hasn't contributed a thing to the site other than posts, has no penalty for accepting.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me

[Silver Guard]

Thus evading the free will of the candidate, it is his choice, we need not surround him with red tape to manauver round, this is lowering the power of staff to select candidates, a bad decision, we need as few sanctions as possible I believe, and still keep the site swept.

[Muizer]

Thus evading the free will of the candidate, it is his choice, we need not surround him with red tape to manauver round, this is lowering the power of staff to select candidates, a bad decision, we need as few sanctions as possible I believe, and still keep the site swept.

If you think this adds anything to the factors a candidate has to consider, then you do not accept that elections should be the norm. I would prefer it if people came right out and said this rather than argue about the practicalities.

[Silver Guard]

If you think this adds anything to the factors a candidate has to consider, then you do not accept that elections should be the norm. I would prefer it if people came right out and said this rather than argue about the practicalities.

Said what? The moderators control everything here, we have no choice in the matter, and the moderators also have a BIG say on who joins their ranks, denying candidates free will is a step towards making this site a george orwell novel

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

guys, just for the record, elections are intended to be the norm - Hader was a special case with specific (modding) skills that we have been discussing making a Tribunous for quite some time.