[Amendment] Abolish CdeC

[Noif de Bodemloze]

Sir Squid

Sorry, but not personal: What I am feeling about your previous comments here sound like you are "angry/mad" for us and using force words against us like you did for Inarus. Feeling uncomfortable to see this kind comments by Hex against people who oppose this. We don't need argue to take this case too personally.

[Squid]

Sir Squid

Sorry, but not personal: What I am feeling about your previous comments here sound like you are "angry/mad" for us and using force words against us like you did for Inarus. Feeling uncomfortable to see this kind comments by Hex against people who oppose this. We don't need argue to take this case too personally.

I'm sorry it appears that way but I'm neither angry nor mad. I'd have to assume you are referring to my responses to his TD comments and his bribery comments. I'd have to ask why should I take them as other than they were presented. The bribery comment especially was basically an insinuation that I was saying councilors were being bribed. Did I respond with irritation, certainly, did I call out the unnecessary strawman argument, twice since he attempted to justify it. If those aren't what you're referring to it must be my characterization of the job that CdeC is doing as being poor. I'll only say if a member of CdeC doesn't want their choices to be scrutinized, discussed and disected, and this isn't directed at you or any current councilor but in general, then they shouldn't have run for the office in the first place.

As for comments by a member of hex, I'm first and foremost a member of this site, and beyond that a citizen. I've seen far worse comments made by citizens (or certainly regular members) get far less attention than my posts. To the best of my knowledge I have not broken any rules not have I exhibited behaviour that is inappropriate for a citizen. If you feel this isn't the case please go ahead and report the post(s) and/or refer me to CdeC so they can discuss it. Until that time I will not comment further as that part of the discussion has ended and I doubt will be brought up again.

[Ishan]

Feeling uncomfortable to see this kind comments by Hex against people who oppose this.

No need to feel uncomfortable. They're only posting as citizens here and expressing what they feel about something. You can engage them freely and agree\disagree wherever you feel like.

[m_1512]

Support this.

Perhaps the councillors opposed to Squid are not seeing the point. There have been many instances when comments made in the CdeC have been to the point of "" and clearly showed that the quality in the CdeC was on steady decline and the body has got some priorities wrong. I still remember of my Curator term where there were instances where I could have sworn out "Damn them!" aloud. I've not listed out the main problems but I am sure people who keep track of this place know what is exactly happening there. As for opening up a process of uninformed opinions to majority of uninformed opinions, it might not be so bad after all. You are forgetting that public application means there can be a scope for wider set of opinions on the matter than the dry old CdeC phrases of digging into, going on the right track, and what not.

Because in my eyes, removing the CdeC would not solve the main issue, which is that the Curia is perceived as boring and/or useless. It would remove the CdeC elections which at least attach a certain number of people to the Curia.

The first time I patronized someone for citizenship was in 2005 - citizen applications were still handled by Hexagon Council then. I'm not the most prolific of patrons in terms of numbers, but I've been in the market here and there the whole time. What I find and it has been getting worse in the past six months, is a fear of CdeC from general members. I've asked a lot of people who'd I consider valuable to the site and community of whom should feel welcome in what is essentially, a VIP area of the forum. The general perception I get on the ground is that people would be most happy with a funky citizen badge and some extra privilege. But they feel it's a waste of time trying because the bar is so high. When I became a citizen I had around 120 posts. While I wouldn't advocate going to such a low level of regular posting these days, I feel the bar has gone too far the opposite way. Too far to the point where it can be difficult, even for the first guy to mod a Warscape engine campaign map in years to get it without intervention from Hexagon. There's a propensity for some in CdeC to jump to a no conclusion too early without so much as even bothering checking out their latest posts. With more people chipping in, then this is less likely. If you want a recent example of this, only last week, Dictator's application comes up. The Head of News of all people.

Here is another example. It is about someone I had tried to patronize, and not only had it gone down real bad, it also proved to me how the CdeC was wrong. To spare the boring lecture, it was about a modder who was running a promising mod team but was rejected by the CdeC simply because he had not envisioned a mod like DarthMods and was on the track, but had some miles before him.

