[Amendment] Abolish CdeC

[Squid]

Squid. What makes you think citizens will vote any differently if they vote on citizen applications?

I honestly have no idea what will happen, but as I said even if it turns into a popularity contest I'm not adverse to that. As I've said I'd rather 10 people get through popularity than one get turned away who shouldn't have.

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?

I'm hoping that because the process is not at arms length, but one with which they are directly involved it will produce better decisions; however, even if the decisions are exactly the same then we've lost absolutely nothing except opening the possibility for more involvement by those citizens that current are not participating.

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?

Yes that's a large part of it. As I've said currently if you aren't interested in being on CdeC (not the same thing as being uninvolved in the curia) you have ~30 seconds worth of involvement a month to vote, so I'm not surprised people either don't take it seriously or don't do it at all. This would give citizens, both those currently involved and those who aren't involved something to be involved in. If less than 10% of those who are active on the site but aren't active in the Curia get involved in one citizenship case a month or even one every other month, it doesn't need to be consistent, then the activity will have increased significantly. Not only that those cases they will choose to involve themselves in are likely the cases in which they have knowledge of the candidate and will likely bring forward information or opinions that other may not have access to or consider.

[Navajo Joe]

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.

[Squid]

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 never said all CdeC members did not put in effort on all cases, but look through the applications and tell me that every single councilor in every single application has done their due diligence. If you can say that with a straight face then you'd make one hell of a poker player. My statement was a generalization, not aimed at specific councilors, but its clear reading application threads that the amount of research actually done is not as good as councilors would like us to believe. If you felt offended by the statement I apologize for that since it wasn't my intent.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

That would be a good clause to put in.

[Squid]

Alright I think I've found and removed all references to CdeC in the constitution. I've posted the changes to the OP and posted them here.

Proposed Changes

Move Questiones Perpetuae from CdeC to Curia Votes
Move Citizens Antechamber to Curia Archive
Move Politia to Curia Main forum
Removal of various CdeC forums that are no longer needed, and threads to be kept are moved to the Politia

Election Votes

When a Curial Election is required, the Curator shall open an application thread in the Curia and the Curator shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the vacant position must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the application thread. Any comments, debates or off topic posting shall be deleted. The thread shall remain open for one week.

The Hexagon Council may veto applicants, and should more than six members apply for any position, may shortlist six members to stand for the election. Once applications are complete, the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes and sticky the thread. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected.

Where more than one of the same position is vacant, the procedure is the same, and the members with the highest votes are elected. In the case of ties, a run off vote is held between the tied members lasting 3 days.

Where the election is for the vacant position of Curator, all candidates must meet the requirements of CdeCMagistrate applications. A debate thread shall be opened at the same time as the application thread in the main Curia by the Curator for Curia members to question candidates on their election. Non-candidates may post in this thread but all posts must be directing a relevant question or questions towards the candidates. Candidates may post as much as needed in this thread. The debate thread shall be closed at the end of the elections.

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizen of Total War Center may initiate a Vote of No Confidence in any member holding a position elected by the Curia, or in any individual who is responsible for managing some part of the site. A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority. Frivolous use of this procedure shall be considered grounds for CdeCCurial disciplinary proceedings. VoNCs are exempt from veto. A VoNC against an elected member results in that member's immediate demotion, while other VoNCs are non-binding. The debate and vote on a Vote of No Confidence shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Section II, Article III.

In the event that a current member of the CdeC Magistrate wins an election for the position of Curator, they will then beare required to immediately resign their CdeC seatas Magistrate. The new occupant of the vacated CdeC seatA new Magistrate will be selected as per Section II, Articles II & V.

Article IV. Disciplinary ProcedureThe Consilium de Civitates

The Consilium de CivitatesCitizens Triumvirate manages the granting and removal of all Curia Ranks by voting. The Consilium de Civitates may also function as an advisory body to the staff of TWC in matters concerning the Curia and its Citizens.

Membership

The full membership comprises of:

• The current sitting Magistrates
• The Curator, who may take part in all Consilium de CivitatesCitizens Triumvirate discussions, and has the deciding vote only in the case of a tie. The Curator has veto powers over any Consilium de Civitates decision
• Hexagon members, who may discuss all matters within the Consilium de CivitatesPolitia Forum, but have no vote.

Elected members of the Consilium de CivitatesThe Magistrates and the Curator must actively participate in discussions and votes. Hexagon members' participation is optional.

Elections

Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months, with the added requirements that that they currently have no active staff warnings and that for the period of three months prior to the commencement of the elections they have; held their rank as citizen, and received no warnings from the Consilium de Civitates. Applicants who do not meet these requirements will be invited to withdraw by the Curator by PM detailing on what criteria they failed. Should the notified candidate fail to satisfy the Curator that they do indeed meet the criteria for application they will be removed from consideration by the Curator prior to the shortlisting of candidates for election. At the time of removal the candidates failed criteria will be placed in the application thread for public scrutiny.

If a member of the Consilium de Civitates leaves office for any reason before the expiration of their term, the vacant position may be filled by Curator appointment. The Curator may appoint a Citizen that ran in the immediate previous election or a Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position. The appointment shall expire with the positions that are next up for election when a replacement member will be elected to serve the remainder of the term. If choosing from a pool of election candidates, any vacant positions will be filled in decreasing order of time remaining on the term starting from the next highest vote recipient after those who are elected to full terms.

