[Amendment] Abolish CdeC

[Justinian]

Allow me to emerge from my cave, dust off my lapels, and peer blinkingly into the light of the Prothalamos.

I think the overall goal here is to increase the activity of the Curia and give Citizens at large a compelling reason to use the Curia in the first place. That's a goal I can get behind -- I felt for all my years as an active participant of this website that the Curia should have a larger role in the site. It needs a sense of purpose to justify its very existence. Maybe you have an answer here. My first thought when I read this is "there's no way, there are far too many Citizens to ever get organized and vote on Citizen candidates", but then I read around some other threads which suggest that the activity is ~36 people at any given time. So I think that's a small enough group for the vote to be manageable.

The real question is whether or not people are really going to put any thought into their vote. Are they going to take half an hour out of their day to pore through a candidate, especially if it's someone they've never encountered on the forum? Maybe there could be extra things included in the voting process. For example, a requirement that Citizens post at least twice in the thread in order to cast a vote in it, to foster some discussion on that person. I think seeing the opinions of more active Citizens (or seeing people going back and forth over whether a candidate is deserving or not) would spark interest on the part of less active Citizens to look through the candidate's posts, or at least be swayed by some good arguments on one side or the other.

In that same vein, I think you should strike out this line:

Citizens must neither vote nor post in applications of members they patronize.

This regulation made sense in a 12 member body where 1 vote would give that person an unfair advantage. Opened up to a wider body, I don't think this regulation is necessary: a patron should be able to vote for their client, and passionately defend that client's suitability to be a citizen. This will spark that discussion I was talking about above, and help generate interest in more recalcitrant members.

And now, to climb back aboard my old wagon in an insignificant coda to this post: there are only two things that ever truly made the Curia a relevant place, and a thriving community, at least in the time that I've been here (I can't speak for the pre-OgresNet days). Those were:

• Having an honest-to-god enemy for everyone to be united against in a common purpose for the betterment of the site. The Curia defended its uniqueness (a democratic organization with actual oversight that was accustomed to being involved in the decisionmaking -- that ON wanted to abolish) and by eventually forcing independence from ON.
• Electing staff members.

The first one went away as soon as the Curia got what it wanted. Simply put, when the site became a much better place under the new owners, there was no more unifying presence in the Curia. This is not exactly a sad thing: the site and community benefited greatly from it.

The second one is what I have always campaigned for ... but now it seems irrelevant. If the Curia has gotten to the point where it is truly an inactive, lame-duck house that can only perpetuate itself and do little else for the site, then there is no reason to expect the Hex to abdicate any part of their ability to choose their own staff. Perhaps this amendment could rejuvenate the Curia and maybe, just maybe, nudge it along the road towards becoming the sort of place staff might trust to elect a small portion of staff members as representatives. It's what made TWC a special place for me -- the idea of democracy on forums is just rare, and we got a lot of good leaders out of it -- and maybe it could do so again.

But ignore my last, irrelevant part of the post.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Abolishing the CdeC would just mean shifting the responsibility of vetting citizenship applications to somebody(s) else, and I fail to see what that would accomplish. I deplore the democratic popularity contest free-for-all that has been proposed and would bring in my dead relatives to vote against such a measure. I suppose transferring CdeC powers and responsibilities to Hex or Magistrates or whatnot could be fine, but then that would just add to their long list of responsibilities, meaning less time/effort to seriously consider an application (perhaps that is what supporters are hoping for and that "approve" will become the default response to any application). Anyway, I see little point in abolishing a specially designated body only to transfer those powers and responsibilities elsewhere, and again I vote "NO!!" on the Citizen democracy beauty pageant idea. If simply having a "great attitude" and being an amiable cheeky fellow is grounds for citizenship, then most of the members of this site are qualified and therefore citizenship itself is pointless; that is, if the point of citizenship is to stand out as a reliable candidate for responsibilities in the governing of the site. Besides, given that the CdeC has declined a whopping 10% of applications in the last 6 months (and with good reason in said cases), I hardly see how these "sticks in the mud" are somehow blocking a wealth of great citizenship material. After the browbeating they've gotten I'd be surprised if they ever reject another application again. I wasn't exactly a Boy Scout and my application sailed through, as do most it seems.

