[Amendment] Overhaul of the Curial Community Team revisited

[Inkie]

Supporters:

I just wrote up my own version of this, removing what I saw as some unnecessary fluff and reworking things a little bit. The idea of the CCT has received quite a mauling due to the failure of the rigid, elected system, and has kind of been left ot bleed out in a corner while the 'CdeC question' takes the stage. With the following amendment I hope to make the CCT an institution well-adapted to what the future might bring.

Article VI. The Curial Community Team

The Curial Community Team manages curial driven community ventures.

Membership

Full membership comprises of:

• Three elected Citizens, who discuss ideas, lead ventures and manage the CCT.Citizens volunteering to work on selected Curia-driven projects.
• Hexagon Council members.
• Appointed Citizens.
• The Curator who has veto powers over any CCT decision.

Elections

Elected Curial Community Team members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months.

Appointment

Any Citizen can submit an idea to the Curator and request to join the Curial Community Team on appointment. In case the Curator declines the request he is obligated to provide his reasoning to the CVRIA in public. Any citizen wishing to start a project can request to form a CCT detachment by sending a summary of his idea to the Curator.

If the idea is approved, the citizen forming the CCT detachment can recruit further members at his discretion, provided he informs the Curator of this so that they may be added to the Officers List. If the proposal is rejected, it may be appealed in the Curia, resulting in the Curator's refusal being overruled in case of a simple majority in support.

Removal from Office

Members of the Curial Community Team may resign or be removed by the Curator for the following:

• Prolonged inactivity, meaning more than 13 7 days without notice of absence, or more than 20 days regardless of notice.
• Incurring any infraction and/or inappropriate behavior or actions, though the latter case should be explained publicly.
• Being subjected to a successful Vote of No Confidence.

Additional Provisions

The CCT has access to a transparent forum within the CVRIA. They can utilize the Forum Magnum as per Curator discretion; Based upon the discretion of HEX, elected members of the CCT may work in the Symposium within a local moderation capacity.

Article II. Election Procedure

When an election required the following process shall be applied.

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 CuriaCurial Officer, 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 CdeC 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 wins an election for the position of Curator, they will then be required to resign their CdeC seat. The new occupant of the vacated CdeC seat will be selected as per Section II, Articles II & V.

In this way, the CCT forums themselves can be removed, and CCT detachments can work anywhere in the Capitol according to the needs of their project. What's the difference with simple volunteering without red tape? Well, I'll give examples in the current two detachments I would be interested in:

House Cup: I'm currently working on this. If successful, it will be a competition with a required degree of professionalism from those working on it. Currently, I am just a lay citizen, with no responsibilities to anyone. As such, if I'm the one starting threads and proposing rules, how is this a Curia-driven project rather than simply mine, or whoever else proposes it? Who do I answer to, and what is my remit? More importantly, who has any authority to speak on what the House Cup rules are or who works on the project? If I were a CCT member, I could be removed if I suddenly became inactive, and I could be voted out of my position by a VoNC if I became corrupt and started pilfering with the votes or something. Essentially, it would turn the House Cup into a Curial project in which those working on it are simply staff who answer to the community, rather than the private game of whoever is organizing it - which in case of abuse would presumably require a mess of thread-closures and an informal shift of people from my game to another proposed by a different person.

History Squad: Currently TWC's history is supposed to be covered by a single man, elected (for life? I have no idea and can't see it anywhere in the Constitution) rather than a volunteer IIRC. I find this to be insufficient for the work supposed to be covered, and would favour the current system's replacement with a CCT detachment. These could be booted in the case of inactivity or, say, if they deliberately depict the site's history in a skewed manner, unlike basic joe's who would be able to write whatever they want as 'history' unless it leads to their rank being removed through referral.

Essentially, if the Curia wants to start doing its own community ventures like the ones above without them failing like they have in the past, they should be organized responsibly. I have an understanding by now that if people are simply 'informal volunteers', any project will be a very fragile thing liable to fail in the case of a bit of inactivity. People working in such a way consider their services a donation, and their output is likely to slow to a trickle in case of anything else (RL) taking their attention or if they get bored. It's difficult for the ball to be picked up again in such cases because those working have no responsibility to be reliable or committed - there is nothing that they have joined or agreed to. With no hierarchy or remit, it's difficult to prevent an informal project between strangers from ending up as another mummified committee not doing anything, another embarrassingly public Curial failure. I know from personal experience that it's generally a superior method to make sure that people who are maintaining important projects have an understanding that when they sign up they agree to see the job through, and that if they can no longer do it properly they should resign. That's how teams remain efficient and productive, and both of those traits are things future Curial projects could do with in my opinion.

I am of course all ears for suggestions and criticism.

[Aikanár]

The added curator assistants bit is superflous I think, since the curator can delegate his power as much as he likes to his assistants and they can only act upon his whim and will.

Concerning the VonC part, how can you VonC an unelected person?