The Curator should take appropriate and reasonable actions within the guidelines set out above to ensure that the Consilium de Civitates remains at full strength.

Removal from Office

A Consilium de Civitates member may resign from office, or can be removed from office by a majority vote of the elected councillors, such a vote being triggered by any of the following:

• Incurring a warning level of one
• Incurring two cautions in the space of three months
• Incurring a Consilium de Civitates warning
• Incurring two Consilium de Civitates notes in the space of three months
• Prolonged inactivity, as decided by a simple majority vote in the Consilium de Civitates

Upon conclusion of a vote to remove a councilor the proceedings shall be made public.

Voting Procedure

All votes conducted by The Consilium de Civitatesthe Citizens Triumvirate shall list the vote option chosen by each voting member.

Article II. Patronisation

Any Citizen holding their rank for three months can patronise a Peregrinus for citizenship subject to the requirements in Article I above. The process of patronisation is as follows.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community.
3. In the case that the nominee wishes his citizenship application to be public:The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum. Transparency of the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum is limited to Citizens only.
4. If the nominee wishes his citizenship application to remain private, the patron sends the paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, to either the Curator or a member of the Consilium de Civitate. The application itself will then be posted in the Politia.
5. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes and at least two-thirds of all CdeC members voted, he becomes a Citizen.
7. In exceptional circumstances, the period of discussion can be extended at the behest of Councilors and discretion of the Curator, to comply with the voting requirements or otherwise.
8. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result. If the candidate does not pass, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply.
9. If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.

After the conclusion of the vote, if the examination was private the applicant can make it public by PMing the Curator. If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month after the conclusion of the traditional seven day processing period. Members of the CdeCCitizens must neither vote nor post in applications of members they patronizse.

Article IV. The Curator

The Curator shall be elected by the procedure in Section 2 Article 2, with the addition that the Curator shall post the mandate for the job in the Qualifications thread.

The Curator shall hold office for a period of three months from the day the individual is elected. If the Curator is absent (has not logged into the site) for 7 days without giving notice of an absence, or if the Curator is absent for more than 15 days regardless of notice, or if the Curator resigns, the Curator is automatically removed from office along with any appointed staff.

Any decisions of this office shall be held over until a replacement is elected.

Where such a decision is time-limited, time from the moment the office of the Curator is removedempty shall not count towards the limit and will continue only from when a new Curator is elected. When the office of the Curator has been removedis empty the Magistrate whose term is closest to completion will organize the election for a new curator., the CdeC shall appoint a Pro-Curator. The Pro-Curator shall be the longest serving current elected CdeC member. Where multiple members were elected on the same day, the Pro-Curator shall be the member with the highest number of votes in the CdeC election. Should the qualifying CdeC member intend to stand for Curator, the said individual may not become Pro-Curator and the next longest serving member is appointed.

The Pro-Curator shall carry out any outstanding tasks of the Curator that should have been done during the time the Curator was absent. During the Curator's absense, the Pro-Curator's duties shall be limited to organising any election proceedings for vacant Curial posts and organising any required CdeC polls. Once a new Curator is elected, the Pro-Curator shall resume duties in the CdeC.

If, in the judgement of the Consilium de Civitates, the Curator has neglected the duties of the office or abused the position, it may dismiss the Curator and arrange new elections. The procedure to remove the curator is the same as that to remove a councilor.

The Curator is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks get done. Upon entering office the Curator must officially appoint at least one Citizen to fulfill the Curator's role on a planned or unplanned absence, and should the Curator wish, to assist with day to day tasks.

No matter who carries out the tasks assigned to the Curator, the Curator is the one responsible for seeing that they are done promptly and correctly.

Section IV - The Judiciary

Article I. Citizen's Behavior

The suspension and removal of a Rank is handled by the Citizen's TriumvirateConsilium de Civitates via the following disciplinary process. No Citizen may be subject to more than one process for a single post.

Procedure

If any Citizen receives a staff warning from a moderator they will be referred to the Citizen's TriumvirateConsilium de Civitates for potential action. The Moderation Overseers will appoint one of themselves to keep track of Citizen's infractions and promptly forward any new ones to the Curator for posting. The accused will then be asked by the Curator to produce a defence within ninty six hours. At the request of the accused, the Curator shall also accept materials provided on behalf of the accused. Also such materials by the accused or on behalf of the accused shall be posted up and until the first poll voting is concluded and must be considered by Citizen's TriumvirateCdeC in the second poll if such a poll is required. At the conclusion of this period, regardless of whether a defence has been received, a vote shall be opened by the Curator to conclude after four days. The options are:

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

If the Citizen's TriumvirateCdeC vote to take further action, The Curator shall open a second poll for four days. The options are:

CurialCdeC Note:

• Censure

CurialCdeC Warning:

• Suspension of rank for 1 week
• Suspension of rank for 2 weeks
• Suspension of rank for 1 month
• Suspension of rank for 2 months
• Removal of Rank

No CurialCdeC Penalty:

• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for the vote to pass. In the case of a disciplinary action vote, the option with the highest number of votes is the action taken. Where two options have the same number of votes, the action taken is determined by multiple transferable vote.