Reading all these frantic amendments, and indeed, gauging by the mood of Staff and Hex in recent months, I feel all these proposed changes are simply born out of frustration. I completely understand. Heck, I was set to relaunch a bigger and better Helios pub about a month ago and had the wind torn from my sails at the last minute by unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances. I know the feeling. But radical change doesn't mean radical results, let alone good ones. The problem with inactivity is not the CdeC, the Curia, or a lack of Citizens; it's a lack of activity. Unless and until new and existing members get bouncing off the walls excited to mod, write, "paint," draw, and vote, the site will suffer, and there's very little anyone can do about that. If people don't want to get involved, more citizens is not going to do squat. If you want more citizens on the basis of "great attitude," I've got at least 3 names I'm willing to patronize right now, and will probably set up questionnaire application templates to send to the dozens of other users I'd do the same for....at which point I ask again, why even have citizens if that's what supporters are going for here.

[Inkie]

Here are some things you're not taking into account:

Firstly, citizens are naturally cautious about the idea of new arrivals. This is because regardless of how much people might want to raise or lower the bar, in truth nobody wants to 'ruin' citizenship by rendering the badge they earned meaningless.

Why do you mention a popularity contest? I don't know about you, but unlike in the member awards, I don't often see people I know in applications. If anything - and no offense to serving councillors - there's more potential for popularity contests in the CdeC elections at the moment than I believe there would be in public citizen apps.

As for the percentage of failed apps, you're failing to take into account the several occasions which have indirectly led to this situation, where Hex had to intervene and give councillors a little slap on the cheek to turn an unwarrantedly uncertain or likely 'no' into a deserved 'yes'. Does this mean I think that councillors are bad? Not at all, but there's a lot of merit in a free, open discussion in which a much larger variety of members can reliably affect the course of the vote.

I wholly agree that a strong current for reform will be based on frustration with a standing system, but why is that bad? I think a democratic component of a forum is something that possesses intrinsic potential, and rather than just settle to watch it gather dust and do nothing about a place which could be much more than a platform for 12 people to give out badges, I think we should be constantly working on making it better by trying alternative methods of merit.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Here are some things you're not taking into account:

Firstly, citizens are naturally cautious about the idea of new arrivals. This is because regardless of how much people might want to raise or lower the bar, in truth nobody wants to 'ruin' citizenship by rendering the badge they earned meaningless.

Why do you mention a popularity contest? I don't know about you, but unlike in the member awards, I don't often see people I know in applications. If anything - and no offense to serving councillors - there's more potential for popularity contests in the CdeC elections at the moment than I believe there would be in public citizen apps.

Well, given that the theme here in the Curia seems to be "why is activity here so low and what can we do to fix it?" I think that answers your points. The basis of these latest amendments seems to be that many if not most current citizens suck at our jobs/aren't doing them, so we desperately need "fresh meat" to resurrect the Curia. As I said I don't really see why the Curia is so important, but that's beside the point. Leaving citizenship apps up to other citizens after supporters just got done saying said other citizens are largely inactive and others resistant to any change to the status quo seems like a contradiction in premises. If current citizens are barely active for the most part, how can they be expected to effectively research and vet every application when many of us can barely be bothered to research and vote on an amendment effectively? Does anyone here suppose that people who can barely vote are now supposed to be expected to dig through dozens of pages of Content, modding, help, friendly advice, and general contributions to draw an effective conclusion on an application 2-3 times per month; probably even more often with the proposed "lower" standards?" New citizenship applications will likely come down to the decision of an "elite" few who are dedicated enough to properly investigate an application, thus becoming a de facto CdeC, only without the official procedures and "objective" standards of analysis. On top of that, the process will be plagued by lazy voters who just vote for the sake of voting or out of a like or dislike of the particular user, and more popular/unpopular applicants will draw more positive/negative lazy votes based purely on "street rep." Maybe some of these are already problems with the current CdeC, but then, the problem, IMO, is to fix the CdeC, not get rid of it and naively suppose the same problems to get worse if not develop new ones. If a state representative or senator isn't doing what constituents want, he is voted out of office. Nobody simply demolishes the office altogether and moves to a referendum system (unless you're in California ).

As for the percentage of failed apps, you're failing to take into account the several occasions which have indirectly led to this situation, where Hex had to intervene and give councillors a little slap on the cheek to turn an unwarrantedly uncertain or likely 'no' into a deserved 'yes'. Does this mean I think that councillors are bad? Not at all, but there's a lot of merit in a free, open discussion in which a much larger variety of members can reliably affect the course of the vote.