[Garbarsardar]

How about having a citizens triumvirate consisting of the curator and both magistrates, and they can privately review disciplinary cases. I think that would work really well.

That is fine as well.


Although we could have a two stage disciplinary process: the above committee decides there are grounds for disciplinary action and the Curia sets the punishment.

[StealthFox]

Although we could have a two stage disciplinary process: the above committee decides there are grounds for disciplinary action and the Curia sets the punishment.

That could be interesting, or it could be like a mob with pitchforks. But I'd be willing to give it a try if others like it .

[Garbarsardar]

If the CdeC is incapable of (s)electing citizens, how can it be trusted to discipline them? I will support this proposal only if it goes all the way:
1.remove the CdeC completely
2.make a disciplinary committee composed of the curator, the moderator overseer and one more elected member (this member should probably have served as a tribune in the past)
3.the committee decides if a disciplinary case goes to public discussion and vote

[Inkie]

I know this sounds impractical, but would it be possible to make it that votes don't count unless the voter has posted some form of justification in the application thread?

I'm glad that such a type of change is finally being discussed openly by big-shot members with lots of experience. I do feel that the Curia has potential to be a lot more than it currently is, and I think the CdeC system is a cap on that potential more than anything else. Sure, I don't think anybody is free of doubt about people voting without enough effort, but that seems to happen plenty enough as is, enough to dampen the validity of having an only nominally professional cadre in charge of things. May I be wrong? Perhaps, but any theory is useless without being tested, and I think that in order to move forward we need to be more willing to actually change things rather than just speak of doing so, even if we cannot 100% guarantee that they'll be changes we'll want to keep permanently.

If I have one main problem with the proposal, it's that I can easily imagine - particularly if posters rightfully want to justify their votes - application threads becoming swamped in posts, to the point that people don't read through them and so the benefit of an increased amount of varied, decisive input (one of the main virtues I can imagine this pluralized system having) would be negated.

If the CdeC is incapable of (s)electing citizens, how can it be trusted to discipline them? I will support this proposal only if it goes all the way:
1.remove the CdeC completely
2.make a disciplinary committee composed of the curator, the moderator overseer and one more elected member (this member should probably have served as a tribune in the past)
3.the committee decides if a disciplinary case goes to public discussion and vote

I would agree with removing the CdeC completely, but if as Stealthfox suggests this kind of group wouldn't be possible, would no-one support discipline being enacted by the citizenry?

@GotR oops, missed that. From what I've seen of public discipline, it did look like it was something that involved greater transparency, participation and a bit of fun on occasion, but then I don't know what the kind of deep, dark infraction that shouldn't ever be seen by the public looks like, so perhaps I'm not the best one to discuss it.

[StealthFox]

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.

I thought of that, and the other side of that argument is that people's names will be public, so they better be confident in how they are voting as they will be open to scrutiny. That way we don't have people obstructing for the sake of it or always voting yes, when in some cases it really should be a no.

@Garb: I highly doubt any moderation overseer would want to take on that role. They have enough to deal with as it is.

@Q: Well said!

[AngryTitusPullo]

Abstain.

All this talk about CDeC and all, is this precursor to the 2nd (or 3rd) TWC Civil War ?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

All this talk about CDeC and all, is this precursor to the 2nd (or 3rd) TWC Civil War ?

Never fear The Tyler Rose{Earl Campbell} shall lead us to glory... If not then the mob shall rule...


~
~
~...........~

[Ishan]

@Omni
I have decided that i'm not going to read Dictator's application as after reading your post i think it may piss me off.

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.

I like poach's idea although i do agree with you that modding council doesn't really belong as a part of it. I was more thinking of it as an individual body and where modders from each houses came in and did things modding related. Everything from management of modder's resources, mod related tutorials, awarding modders and granting them ranks of artifex and stuff & much dedicated focus on non-TW modding where i might even try to bring in some modders from nexus - i have been making some contacts there.