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

At the conclusion of the process, the Curator informs the referred member of the result, and asks whether the member wants the case to be made public or kept private. Cases made public are moved to the Antechamber, viewable by all members; private cases are kept in the Politia, viewable only to the CdeC.

A Rank may not be removed except by the procedure outlined in this Article. Divus, Opifex and Phalera awards may only be removed by a Decision of the Curia or by the request of the rank holder.

Members of the Citizen's TriumvirateCdeC must neither post nor vote in their own disciplinary cases.

Article II. Tribunal

To defend the rights of Members, and to ensure fair and just punishment towards those who violate the laws of TWC, a Tribunal shall be established.

The purpose of the Tribunal is to provide those members of TWC who have been punished in the past by the Moderation Branch a place to request the reversal of their punishment. This is in no way a guarantee that the punishment will be removed, but every case presented will be reviewed by a panel of three judges.

Members may create a thread in the Tribunal Forum, The Judges will study the case details, and may request any additional information on the member from the Senior Moderators. The Judges will then post the majority decision. The Judges are not tasked to decide the appropriateness or validity of a Forum Rule of Term of Service, and may only rule on whether the Term was correctly enforced and the punishment suitable for the offence.

Article III. Judges

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of Tribunes is appointed by the Hexagon Council. Tribunes can only be drawn from the ranks of those with at least a Silver Moderator's Mace or from those who have served as Magistrate for at least one term.

In addition, two Magistrates shall be elected, for 3 month terms, by the procedure in Section II, Article II. Applicants cannot have received an infraction, or a Curial Warning in at least one year and must have been citizens for at least 3 months. Magistrates cannot serve consecutive terms.

Magistrates rotate as acting Tribunes, each voting on one of every two cases. Should a Tribune recuse himself or there is a tie between Tribunes,the other Magistrate respectively votes in their stead or is called to break the tie. Magistrates are terminated by a unanimous vote of the Tribunes.

[Ishan]

May require some tweaking, rewording here and there.

[Squid]

Found some things already and fixed them, one mention of CdeC I hadn't removed in Section II Article IV and fixed some wording in Section II Article II

[Navajo Joe]

The role of Curator and Magistrate will be performed by our most experienced Citizens, how will any body, without any track record, stand any chance of winning an election, against a more experienced and knowledgeable citizen. Perhaps this does not matter, but may be a reason at a later date of citizens losing interest in the Curia.

[Squid]

The role of Curator and Magistrate will be performed by our most experienced Citizens, how will any body, without any track record, stand any chance of winning an election, against a more experienced and knowledgeable citizen. Perhaps this does not matter, but may be a reason at a later date of citizens losing interest in the Curia.

This is different from CdeC how? If you look back there have been plenty of proposals that tried to fix this issue with CdeC. In the end the newbies will get their shot, if they persist.

[Omnipotent-Q]

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

While there are more Administrators than usual interested in some positive changes to reinvigorate the place, these are actions taken as private citizens and not Hex as a group.

I'm against the Curia being scrapped. Years and years ago it was an active consideration for the Ogresnetwork. It took great lobbying from Sulla, and others privately including myself to stop it happening. People may joke on scrapping it but I doubt it's a serious consideration for anyone. It was a unique system when it was more open and citizenship was more achievable for regular users.

No one is saying every councillor is a poor one. There are some real strong councillors who do a great job. Like with anything there are going to be people not as strong and obviously some believe that will get even more obvious as citizen numbers aren't replenished at the same rate as we lose citizens naturally over time. I feel a solution is needed where everyone gets a fair say and opinion in a very much more human system. I'd argue that some users aren't fairly treated or given a decent chance in CdeC - I personally think this is the case too often. But citizens on the whole are decent people and I think not only can they be trusted together as a group to make calls, I think without the ingrained political pressure of the current system, more people will get a deserving chance to become a citizen and add more positivity to the community at the same time.

The constitution hasn't much changed since it was re-written last. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't all consider a change if we think it will have a positive impact. If you think the Curia shouldn't play much of a role in fostering a good community spirit and citizens shouldn't be setting an example to other potential citizens in how to post helpfully, and in a friendly way then no, obviously you'll be against changing the current system. If you're big on having your badge while ever dwindling numbers don't have it - that's great your badge becomes more rare. If you like a fluffy CdeC badge more than doing the right thing for the community, then again you'll be against any change. But it doesn't much help the community or reach the most achievable thing the Curial system can do - have citizens that set an example with their posting habits that normal users look to emulate. Thereby continually replenishing numbers and getting people more interested in the site, and potentially, interested in becoming a staff member.

It's not wrong to talk about these ideas. There's no need to panic or take things personally. There are numerous examples albeit not recently of the constitution being suspended by Hexagon to change it under Section 1, Article 1. Even that is far from anyone's thoughts never mind scrapping the Curia. Saying that I can't say Squid's getting much credit from the typical CdeC company man at the moment. I don't honestly understand some of the points opposed at the moment. Speaking from a position where I can see things normal citizens can't I wonder if anyone is truly looking at the big picture, because this is truly common sense as a matter of fact, not opinion.

