[Amendment] Abolish CdeC

[Bethencourt]

The funny thing is that most of the supporters have been in charge of the CDC as members or even as CVRATOR. Don't you feel responsible of the situation?

[Ishan]

The funny thing is that most of the supporters have been in charge of the CDC as members or even as CVRATOR. Don't you feel responsible of the situation?

I'm not responsible for other people's up. People need to be responsible for their own actions and they need to clean their own . But it's always easier to push blame on someone else.

[Bethencourt]

I'm not responsible for other people's up. People need to be responsible for their own actions and they need to clean their own . But it's always easier to push blame on someone else.

Which is exactly what is being done here, blaming all the CDC as institution of the bad performance of some members.

[Ishan]

Which is exactly what is being done here, blaming all the CDC as institution of the bad performance of some members.

That's not what is going on here. I explained previously somewhere in this thread why those "some members" aren't being put here in the crosshair & instead the term CdeC is being used collectively here, so that we don't deviate from the real issue and that those members don't get all worked up and carry on grudges till eternity. There's even a member of CdeC who supports this.

[Bethencourt]

So the CDC preformance is wrong by design? Well maybe that is correct, look at me, I was made citizen.

[Diamat]

Wouldn't it be rather amusing if, in the end, after having removed CdeC, it becomes even harder for members to become citizens? Wouldn't it be rather amusing if citizens actually lose even more interest, especially those who were in favor of CdeC and devoted much of their time to it? Wouldn't it be rather amusing if, after the initial excitement has gone way, only 12 people would vote on such applications? Wouldn't it be rather amusing if the Curia then truly turns into a giant theater stage, where single citizenship applications become the setting of divided political interests?

Don't get me wrong. As you all know, I am no fan of CdeC as it currently exists, which is why I have not run again. However, after weighing the various arguments, I am extremely skeptical as to what the result would be if we simply eliminate CdeC. What I would prefer to try first is to change the mindset of CdeC, which is what this is all really about. We can't just remove an institution just because we disagree with the people who are in it. That's not how you build consensus; instead, it will only generate animosity. Hence I would prefer to attempt to change the mindset of CdeC by making it subject to a larger voting population rather than a restricted, exclusive elite. Yes, you can certainly change CdeC's mindset by removing its brain completely, but then you're creating a whole new kind of system you have no experience in dealing with, something incredibly hard to gauge, too idealistic, and mainly based on words.

[Inkie]

Wouldn't it be rather amusing if, in the end, after having removed CdeC, it becomes even harder for members to become citizens? Wouldn't it be rather amusing if citizens actually lose even more interest, especially those who were in favor of CdeC and devoted much of their time to it? Wouldn't it be rather amusing if, after the initial excitement has gone way, only 12 people would vote on such applications? Wouldn't it be rather amusing if the Curia then truly turns into a giant theater stage, where single citizenship applications become the setting of divided political interests?

Those are very outlandish conclusions to make, and if any of them were to come true I think it's without a doubt that the Curia would back a return of the CdeC.

[Diamat]

Those are very outlandish conclusions to make, and if any of them were to come true I think it's without a doubt that the Curia would back a return of the CdeC.

Wait, my conclusions are outlandish? And those aren't conclusions, those are "what if's". The very fact that no one here can prove these "what if's" wrong is what scares the crap out of me. The level of idealism displayed by this proposal is frightening, especially its uncritical acceptance.

If this goes to a vote, I would probably vote in favor of it, but I sure as hell wouldn't feel good about it.

[The Roman Republic]

After reading and keeping track of this I've come to a conclusion that the whole reason for this is the lack of activity within the curia, and the purpose of this amendment is that by removing the CdeC it will in theory generate more "jobs" for the citizen in terms of using there own experience to best judge the member and allow for a more accurate and precise form of assessment of that member in hand. Which in theory will lower the "barrier" for new applicants allowing an increase of new citizens.

However, couldn't the CedC positions be divided into specific areas of the TWC site, content, modding, etc

Regardless of that, I now support Squids amendment.