Maybe so, but if anything, this "free and open discussion," given the current pattern, will likely only involve 10 or so members who really give a about the application battling back and forth about why someone should or shouldn't be a citizen......pretty much like a CdeC without "objective" criteria. At the end of it all there will probably be plenty of controversy and hurt feelers to come to a consensus, only to have the outcome derailed by lazy voters.

I wholly agree that a strong current for reform will be based on frustration with a standing system, but why is that bad? I think a democratic component of a forum is something that possesses intrinsic potential, and rather than just settle to watch it gather dust and do nothing about a place which could be much more than a platform for 12 people to give out badges, I think we should be constantly working on making it better by trying alternative methods of merit.

I wouldn't exactly slit my wrists if this amendment passed and the Athenian democracy many seem to yearn for here went into effect, but again, I don't see how it would fix any of the main problems mentioned with the Curia or the CdeC. Maybe change for the sake of change is fine. However, if the point of citizenship is to distinguish a member with potential for an effective leadership position, then I fail to see what the point of all this would be, apart from maybe resulting in a larger pool of citizens to choose from. That brings me back to square one, where I ask, if many site officers don't like the lot they have to pick from now, what makes them think adding more citizens will improve that situation?

[jimkatalanos]

Most of us old citizens would have been rejected with the current high standards. I remember a member being rejected because he had only contributed to 4-5 publication editions. Citizenship is supposed to be an award which encourages members to contribute, it is not the Phalera/Opifex/Novus award.

I see three options here:

-Radically change the CdeC. Change its policies and standards. Also the cdec's membership must always be diverse (modders, debaters, content etc).

-Abolish the Cdec and create smaller Councils (lets say three members for each council), each one responsible for an area of contribution. I can't think of fancy Latin names right now but there should be 3 Councils at least: Gaming (covers modding, gaming contributions), Debating (non-gaming areas), Staff (content and other staff contributions). Naturally you will have to be familiar with the area of a Council in order to be elected there.

-Abolish the Cded and go for a direct democracy where the citizens decide who joins their ranks.

[Mhaedros]

-Abolish the Cdec and create smaller Councils (lets say three members for each council), each one responsible for an area of contribution. I can't think of fancy Latin names right now but there should be 3 Councils at least: Gaming (covers modding, gaming contributions), Debating (non-gaming areas), Staff (content and other staff contributions). Naturally you will have to be familiar with the area of a Council in order to be elected there.

This I could agree to.

[Derpy Hooves]

We could also do a trial period equivalent to that of one CDEC term. If there is still wide opposition, then we can simply go back to having CDEC. So, those who oppose this, what would you think of having a trial run? If your fears are confirmed, we can easily go back to having CDEC. Plus, the amount of damage that could possibly be dealt to the idea of citizenship will be small and negligible in the long run. It doesn't hurt to try things out.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Oppose.

[Derpy Hooves]

I forgot to say this, I agree that the CDEC elections are popularity elections, and as such that does not neccessarily mean that the candidates elected are the best suited.

[Lord William]

All applications must go through the process stated within the constitution otherwise they are not "legitimate", and I refuse to change the constitution for a trial basis.




I am by no means popular but I am finishing my 3rd term on the CdeC

[Derpy Hooves]

I refuse to change the constitution for a trial basis.
I am by no means popular but I am finishing my 3rd term on the CdeC

Why? What do you have to lose from a short trial period? Having it proven that the CDEC is not needed?
If you are not popular, then that means you must have been elected because of your own merit. So the citizen body elects people based on merit not popularity and the citizen body cannot be trusted to vet new citizens because they'll choose popularity over merit. That does not make any sense.

[Lord William]

Why? What do you have to lose from a short trial period? Having it proven that the CDEC is not needed?
If you are not popular, then that means you must have been elected because of your own merit. So the citizen body elects people based on merit not popularity and the citizen body cannot be trusted to vet new citizens because they'll choose popularity over merit. That does not make any sense.

did i ever say the citizen would base their votes on popularity, no!!! I said that they will make ill informed decisions because they will not take the time to properly examine the application. I am not saying that all citizens will make ill informed decisions but I am certain the majority don't care. CdeC elections are slightly different because the majority of the candidates are repeat councillors who have already proven themselves and are known within the curia. Secondly the debate thread is supplementary in making an informed choice. with citizenship applications these factor of familiarity don't exist, every case will be fresh and there is no contact with the applicant