The temptation for me personally is too walk away and resign my own citizenship If a change can't be made. This is far from the representative system built by friendly and helpful citizens that I signed up for. Instead according to plenty of non-citizen regulars this is a system built on fear. Use any irrelevant comparison too offline political systems, or the Republican Party you like, this is very bad for an online forum. Very bad indeed.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

There are more fundamental reasons for the lower activity in my view. Out of the last few games, NTW and R2TW have fallen short of expectations, while S2TW - good as it is - caters to a narrower audience by nature. Meanwhile modding has become more difficult/technical, and accessible to a smaller group of people. All this means there are fewer mods being made, fewer youngsters joining the forums, while the older generation of gamers are growing up, and going to school/college/work, and spending less time browsing forums. The forum becoming basically unusable for months after the software update didn't help either.

When I served on the CdeC almost everybody I worked with applied themselves to what they did, and while it's true elections are swayed by popularity (show me one anywhere that isn't) I've always thought being Councillor was something people aspired to, and which drove people to do good/be more visible. I'm not terribly bothered about the CdeC being scrapped, but there's no real reason why doing so will improve activity. The people who will spend time to respond to the new (public) applications will just end up being the ones who currently respond to the town hall/feedback threads.

[Ishan]

Out of the last few games, NTW and R2TW have fallen short of expectations, while S2TW - good as it is - caters to a narrower audience by nature. Meanwhile modding has become more difficult/technical, and accessible to a smaller group of people. All this means there are fewer mods being made, fewer youngsters joining the forums, while the older generation of gamers are growing up, and going to school/college/work, and spending less time browsing forums.

What this suggests here is that warscape modding is not easy and it takes effort to make one overhaul mod, agreed. Because of that, we have a smaller interested people doing that and when they do apply for citizenship it should be blindingly obvious for CdeC to welcome them with open arms. Yet that is not the case.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

What this suggests here is that warscape modding is not easy and it takes effort to make one overhaul mod, agreed. Because of that, we have a smaller interested people doing that and when they do apply for citizenship it should be blindingly obvious for CdeC to welcome them with open arms. Yet that is not the case.

I am thoroughly confused what you're actually linking to.

I think the problem is that there are too few people who actually understand how Warscape modding actually works - not just within the CdeC but at large within the citizenry. People don't appreciate the extra difficulty and automatically think "oh this isn't much". When I served I advocated for a quota of councillors who understood each facet of the site - gaming, content, old world modding, Warscape, etc. The first three tend to be satisfied without much effort. Warscape meanwhile...

[ElvenKind]

I am thoroughly confused what you're actually linking to.

I think the problem is that there are too few people who actually understand how Warscape modding actually works - not just within the CdeC but at large within the citizenry. People don't appreciate the extra difficulty and automatically think "oh this isn't much". When I served I advocated for a quota of councillors who understood each facet of the site - gaming, content, old world modding, Warscape, etc. The first three tend to be satisfied without much effort. Warscape meanwhile...

He linked you to Magnar's begging for Getting a **** ing well deserved Citizenship.

Apparently, modding Warscape isn't good enough for getting a reward for contribution to this site.

Abolish CDeC: Support.

[StealthFox]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Alright I think I've found and removed all references to CdeC in the constitution. I've posted the changes to the OP and posted them here.

Proposed Changes

Move Questiones Perpetuae from CdeC to Curia Votes
Move Citizens Antechamber to Curia Archive
Move Politia to Curia Main forum
Removal of various CdeC forums that are no longer needed, and threads to be kept are moved to the Politia

Election Votes

When a Curial Election is required, the Curator shall open an application thread in the Curia and the Curator shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the vacant position must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the application thread. Any comments, debates or off topic posting shall be deleted. The thread shall remain open for one week.

The Hexagon Council may veto applicants, and should more than six members apply for any position, may shortlist six members to stand for the election. Once applications are complete, the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes and sticky the thread. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected.

Where more than one of the same position is vacant, the procedure is the same, and the members with the highest votes are elected. In the case of ties, a run off vote is held between the tied members lasting 3 days.

Where the election is for the vacant position of Curator, all candidates must meet the requirements of CdeCMagistrate applications. A debate thread shall be opened at the same time as the application thread in the main Curia by the Curator for Curia members to question candidates on their election. Non-candidates may post in this thread but all posts must be directing a relevant question or questions towards the candidates. Candidates may post as much as needed in this thread. The debate thread shall be closed at the end of the elections.

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizen of Total War Center may initiate a Vote of No Confidence in any member holding a position elected by the Curia, or in any individual who is responsible for managing some part of the site. A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority. Frivolous use of this procedure shall be considered grounds for CdeCCurial disciplinary proceedings. VoNCs are exempt from veto. A VoNC against an elected member results in that member's immediate demotion, while other VoNCs are non-binding. The debate and vote on a Vote of No Confidence shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Section II, Article III.

In the event that a current member of the CdeC Magistrate wins an election for the position of Curator, they will then beare required to immediately resign their CdeC seatas Magistrate. The new occupant of the vacated CdeC seatA new Magistrate will be selected as per Section II, Articles II & V.

Article IV. Disciplinary ProcedureThe Consilium de Civitates

The Consilium de CivitatesCitizens Triumvirate manages the granting and removal of all Curia Ranks by voting. The Consilium de Civitates may also function as an advisory body to the staff of TWC in matters concerning the Curia and its Citizens.

