[Amendment] Abolish CdeC

[Squid]

Support, let's also rename the Curia to the Thema Devia and give out Optifex medals to anyone who can unlock all Rome 1 factions by himself.

Strawman thy name is Inarus. Don't waste everyone's time with stupid and pointless strawmen arguments, but hey anything to take away from the discussion at hand and make the change seem bad when they aren't. This isn't the D&D or TD, those who post here should be better than that.

This is, simply, insulting. Not to mention the "a CdeCer can be bribed" remark, a phrase recently being hurled around like stones at a Dark Ages execution.

Again another comment taken out of content, accidentally I'm sure, but hey I don't believe in coincidence but maybe you do. It was commented that this would make it likely that citizens would be pressured/bribed into voting for someone undeserving. To which I responded that it is the same as now except that now there's only the 12 people on CdeC instead of all citizens. I never CdeC had been bribed, only that they could be bribed, which is true any person can be bribed, it doesn't mean they will be.

And people come up with proposals to bring some dynamics to the Curia, a grand scheme to add some fun to it all, but it's shot down or manipulated by people who think the Curia is pointless and are nostalgic for what they think it once was.

Says the person who is now opposing one of those proposals. Oh the irony!

And people hate the CdeC for how it works, but why? We have no guidelines, when we are first voted in we're expected to know exactly what to do and when we vote, if we don't vote the way you want us to, you rant about it and say the CdeC should be abolished. Or if you have the power, you'll even step into CdeC itself and tell us how to vote. God knows there's some votes and comments I'd readily take back because I had this view of the CdeC that was instilled into me as I was writing my application. And because the CdeC have no guidelines, because there is no strict definition of what the hell this place is, we'll go on, some of us seeing it as a place for the hard working contributors of Total War Center, some of us seeing it as a pat on the back for just posting every week, keeping the community alive, most of us failing to see what it is and treading the line in between, voting confusingly.

Common sense should be used, and CdeC, regardless of its membership, seems to lack it. And yes I have stepped into CdeC, as have other admins, and more or less bullied it into voting the way it should vote rather than letting it try to count up tick marks on some imaginary list that doesn't exist.

I'd also like to say "hell why not" is not a good bloody reason to support an amendment or to apply for a position.

I find this comment to be hilarious since most of the citizens that oppose change vote no with the reasoning of "hell why", so "hell why not" should be plenty good enough.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

"In Halie we trust"...

Originally Posted by Mhaedros

I'd also like to say "hell why not" is not a good bloody reason to support an amendment or to apply for a position.

Originally Posted by Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

The amount of folks who bust their humps around here, yet go unacknoweldged & unappreciated is astounding! Maybe this will start to set things to right..
{Well...at least this would fix the transparency issue that has kept all members from being at part of the process. Now every member can throw in their two cents even from high up in the "cheap seats".}

[Påsan]

Support, let's also rename the Curia to the Thema Devia

Why would you want to ruin the Devia?

[Amendment] CdeC no longer decides on citizenship

Support.

No fan of the current system I'm afraid.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

The reason I chose to keep CdeC for discipline is that like when a user is disciplined by a moderation

Aside from providing the member with the option to "go public" it also somewhat quells the cries that" the Staff is ganging up on me" since the CdeC are elected and not staff, so their opinions are their own.

[StealthFox]

Support.

One question, the current applications polls are public meaning that you can see how councilors voted. Do we keep that or not? I think we should keep it public so you can see who is supporting and who is not.

[Derpy Hooves]

Support.

One question, the current applications polls are public meaning that you can see how councilors voted. Do we keep that or not? I think we should keep it public so you can see who is supporting and who is not.

Support, and I agree with what you say good StealthFox. I will also say this, if doing this is truly bad then we can always go back. Why no one doesn't wish to try something new is beyond me.

[Squid]

Support.

One question, the current applications polls are public meaning that you can see how councilors voted. Do we keep that or not? I think we should keep it public so you can see who is supporting and who is not.

I'd have no problem with it going that way. I'd have to check the constitution to see how it would be covered as I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote up the changes.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

One question, the current applications polls are public meaning that you can see how councilors voted. Do we keep that or not? I think we should keep it public so you can see who is supporting and who is not.

Keep it. The more eyes on the prize, the better. "If" something stinks, someone will see it and point it out.

[ElvenKind]

Oh yes, and: Support.

Changes are welcome, if they prove wrong, we can always go back to CDeC voting.

[Ishan]

We should hide the citizen names just like general curia polls are, because it was a bit different for cdec. Where i would like to see how a Councillor voted and under what reasons etc. He was somewhat under scrutiny.

Here if citizens are aware that their names will be public, then they might hesitate to vote "no" if they feel he's\she's not worthy enough. As you can see 17 people voted no in a recent poll without anyone actually coming forward to oppose the change.

Maybe having complete transparency in who voted for who is good, i dunno.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Or... all Citizens can comment, only CdeC can vote - best of both worlds.

[Ishan]

We already have that. Citizens can comment in curial commentary or CdeC feedback thread for ongoing applications.

[Squid]

We already have that. Citizens can comment in curial commentary or CdeC feedback thread for ongoing applications.

Fat lot of good that's done.

[.Mitch.]

Opposed.

Can't believe I'm opposing, but here is why:

You don't fix a system broken by cases of uninformed opinions by opening the debate to a wider audience and thus higher majority of uninformed opinions.

The problem as I see it is that people are weighing in on things that they aren't fully qualified, for lack of a better word, to weigh in on.