Although with the recent talks about being major changes in the curia itself i think it's best to come at this later. I have a lot of points and facts to offer, which is something i felt while organizing the modding awards, we have muizer and people like T.C to offer us guidance in it as well, so probably best to talk about this later. Because when i want to present it then i want everybody thinking of modding on TWC and modders of TWC only.

I thought of that, and the other side of that argument is that people's names will be public, so they better be confident in how they are voting as they will be open to scrutiny. That way we don't have people obstructing for the sake of it or always voting yes, when in some cases it really should be a no.

Yeah i guess making it fully transparent is the way to go.

All this talk about CDeC and all, is this precursor to the 2nd (or 3rd) TWC Civil War ?

Yeah give them ideas for full scale wars. Naughty lestat.

Edit:
And we need to find an answer and solution for this as well:

If the CdeC is incapable of (s)electing citizens, how can it be trusted to discipline them?

[Navajo Joe]

I agree with Garb, if you want to get rid of CDEC in citizen applications, you need to remove them from discipline as if they cannot be trusted to approve applications, they certainly cannot be trusted to making any decision on a citizen remaining a citizen

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I agree with Garb, if you want to get rid of CDEC in citizen applications, you need to remove them from discipline as if they cannot be trusted to approve applications, they certainly cannot be trusted to making any decision on a citizen remaining a citizen

If the CdeC is going to be removed as the gatekeeper, it should be done properly. All mention should be removed from the Constitution and power handed to the Curia at large.

What are people's thoughts about staff referrals? In the current setup, they are held in private, just like infractions, because the logic is that a user's interaction with moderation is private unless they appeal it. Special consideration is given to CdeC which is sent copies of infractions when citizens receive them. I'm not sure how I feel about making this information public to all citizens.

1. So....get rid of the CdeC then, but how to keep a non-staff presence in disipline cases so as to maintain an aire of impartiality?

2. A majority of members hold their privacy with zelatous ferver, if disipline cases are now to be completetly public, the members response would not be good. For example....I've asked many newborn citizens to please make their reviews public, so that others can learn from their examples. The overwhelming response to this request was that if their reviews were made public...

1. They would renounse their citizenship,

2. They would leave the site.

[Genius of the Restoration]

If the CdeC is going to be removed as the gatekeeper, it should be done properly. All mention should be removed from the Constitution and power handed to the Curia at large.

What are people's thoughts about staff referrals? In the current setup, they are held in private, just like infractions, because the logic is that a user's interaction with moderation is private unless they appeal it. Special consideration is given to CdeC which is sent copies of infractions when citizens receive them. I'm not sure how I feel about making this information public to all citizens.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Disciplinary cases should not be public.

[StealthFox]

How about having a citizens triumvirate consisting of the curator and both magistrates, and they can privately review disciplinary cases. I think that would work really well.

[Navajo Joe]

How about having a citizens triumvirate consisting of the curator and both magistrates, and they can privately review disciplinary cases. I think that would work really well.

I would buy that for sure

[Squid]

Disciplinary cases should not be public.

Which is why I had left it unchanged and with CdeC.

How about having a citizens triumvirate consisting of the curator and both magistrates, and they can privately review disciplinary cases. I think that would work really well.

That's a brilliant idea!! I really should have talked it over with you first. Should I make the necessary changes to the OP and make this a clobber the CdeC entirely bill or do you want a second bill that removes only the discipline bit, which if both pass will have the effect of totally removing CdeC.

I would buy that for sure

I totally agree.

[StealthFox]

That's a brilliant idea!! I really should have talked it over with you first. Should I make the necessary changes to the OP and make this a clobber the CdeC entirely bill or do you want a second bill that removes only the discipline bit, which if both pass will have the effect of totally removing CdeC.

I think one overhaul bill would make sense.

If the citizens triumvirate idea works well, we could potentially empower them with other things too.