Membership

The full membership comprises of:

• The current sitting Magistrates
• The Curator, who may take part in all Consilium de CivitatesCitizens Triumvirate discussions, and has the deciding vote only in the case of a tie. The Curator has veto powers over any Consilium de Civitates decision
• Hexagon members, who may discuss all matters within the Consilium de CivitatesPolitia Forum, but have no vote.

Elected members of the Consilium de CivitatesThe Magistrates and the Curator must actively participate in discussions and votes. Hexagon members' participation is optional.

Elections

Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months, with the added requirements that that they currently have no active staff warnings and that for the period of three months prior to the commencement of the elections they have; held their rank as citizen, and received no warnings from the Consilium de Civitates. Applicants who do not meet these requirements will be invited to withdraw by the Curator by PM detailing on what criteria they failed. Should the notified candidate fail to satisfy the Curator that they do indeed meet the criteria for application they will be removed from consideration by the Curator prior to the shortlisting of candidates for election. At the time of removal the candidates failed criteria will be placed in the application thread for public scrutiny.

If a member of the Consilium de Civitates leaves office for any reason before the expiration of their term, the vacant position may be filled by Curator appointment. The Curator may appoint a Citizen that ran in the immediate previous election or a Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position. The appointment shall expire with the positions that are next up for election when a replacement member will be elected to serve the remainder of the term. If choosing from a pool of election candidates, any vacant positions will be filled in decreasing order of time remaining on the term starting from the next highest vote recipient after those who are elected to full terms.

The Curator should take appropriate and reasonable actions within the guidelines set out above to ensure that the Consilium de Civitates remains at full strength.

Removal from Office

A Consilium de Civitates member may resign from office, or can be removed from office by a majority vote of the elected councillors, such a vote being triggered by any of the following:

• Incurring a warning level of one
• Incurring two cautions in the space of three months
• Incurring a Consilium de Civitates warning
• Incurring two Consilium de Civitates notes in the space of three months
• Prolonged inactivity, as decided by a simple majority vote in the Consilium de Civitates

Upon conclusion of a vote to remove a councilor the proceedings shall be made public.

Voting Procedure

All votes conducted by The Consilium de Civitatesthe Citizens Triumvirate shall list the vote option chosen by each voting member.

Article II. Patronisation

Any Citizen holding their rank for three months can patronise a Peregrinus for citizenship subject to the requirements in Article I above. The process of patronisation is as follows.

1. The patron confirms the candidate meets the requirements, OR a candidate meeting the requirements contacts a Citizen asking for patronage.
2. The nominee sends the patron a PM explaining his duties and privileges as a Citizen, and his contributions to the community.
3. In the case that the nominee wishes his citizenship application to be public:The patron posts this paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, in a new thread in the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum. Transparency of the Quaestiones Perpetuae forum is limited to Citizens only.
4. If the nominee wishes his citizenship application to remain private, the patron sends the paragraph, along with his own, outlining why he nominated this member, to either the Curator or a member of the Consilium de Civitate. The application itself will then be posted in the Politia.
5. After two days have passed the Curator adds a Poll lasting for five days.
6. If the nominee achieves sixty per cent of the non-abstaining votes and at least two-thirds of all CdeC members voted, he becomes a Citizen.
7. In exceptional circumstances, the period of discussion can be extended at the behest of Councilors and discretion of the Curator, to comply with the voting requirements or otherwise.
8. The Curator informs the candidate and patron of the result. If the candidate does not pass, the Curator includes the date at which they may re-apply.
9. If the candidate passes, the Curator promotes the member to Citizen.

After the conclusion of the vote, if the examination was private the applicant can make it public by PMing the Curator. If a nominee fails his vote, he is not eligible to be considered again for one month after the conclusion of the traditional seven day processing period. Members of the CdeCCitizens must neither vote nor post in applications of members they patronizse.

Article IV. The Curator

The Curator shall be elected by the procedure in Section 2 Article 2, with the addition that the Curator shall post the mandate for the job in the Qualifications thread.

The Curator shall hold office for a period of three months from the day the individual is elected. If the Curator is absent (has not logged into the site) for 7 days without giving notice of an absence, or if the Curator is absent for more than 15 days regardless of notice, or if the Curator resigns, the Curator is automatically removed from office along with any appointed staff.

Any decisions of this office shall be held over until a replacement is elected.

Where such a decision is time-limited, time from the moment the office of the Curator is removedempty shall not count towards the limit and will continue only from when a new Curator is elected. When the office of the Curator has been removedis empty the Magistrate whose term is closest to completion will organize the election for a new curator., the CdeC shall appoint a Pro-Curator. The Pro-Curator shall be the longest serving current elected CdeC member. Where multiple members were elected on the same day, the Pro-Curator shall be the member with the highest number of votes in the CdeC election. Should the qualifying CdeC member intend to stand for Curator, the said individual may not become Pro-Curator and the next longest serving member is appointed.

The Pro-Curator shall carry out any outstanding tasks of the Curator that should have been done during the time the Curator was absent. During the Curator's absense, the Pro-Curator's duties shall be limited to organising any election proceedings for vacant Curial posts and organising any required CdeC polls. Once a new Curator is elected, the Pro-Curator shall resume duties in the CdeC.