Changing the constitution even on a trial bases is still changing the constitution, It require more than 2/3 of the votes and my concern is that the abolitionist will refuse to return to the status quo once their experiment has failed (if they will ever accept its failure)....... this jumped rather quickly from being about an activity via house cup friendly competition to limiting the power of the CdeC to than finally abolishing it and what vexes me the most is that through all these leaps the hex has been the instigator in all of them. why is the hex pushing this agenda and not the common citizen if this system was so flawed? I wouldn't be surprised if soon we will be hearing ideas to scrap the curia, I know a couple that wouldn't mind

[Squid]

this jumped rather quickly from being about an activity via house cup friendly competition to limiting the power of the CdeC to than finally abolishing it

Again a member of CdeC showing they can't research even the simplest of things. When I proposed this I hadn't even read the house cup thread so trying to tie the two together is BS because they aren't related. As for not abolishing CdeC, had I thought of the Magistrate idea in the first place I would included that change in the initial proposal not changed it midway through. I was quite serious when I said I should have talked to Stealth Fox earlier and saved myself the headache.

and what vexes me the most is that through all these leaps the hex has been the instigator in all of them. why is the hex pushing this agenda and not the common citizen if this system was so flawed? I wouldn't be surprised if soon we will be hearing ideas to scrap the curia, I know a couple that wouldn't mind

What vexes me more is that if Q, Steath Fox, Poach and I do not step in then no one ever seems to try improve things. Even more vexing is all the citizens that constantly stand up and agree that things needs to change but never actually try to change them and in fact actively vote against any proposed changes.

[karamazovmm]

What vexes me more is that if Q, Steath Fox, Poach and I do not step in then no one ever seems to try improve things. Even more vexing is all the citizens that constantly stand up and agree that things needs to change but never actually try to change them and in fact actively vote against any proposed changes.

I simply complain and do my things, Im in content, Im a magistrate, I tried to raise some ideas for helios....

one thing is that you forget how much matters who is speaking, and Im a ing no one. lest be noted that you didn't even bothered to actually abate what I raised, which was essentially with this triumvirate the rise of the magistrates to a position of political power, or rather popularity power.

But you know what? I don't care.

I never liked the self serving that was the cdec. to breed for the point of breeding is rather innocuous and fairly useless. So I never cared.

So it doesn't matter if the magistrates will be a pop contest, I can't really be bothered. so I will say whatever you do to kill the cdec and make something of the useless body that is the curia I will support. even If I don't like the outcome.

raises the arms, rips the eyes out, get a flag and starts waving.

[Derpy Hooves]

did i ever say the citizen would base their votes on popularity, no!!! I said that they will make ill informed decisions because they will not take the time to properly examine the application. I am not saying that all citizens will make ill informed decisions but I am certain the majority don't care. CdeC elections are slightly different because the majority of the candidates are repeat councillors who have already proven themselves and are known within the curia. Secondly the debate thread is supplementary in making an informed choice. with citizenship applications these factor of familiarity don't exist, every case will be fresh and there is no contact with the applicant

Just because someone might be a repeat councilor does not mean he has what it takes. If you're saying that citizens would not take the proper time to examine applications, then they probably have not taken the time to examine a CDEC councilor's record or that councilor's beliefs. So in that case, a repeat councilor proving themself means nothing, since the citizens would not "take the proper time to examine" that councilor's record.

Changing the constitution even on a trial bases is still changing the constitution, It require more than 2/3 of the votes and my concern is that the abolitionist will refuse to return to the status quo once their experiment has failed (if they will ever accept its failure)....... this jumped rather quickly from being about an activity via house cup friendly competition to limiting the power of the CdeC to than finally abolishing it and what vexes me the most is that through all these leaps the hex has been the instigator in all of them. why is the hex pushing this agenda and not the common citizen if this system was so flawed? I wouldn't be surprised if soon we will be hearing ideas to scrap the curia, I know a couple that wouldn't mind

That is flawed reasoning. Two things. First, the abolitionists can do nothing if you wanted to bring it back via a vote (and that vote passes). The CVRIA is democratic. Second, if some wording was put into the bill that said something like "This is will be a trial run for x months. Once that time passes, there will be a vote to decide if the system stays or CDEC is brought back." That's all it takes.