Citizenship applications in the hands of the sites Citizenship as a whole will be entirely popularity based competitions, at least the CdeC at the moment has a modicum of grounding in actual merit based decisions because of the semi-official and public nature of the proceedings and the requirement of the CdeC to at least look like they're basing their opinions on the correct things.

Who should decide if a modder is worthy of being an Artifex, modders.
Who should decide if a debater is worthy of being a Citizen, debaters.

The CdeC is a bad way of dealing with applications. This amendment is not even close to the answer in my humble opinion, and surprisingly I think it's even worse.

[Squid]

Opposed.

Can't believe I'm opposing, but here is why:

You don't fix a system broken by cases of uninformed opinions by opening the debate to a wider audience and thus higher majority of uninformed opinions.

That's a pretty bad assumption. The number of uninformed people will always be about the same, the only thing that opening it up to all citizens is increase the number of informed people actually involved, it doesn't change the percentages. Assume that for any given application 50% of citizens are informed. In CdeC this means at most 6 people know what they're talking about (since councilors occasionally don't vote, are absent, etc). If you open it to all citizens, you still have 50% of people informed but now instead of 50% of 12 its 50% of ~36 or 18 citizens (based on the patronization change vote) so your group of informed people has tripled.

The problem as I see it is that people are weighing in on things that they aren't fully qualified, for lack of a better word, to weigh in on.

An even bigger problem is that those who are "qualified" are just as bad as those that aren't for deciding on things.

Citizenship applications in the hands of the sites Citizenship as a whole will be entirely popularity based competitions

I've said this a time or three in this application already, its better for a member to become a citizen based on popularity who maybe shouldn't than to not have someone become a citizen who clearly should based on something that no one, certainly not anybody on CdeC can define.

at least the CdeC at the moment has a modicum of grounding in actual merit based decisions because of the semi-official and public nature of the proceedings and the requirement of the CdeC to at least look like they're basing their opinions on the correct things.

Whatever it looks like they're doing it isn't working and they're doing a crappy job.

Who should decide if a modder is worthy of being an Artifex, modders.
Who should decide if a debater is worthy of being a Citizen, debaters.

Except that the modders are just as bad as the non-modders and have made many astoundingly stupid and wrong comments because quite frankly no one modder can understand all different aspects of modding and you don't necessarily have someone who's an expert in that particular area. This at least increases the number of people involved so increases the chances that someone who actually knows something can say something reasonable.

The CdeC is a bad way of dealing with applications. This amendment is not even close to the answer in my humble opinion, and surprisingly I think it's even worse.

Nothing can be worse than CdeC since they're terrible. As I've said before everyone wants change, but one is willing to actually make a change. You can't say it wouldn't work and that it's worse since you haven't tried it nor have you seen it in action.

[.Mitch.]

snip

Well the point of this amendment as you've stated is that there are uninformed people discussing things they should have to be informed about. I don't see how opening the discussion to a wider audience would fix this, even accepting your math the votes outcome would be the exact same if the percentage of informed people remained the same, you'd just have more votes.

That said, if you have modder X going for Citizenship right now he's in front of 12 elected people that should (though probably not I admit) have been elected based on their ability to correctly assess the application. With this amendment you have modder X going in front of all Citizens without any guarantee whatsoever that whoever votes has any ability at all to correctly assess modder X.

Sure modders who know that modder X should pass can now weigh in on the discussion, great, but they can anyway via the current system. I myself have PM'd the CdeC once or twice to let them know my opinion on an application and that the applicant should probably pass. If I want my voice to be heard, or any voice speaking from a position of knowledge and experience then the current system of shooting off a quick PM to a small group of people who's job it is to take this seriously will almost definitely guarantee that the CdeC hear the opinion and should it be an opinion from someone known to "know his stuff" then it will almost always assure the applicant passes (it has everytime I've sent a PM).
Posting in what will likely be a large thread where anyone can give their opinion would drown out the opinion of someone who's opinion should be taken seriously imo.

I think the only real solution (or at least the only one ever discussed) to the issue of making sure 'qualified' people vote on applications is something like a modding council that's been suggested in the past. If modder X doing some modding for Napoleon Total War applies would I know if they should pass? Of course I would, in an instant, likely just from their name or at most a quick glance at their work I'd know if they should pass.
Likewise if someone modding Rome Total War came in, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind you'd know very quickly whether or not they qualify. A quick, accurate and informed opinion, a simple and clean system.

I'd like to finish by saying the CdeC is flawed and you've admitted yourself your idea is flawed as it has the same problem as the current system when it boils down to it.

I'd like to see the CdeC go, which I was I was amazed I found myself opposing this, but I'd like to see any expended energy and effort go towards an idea that would actually finally fix the issue at heart, not simply move it to the Q&S subforum.

@Mitch
Grab hedge, TC and every other modder you know and join the house cup discussion to have a modding council formed there. What its purpose would be and how it will perform. Bring me everyone.

I personally think the house cup isn't a great idea, and would only serve to divide the community while trying to create greater community. Maybe I'm wrong, but either way the modding council idea I do really like, but I think it should be an entirely separate one to this houses idea.

Even if the houses idea was implemented I think it would be better to have any potential 'modding council' as a separate entity.

[Poach]

I proposed this in discussion many moons ago and it was shot down by the Curial clique. Support.

[Derpy Hooves]

I proposed this in discussion many moons ago and it was shot down by the ultraconservative Curial clique. Support.

​Fixed for you

[Ishan]

@Mitch
Grab hedge, TC and every other modder you know and join the house cup discussion to have a modding council formed there. What its purpose would be and how it will perform. Bring me everyone.

[Poach]

Or don't, Houses are totally incompatible with a Modding Council. That would be done per-House if the House decided it was a good idea.