If, in the judgement of the Consilium de Civitates, the Curator has neglected the duties of the office or abused the position, it may dismiss the Curator and arrange new elections. The procedure to remove the curator is the same as that to remove a councilor.

The Curator is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks get done. Upon entering office the Curator must officially appoint at least one Citizen to fulfill the Curator's role on a planned or unplanned absence, and should the Curator wish, to assist with day to day tasks.

No matter who carries out the tasks assigned to the Curator, the Curator is the one responsible for seeing that they are done promptly and correctly.

Section IV - The Judiciary

Article I. Citizen's Behavior

The suspension and removal of a Rank is handled by the Citizen's TriumvirateConsilium de Civitates via the following disciplinary process. No Citizen may be subject to more than one process for a single post.

Procedure

If any Citizen receives a staff warning from a moderator they will be referred to the Citizen's TriumvirateConsilium de Civitates for potential action. The Moderation Overseers will appoint one of themselves to keep track of Citizen's infractions and promptly forward any new ones to the Curator for posting. The accused will then be asked by the Curator to produce a defence within ninty six hours. At the request of the accused, the Curator shall also accept materials provided on behalf of the accused. Also such materials by the accused or on behalf of the accused shall be posted up and until the first poll voting is concluded and must be considered by Citizen's TriumvirateCdeC in the second poll if such a poll is required. At the conclusion of this period, regardless of whether a defence has been received, a vote shall be opened by the Curator to conclude after four days. The options are:

• Dismiss the Case
• Take Further Action
• Abstain

If the Citizen's TriumvirateCdeC vote to take further action, The Curator shall open a second poll for four days. The options are:

CurialCdeC Note:

• Censure

CurialCdeC Warning:

• Suspension of rank for 1 week
• Suspension of rank for 2 weeks
• Suspension of rank for 1 month
• Suspension of rank for 2 months
• Removal of Rank

No CurialCdeC Penalty:

• Abstain

A simple majority of non abstaining members is required for the vote to pass. In the case of a disciplinary action vote, the option with the highest number of votes is the action taken. Where two options have the same number of votes, the action taken is determined by multiple transferable vote.

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

At the conclusion of the process, the Curator informs the referred member of the result, and asks whether the member wants the case to be made public or kept private. Cases made public are moved to the Antechamber, viewable by all members; private cases are kept in the Politia, viewable only to the CdeC.

A Rank may not be removed except by the procedure outlined in this Article. Divus, Opifex and Phalera awards may only be removed by a Decision of the Curia or by the request of the rank holder.

Members of the Citizen's TriumvirateCdeC must neither post nor vote in their own disciplinary cases.

Article II. Tribunal

To defend the rights of Members, and to ensure fair and just punishment towards those who violate the laws of TWC, a Tribunal shall be established.

The purpose of the Tribunal is to provide those members of TWC who have been punished in the past by the Moderation Branch a place to request the reversal of their punishment. This is in no way a guarantee that the punishment will be removed, but every case presented will be reviewed by a panel of three judges.

Members may create a thread in the Tribunal Forum, The Judges will study the case details, and may request any additional information on the member from the Senior Moderators. The Judges will then post the majority decision. The Judges are not tasked to decide the appropriateness or validity of a Forum Rule of Term of Service, and may only rule on whether the Term was correctly enforced and the punishment suitable for the offence.

Article III. Judges

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of Tribunes is appointed by the Hexagon Council. Tribunes can only be drawn from the ranks of those with at least a Silver Moderator's Mace or from those who have served as Magistrate for at least one term.

In addition, two Magistrates shall be elected, for 3 month terms, by the procedure in Section II, Article II. Applicants cannot have received an infraction, or a Curial Warning in at least one year and must have been citizens for at least 3 months. Magistrates cannot serve consecutive terms.

Magistrates rotate as acting Tribunes, each voting on one of every two cases. Should a Tribune recuse himself or there is a tie between Tribunes,the other Magistrate respectively votes in their stead or is called to break the tie. Magistrates are terminated by a unanimous vote of the Tribunes.

Looks good to me. The only thing I would change is this:

Members of the CdeCCitizens must not neither vote nor post in applications of members they patronizse.

[Ishan]

I think the problem is that there are too few people who actually understand how Warscape modding actually works - not just within the CdeC but at large within the citizenry. People don't appreciate the extra difficulty and automatically think "oh this isn't much". When I served I advocated for a quota of councillors who understood each facet of the site - gaming, content, old world modding, Warscape, etc. The first three tend to be satisfied without much effort. Warscape meanwhile...

This sort of problem arises when there are too many modders involved in a single project and CdeC is having a hard time seeing a single guy's contribution in it, where a technical explanation and how easy\difficult something is might help in shedding some light on facts. Or if the mod isn't popular or appreciated enough, even though the effort put into it is very much and thus it should be well appreciated.

But overall to know the worth of one's mod, you specifically doesn't have to be a modder. Take the prominent example of Mega Tortes. He isn't a modder and i doubt anyone would argue that he lacks the ability to recognize a modder's worth here. One could see how the community has appreciated one's mod or the Councillor could play the mod himself to know what it's about. Or he could inquire about his mods from various people and then share his findings. All these things used to happen and are well known practiced methods.

He linked you to Magnar's begging for Getting a **** ing well deserved Citizenship.