[Bethencourt]

After reading and keeping track of this I've come to a conclusion that the whole reason for this is the lack of activity within the curia, and the purpose of this amendment is that by removing the CdeC it will in theory generate more "jobs" for the citizen in terms of using there own experience to best judge the member and allow for a more accurate and precise form of assessment of that member in hand. Which in theory will lower the "barrier" for new applicants allowing an increase of new citizens.

However, couldn't the CedC positions be divided into specific areas of the TWC site, content, modding, etc

Regardless of that, I now support Squids amendment.

It is funny because reading all the reasons you post there I thought you would end not supporting the amendment. Just because you say "in theory".

[The Roman Republic]

It is funny because reading all the reasons you post there I thought you would end not supporting the amendment. Just because you say "in theory".

In theory as it's not been proven that it's going to work or go as planned, yet just like the CdeC was a theory when it was created.

[Bethencourt]

About the election of the members, normally there is not a debate saying "I think you should do this instead of what you did in this case", there are not parties, I mean the party of Lower the Barrier and the party of High Standards are Good. Many times the debates look more like a miss election, "peace for the world" kind of content.

[Bethencourt]

Dictator. Yes I understood what you meant. But at the same time I think a change of mechanism is not enough. What is the activity expected to be done by the citizens is what makes the people be interested in this forum. CDC members have a motivation to make their work. Citizens? that you friend is applying?. I think if the CDC is going to be abolished the proposal has to be more believable in terms of citizens motivation to make them work.

[Navajo Joe]

Diamat,

I think it would an interesting exercise to see, if that CDEC is abolished, on the first citizen application, if none of the folk that have been a CDEC councillor in the last year vote. Firstly it would be interesting to see how many vote and the vote conclusion.

Ishan,

You are confusing me a little, in one post you talk of its about CDEC, then another about the members cleaning up their act, its either one or the other.

Squid,

You acknowledged that CDEC is potentially one of a number of inherent problems, but its this problem you want to deal with, is that because its the easiest one, perhaps a scapegoat or just another reason altogether?

[StealthFox]

I think it would an interesting exercise to see, if that CDEC is abolished, on the first citizen application, if none of the folk that have been a CDEC councillor in the last year vote. Firstly it would be interesting to see how many vote and the vote conclusion.

This is one thing I don't understand. This amendment does nothing to stop anyone involved in CdeC, past, present, and aspiring councilors, from participating in the process. On the contrary it brings in more people to act as checks and balances. The only thing that changes is that the badge and high seat of power with the ability to lord over people is gone. Assuming past councilors are still active on the site and haven't left due to lack of time or other reasons, if they stop participating, I can't help but to think they were only in it for the badge and office.

@ Shankbot: While I appreciate the effort, that's only a reaction to what I posted and isn't what I was looking for. Can anyone post a list of reasons on why this amendment is not a good idea?

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

@ Shankbot: While I appreciate the effort, that's only a reaction to what I posted and isn't what I was looking for. Can anyone post a list of reasons on why this amendment is not a good idea?

Yeah sorry I was just trying to counter-balance what you were saying so people don't need to look to far to see the opposite summed up as well. Although I think most of what I've highlighted are the main concerns besides the old "we don't like change" arguments. Personally I think they are all to one extent or another valid reasons for why the amendment shouldn't pass.

[m_1512]

This is one thing I don't understand. This amendment does nothing to stop anyone involved in CdeC, past, present, and aspiring councilors, from participating in the process. On the contrary it brings in more people to act as checks and balances. The only thing that changes is that the badge and high seat of power with the ability to lord over people is gone. Assuming past councilors are still active on the site and haven't left due to lack of time or other reasons, if they stop participating, I can't help but to think they were only in it for the badge and office.

You would be simply astounded to hear that this did used to happen there.