[Ishan]

Squid,

How dare you accuse CDEC members of not putting in significant effort, I have done three terms as a Councillor in the last eighteen months and I have spent much time in looking at applications. I am very busy man in RL, have to juggle many balls as one might say and I have applied myself. I take your remark personally and require you retract that statement. I or anybody here as not doubted your ability or HEX, I would you to be respectful to others, stop rhetoric like this.

I don't think any CdeC member has put in any significant effort in a long time, with a few exceptions, and this would go back to when I was a councilor and would include myself if I'm being as honest as I'm asking others to. So as I said I'd rather have people get in due to popularity than not get in because they fail to tick off enough boxes on an imaginary list that no ones has.

I know you're one of them. Pasan was also in CdeC for a brief time, i liked him as a Councillor as well.

I refuse to change the constitution for a trial basis.

In case you didn't knew it has been changed on a trial basis before. Case in point, CdeC transparency during the tenure of Empress Meg.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Oppose in it's current form.

[Squid]

Simple as you stated the only members whom spend more than 30 seconds on the Curia boards is the CdeC and the Curator, and by striping them of their responsibility they will disappear into the masses. of course this is speculation just as you are only speculating that by doing this you will increase activity

That isn't what I stated. I said that for those that want to be more active there is nothing for them to do except spend 30 seconds once a month to elect people. Giving the citizen body at large a task they can do cannot make activity level in the curia any lower since it is non-existant already anyways. The other way to take your statement is to say that currently the Curia only exists right now so that CdeC has something to do, in which case we might as well take away the curia since that isn't a good reason for it to exist. Your statement also says that if CdeC didn't exist with its badges and baubles to be earned that those citizens who do partake in CdeC wouldn't be active either, which also suggests we should get rid of CdeC since they aren't concerned with the well being of the curia but only their own badges and baubles.

Citizens influence site policies and can amend the constitution which is an immense responsibility. If the average citizen is not active for implementing change within the constitution, what makes you think they will care at all about citizenship applications.

Look at this thread, and look at any other that's tried to propose changes that are more than window dressing and if you're honest you'll why no one cares about that responsibility anymore.

Its easy belittling other people's work, but the fact is that the ideal CdeC member should be putting immense amount of effort into each application. now if you dont think that the current CdeC members don't uphold your standards than don't vote for them next election but don't say that the citizenry as a whole can do a better job than the CdeC.

I don't think any CdeC member has put in any significant effort in a long time, with a few exceptions, and this would go back to when I was a councilor and would include myself if I'm being as honest as I'm asking others to. So as I said I'd rather have people get in due to popularity than not get in because they fail to tick off enough boxes on an imaginary list that no ones has.

I missed what Q said and I apologize, I will reread and address his statement

Abolish the CdeC???? I figured this was the end game, well my opposition has not changed

The above two quotes epitomize why CdeC is a failure. In arguably the most important thread in a councilors tenure, to defend the right of the position to exist a councilor manages to miss a significant post in the thread, and then proceeds to somehow miss nearly 20 posts worth of content discussing giving CdeC discipline over to the magistrates. If this is done for a thread of this import imagine what CdeC does for minutia like citizen applications.

Oppose.

The lengths your post goes to describe why you don't like it are staggering. </sarcasm> At least have the descency to provide some reasoning for what is a very important discussing on reshaping the curia.

All applications must go through the process stated within the constitution otherwise they are not "legitimate", and I refuse to change the constitution for a trial basis.

Fixed that for you.

Oppose in it's current form.

Why? I've maintained that discipline is still handled behind closed doors, I've just changes the parties involved. Rather than have a neutered CdeC doing discipline I think it would be better to empower Magistrates by giving them extra duties, which line up with their existing duties to the Tribunal.

[absinthia]

support.
i would support as i do not consider citizenship any "sweet fruit on a high branch", in fact the curia is more like a stale biscuit. it is all just fluff for ones profile and there is no point in being up-tight about supposed standards.
though i would rather doing of with the whole aplication thing and make citizenship automatic based on some membership-length, post count and rep formula. could even make removal of rank automatic based on infraction point or moderation history.

[Mhaedros]

Squid. What makes you think citizens will vote any differently if they vote on citizen applications? They are the ones that elect councilors and they clearly think the councilors do something right, especially those that are elected over and over again. Why would the citizens that vote for councilors have any other standards than the councilors they vote for? What kind of logic is behind your amendment? Or are you relying on citizens that generally don't vote in the CdeC elections to come forth and do their duty?