Yes that one. This could've gone the other way as well which is why i was forced to post in the commentary in favour of magnar. But everyone can see that Magnar didn't really appreciate it or felt welcomed and ended up defending his contributions and its worth, which is the actual detrimental effect Q & Squid are talking about.

[Kiliç Alì]

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?"

This is a very fair point. I barely have time, mood or will to vote here and stuff, and as citizen I wouldn't dig into any application for more than 5 mins; and whatever my vote may be then, it wouldn't be as reliable as the vote of someone who studied the case a little more.

If you really want more cizens, you should encourage people to patronise more; and if you think that the CdeC is constantly raising its standards, then just make a precise tab with the criteria to become citizens, to wich somehow "bind" any CdeC decision, to wich degree shall be decided.
Community may also have a more clear vision of any CdeC member in this way; someone who clearly judges against such criteria should have very few possibilities to be re-elected for a successive mandate, unless he can justify himself in front of his electors.

I oppose anything that makes citizenship nomination a plebis scito.

[Inkie]

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 ).

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 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?

This really comes back to simply not trusting in other citizens, and a pervasive mistrust of proposed amendments, but I'm going to take up your points.

Why do you see that as a contradiction? No matter how many citizens aren't currently active or interested in the Curia, you still agree that this proposal would significantly multiply the amount of people who can participate in citizenship applications, right? If citizens are by nature somewhat conservative as you suggest, then why is the opposition so worried about the results of such a change?

So, I'm aware that your main concern is whether or not such participation would be qualified. I am not claiming to be a prophet and for all I know, we could get 20 votes with only three posts in vote threads. What would that mean? That the proposal was flawed, and that popular participation is not the way. Even in such an unrealistic outcome, we would still have learned something empirically, rather than sticking to our fears about what making a step in any other direction might cause. But this proposal isn't only resting on the idea that with the removal of a paternal system (as you might have called it) much greater numbers of citizens could have a say, it's that by definition the nature of the input would be flexible, and adaptable to candidates. I strongly disagree with allowing the credibility of the proposal to be dragged all the way down by the notion that a few bad apples might vote badly, as that's no different to the current system. Let's imagine that we're dealing with three applications, an Artifex, Civitate and Content-based Citizen.

- In the current system, the composition of the CdeC at the time of an application is what has the decisive effect on how the case is judged. It is by nature inflexible, and any voices qualified in the domain of each applicant will often end up being external ones that have no real authority on the course of the vote. Seeing as councillors are often Curialist members, it will quite frequently be the case that their voices are out of touch with the working field of the applicant, which results in cloudy judgements unless external voices manage to break through the walls.

- In the envisaged system, people without a knowledge of the background of the applicant are not obliged to post opinionated input in order to not disappoint their voters and show that they're doing their job. They can quietly read through the thread and soak up the posts of citizens who have intervened due to their knowledge of the field, and make their judgement. As such, the people leading the debate can always be people who know the field they're talking about. I don't know about you, but I'm also not going to dismiss the citizens who are interested, but who will withhold their votes if they don't feel that they are able to make an informed decision. And no, that will not mean that the bill would not result in a more enfranchised citizenry.

So no, there wouldn't just be an unelected duplicate of the CdeC taking charge. The main differences will be a much greater possibility not only for varied outlooks and opinions in general, but for more specialized, tailored knowledge in the discussion.

Also, I am very critical of the self-important comparisons of CdeC/Curia to a RL government which have no real basis, or the taking for granted of CdeC as elite by default. When some of us in Townhall questioned the fact that several councillors were repeatedly not saying anything or only a few monosyllabic words during apps - even though by nature they're supposed to be more pro-active and qualified than the rest of us - we were met with very limited response from those in question, leaving me at pains to avoid the conclusion that they had adopted the following mentality as a result of becoming experienced councillors: "I am elected because people trust my judgement. I don't have to prove anything by writing why I came to my conclusion, it is clearly superior than what the mob would decide." The only real engagement with the criticism people voiced in the Townhall at the time, was that some councillors agreed and felt that their colleagues should do better, and the then-Curator defended the right of councillors to not explain their thoughts. Some councillors just don't seem to read the Townhall and so any input there is absolutely not reliably received anyway. These problems are not necessarily the fault of the voters - when you vote someone in, it's difficult to tell how pro-active they will be in their term, and yet given that they are the only voting voices, the system relies on them being so - not only in doing their job reliably but better than everyone else.

It's abundantly clear to citizens who follow applications and the Townhall just how much external advice and help CdeC usually requires to be effective. I don't know if you come around here often, but you should. In the proposed system, there are no more barriers to those who have important input to add, or to those who have things to add, and moreover means that no-one's career is getting damaged if they just don't feel up to being on TWC or judging citizen apps at the time of an app or three.

Comparisons between the two votes also need to be refuted. CdeC is an uninteresting and apathetic vote in the first place. Because unless they're choosing their peers, people voting aren't actually deciding anything, they're simply handing away their voice to other people, usually very familiar faces. They're comparing the promises of various people and that's it. I can very well understand if people don't post external input in the avenues left for them: At the end of the day, they have no power, and are just making noise without any necessary effect.

This is a very fair point. I barely have time, mood or will to vote here and stuff, and as citizen I wouldn't dig into any application for more than 5 mins; and whatever my vote may be then, it wouldn't be as reliable as the vote of someone who studied the case a little more.