[Inkie]

Wait, my conclusions are outlandish? And those aren't conclusions, those are "what if's". The very fact that no one here can prove these "what if's" wrong is what scares the crap out of me. The level of idealism displayed by this proposal is frightening, especially its uncritical acceptance.

If this goes to a vote, I would probably vote in favor of it, but I sure as hell wouldn't feel good about it.

Ah, excuse me for misunderstanding. The fact is that any change of this sort (replacing one system with another) will engender such what if's, and it's wholly impossible to prove them wrong if there's no empirical evidence yet. I think that if you feel a proposal has great potential yet aren't sure whether it will realize this potential or not, you shouldn't let "what if's" have too much of an influence on your vote, because they can be endless and really you'd be opting for not testing/learning rather than testing/learning.

[Diamat]

Ah, excuse me for misunderstanding. The fact is that any change of this sort (replacing one system with another) will engender such what if's, and it's wholly impossible to prove them wrong if there's no empirical evidence yet. I think that if you feel a proposal has great potential yet aren't sure whether it will realize this potential or not, you shouldn't let "what if's" have too much of an influence on your vote, because they can be endless and really you'd be opting for not testing/learning rather than testing/learning.

You are excused.

But as I said, I am also a pragmatist. Based on what I know and have learned about the Curia, and forum behavior in general, people lose interest quickly. Yes, they get excited when they can make great changes, and they feel like this motivation will last even once the changes have been made. But this is not true. Forum time is different than real world time. All the passion that goes into this will quickly wither away. And then what would we be left with? An apathetic Curia who is even worse than CdeC when it comes to deciding on citizenship. The one redeeming value about CdeC is that they have to be interested. They have to care. While the rest of the Curia can be apathetic, CdeC will have to work. Since forums will always have lows in member activity, such an institution is actually a blessing, if used correctly. At present, it has many flaws, but these are reparable flaws. We should not put all the blame on CdeC as an institution, but on the way it is run. Many reformers here seem to think that the current apathetic state of the Curia is due to CdeC and the way citizenship is decided upon, but this is absolutely incorrect - this is a fact of forum life.

What I just said is based on real, tangible evidence. All who've been here for some time know this to be true. I say it again and again, we must combine our ideals with realistic methods; our ideals should not be detached from reality. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I am suspicious of the method.

[Inkie]

You are excused.

But as I said, I am also a pragmatist. Based on what I know and have learned about the Curia, and forum behavior in general, people lose interest quickly. Yes, they get excited when they can make great changes, and they feel like this motivation will last even once the changes have been made. But this is not true. Forum time is different than real world time. All the passion that goes into this will quickly wither away. And then what would we be left with? An apathetic Curia who is even worse than CdeC when it comes to deciding on citizenship. The one redeeming value about CdeC is that they have to be interested. They have to care. While the rest of the Curia can be apathetic, CdeC will have to work. Since forums will always have lows in member activity, such an institution is actually a blessing, if used correctly. At present, it has many flaws, but these are reparable flaws. We should not put all the blame on CdeC as an institution, but on the way it is run. Many reformers here seem to think that the current apathetic state of the Curia is due to CdeC and the way citizenship is decided upon, but this is absolutely incorrect - this is a fact of forum life.

What I just said is based on real, tangible evidence. All who've been here for some time know this to be true. I say it again and again, we must combine our ideals with realistic methods; our ideals should not be detached from reality. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I am suspicious of the method.

What real, tangible evidence do you have that citizens will 'quickly' lose all interest in apps to their ranks? Why is it a fact of forum life that the Curia is inactive?

Also, I think you're not seeing the bigger picture here. I know you might call this a conspiracy like you did last time, but fortunately we have several potential changes going on here at once that all include, as planned by-products, providing things for the citizenry to actually do in the Capitol. It's a shame the proposal for citizens to not have to wait 3 months before patronizing went down the drain, but the House Cup plan is coming along fine. You can say that things might remain inactive, but think for a moment whether we would actually be discussing a tangible loss of anything in such a case? Then think about all that there is to gain from both new features if they go as intended, similarly or better.