If you don't have time for any of this, that's fine, just don't feel obliged to vote in citizen apps simply because you possess the right to. You shouldn't oppose this just because you wouldn't have time to participate.

If you really want more cizens, you should encourage people to patronise more; and if you think that the CdeC is constantly raising its standards, then just make a precise tab with the criteria to become citizens, to wich somehow "bind" any CdeC decision, to wich degree shall be decided.

No offense, but that's a very, very unrealistic idea in my opinion, unless you want a simple post/rep/registration date requirement, but that radically changes the notion of citizenship. There is no binding document you can draw from to judge citizenship apps, because whether they pass or not is fundamentally a mix between subjective and barely measurable variables, like the quality, popularity, volume and effort in/of their work, plus their attitude, etc.

[pannonian]

Also, I am very critical of the self-important comparisons of CdeC/Curia to a RL government which have no real basis, or the taking for granted of CdeC as elite by default. When some of us in Townhall questioned the fact that several councillors were repeatedly not saying anything or only a few monosyllabic words during apps - even though by nature they're supposed to be more pro-active and qualified than the rest of us - we were met with very limited response from those in question, leaving me at pains to avoid the conclusion that they had adopted the following mentality as a result of becoming experienced councillors: "I am elected because people trust my judgement. I don't have to prove anything by writing why I came to my conclusion, it is clearly superior than what the mob would decide." The only real engagement with the criticism people voiced in the Townhall at the time, was that some councillors agreed and felt that their colleagues should do better, and the then-Curator defended the right of councillors to not explain their thoughts. Some councillors just don't seem to read the Townhall and so any input there is absolutely not reliably received anyway. These problems are not necessarily the fault of the voters - when you vote someone in, it's difficult to tell how pro-active they will be in their term, and yet given that they are the only voting voices, the system relies on them being so - not only in doing their job reliably but better than everyone else.

It's abundantly clear to citizens who follow applications and the Townhall just how much external advice and help CdeC usually requires to be effective. I don't know if you come around here often, but you should. In the proposed system, there are no more barriers to those who have important input to add, or to those who have things to add, and moreover means that no-one's career is getting damaged if they just don't feel up to being on TWC or judging citizen apps at the time of an app or three.

Comparisons between the two votes also need to be refuted. CdeC is an uninteresting and apathetic vote in the first place. Because unless they're choosing their peers, people voting aren't actually deciding anything, they're simply handing away their voice to other people, usually very familiar faces. They're comparing the promises of various people and that's it. I can very well understand if people don't post external input in the avenues left for them: At the end of the day, they have no power, and are just making noise without any necessary effect.


If you don't have time for any of this, that's fine, just don't feel obliged to vote in citizen apps simply because you possess the right to. You shouldn't oppose this just because you wouldn't have time to participate.


No offense, but that's a very, very unrealistic idea in my opinion, unless you want a simple post/rep/registration date requirement, but that radically changes the notion of citizenship. There is no binding document you can draw from to judge citizenship apps, because whether they pass or not is fundamentally a mix between subjective and barely measurable variables, like the quality, popularity, volume and effort in/of their work, plus their attitude, etc.

Within the selected world of moderation staff, during my time as a decision maker and during my time as an advisor, I've been extremely active in pushing for the removal of those who've been proven inactive, as well as encouraging activity and initiative from those who do have the drive to do something. For me, any informed initiative would do, whether or not they are of the same mind as me. Where people didn't have the know how, I encouraged them to ask around for advice from people who do. And where there was a void of know how that we could access, I pointed out as directly as possible the void which we would need to fill. How they filled the void wasn't my concern, and I don't have enough current knowledge to properly discuss it anyway. What I could do was point out the gap and the kind of person we would want to fill that gap, and the front liners who have decision making authority would make that decision.

On the flipside of that, one of my bugbears is inactive staffers who block initiatives with uninformed objections. That particular group I highlight to the relevant people and suggest removal. Initiative is good. Informed initiative is better. In my 3 months in CdeC, I've voted on a couple or more artifex candidates, including at least one where I knew nothing about the game. That didn't stop me from being able to do my work. It meant I had to actively look around for people who did know their stuff, and ask for their opinion in detail. I reported my findings, and based my vote on their informed opinion. That it was not mine didn't matter. It was informed, I went out and got it, and the rest of the CdeC were informed in turn. Just because you may not know something is no excuse for not going out and finding out about it if you're in a position of authority.

I have no idea how to make a voting body work, and still less an elected one. As a moderation advisor, while I didn't have voting rights, I had accrued enough respect to at least be listened to, and the mod branch had worked for long enough for the model I was describing to argue itself. Work hard, show initiative, and don't be afraid to listen to advice were probably the 3 founding points I drummed into every mod staffer. Also, look after your community. When they buy into that ethos, medals and whatever are pretty much an afterthought, and not particularly important in their scheme of things. Seeing the success of their community, and the camaraderie of a group of similarly minded people, was the driving principle of moderation.

[Omnipotent-Q]

There would be incentive for citizens to get involved in an open system. The Curatorial service award was previously limited in that only Curators can be nominated for it. But it was changed to all citizens can get it for Curial service. I intend to nominate several names I think deserve it this weekend. It could be used smartly to encourage participation.