And the entire "Additional Provisions" paragraph can be swept, since you eliminate elected CCT members ;-)

[Inkie]

The added curator assistants bit is superflous I think, since the curator can delegate his power as much as he likes to his assistants and they can only act upon his whim and will.

Well, in the situation that the Curator is AWOL or something, I found it a useful provision so that the removed CCT member(s) can't legitimately complain about someone "who wasn't even elected Curator" doing something that isn't even permitted according to the Constitution.

Concerning the VonC part, how can you VonC an unelected person?

Wiki:

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote which states that a person in a superior position - be it government, managerial, etc. - is no longer deemed fit to hold that position. This may be based on said person falling short in some respect, failing to carry out obligations, or making choices that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.

Barring the 'superior position' crap which has no meaning in the Curia, a VoNC is not restricted to elected officials as per this definition. If the person has volunteered to do a job and is not doing it properly, then I think there should be grounds to file for their removal. Of course, a VoNC of a CCT member would be appropriate primarily where we're talking about important tasks that require proper conduct of those administering them, like the two I mentioned above. Not so much if it's something a team is doing with no expectation that they'll be held to a certain standard, if such a thing came to be proposed.

And the entire "Additional Provisions" paragraph can be swept, since you eliminate elected CCT members ;-)

Oops, looks like I left the 'elected' word in. I still find the rest of the provision important though, because the Symposium is the perfect repository for a lot of activities that could be started through the CCT. In fact it's indispensable that the people working on the House Cup have local moderation rights in the forum.

[Aikanár]

Well, in the situation that the Curator is AWOL or something, I found it a useful provision so that the removed CCT member(s) can't legitimately complain about someone "who wasn't even elected Curator" doing something that isn't even permitted according to the Constitution.

If the Curator is AWOL he should be removed from office. All abilities and rights of a CA derives directly from his master, the Curator.
F.e. when I was GotR's CA I as well was a councillor of the CdeC and at that time the CdeC had full access rights to te CAT forum. Hence I posted in that forum. Then GotR asked me to neither post in that forum (since CdeC had their access rights by accident and unconstitutional) besides the CdeC feedback thread and to not exercise LM rights in, I had to do as he told me to, since I was his CA. If he would've wanted me to execute LM powers there, he would've told me so and this is exactly how the C <-> CA relation works, the Curator provides the CA with his jobs and the borders of them.

Barring the 'superior position' crap which has no meaning in the Curia, a VoNC is not restricted to elected officials as per this definition. If the person has volunteered to do a job and is not doing it properly, then I think there should be grounds to file for their removal. Of course, a VoNC of a CCT member would be appropriate primarily where we're talking about important tasks that require proper conduct of those administering them, like the two I mentioned above. Not so much if it's something a team is doing with no expectation that they'll be held to a certain standard, if such a thing came to be proposed.

Hm, right. But isn't the VonC thing contradictive to the purpose of the CCT? I mean if I want to do something and hence want to be a CCTer, why should there exist the possibility for somebody, not in any form related to my project, to be able to VonC me? Isn't the Curator a responsible enough person to decide based on his discretion whether or not somebody needs to be removed from the CCT?

I mean, we're talking about a very hypothetical case, since I guess the regular thing would be that people resign until after their project is completed, don't you think?

Oops, looks like I left the 'elected' word in. I still find the rest of the provision important though, because the Symposium is the perfect repository for a lot of activities that could be started through the CCT. In fact it's indispensable that the people working on the House Cup have local moderation rights in the forum.
indispensable

Ah well then, that's alright for me

[Inkie]

If the Curator is AWOL he should be removed from office. All abilities and rights of a CA derives directly from his master, the Curator.
F.e. when I was GotR's CA I as well was a councillor of the CdeC and at that time the CdeC had full access rights to te CAT forum. Hence I posted in that forum. Then GotR asked me to neither post in that forum (since CdeC had their access rights by accident and unconstitutional) besides the CdeC feedback thread and to not exercise LM rights in, I had to do as he told me to, since I was his CA. If he would've wanted me to execute LM powers there, he would've told me so and this is exactly how the C <-> CA relation works, the Curator provides the CA with his jobs and the borders of them.

Fair points. Removed that little bit regarding CA's.

Hm, right. But isn't the VonC thing contradictive to the purpose of the CCT? I mean if I want to do something and hence want to be a CCTer, why should there exist the possibility for somebody, not in any form related to my project, to be able to VonC me? Isn't the Curator a responsible enough person to decide based on his discretion whether or not somebody needs to be removed from the CCT?

That's my point - it would be ridiculous and frivolous to use a VoNC on someone who is doing certain types of project such as, say, compiling some data on the number of people voting in the Curia. However, in the cases that I referred to entailing a lot of people's participation and concrete rewards for winners, or perhaps the future of our membership's understanding of TWC, there should definitely be some accountability involved, wouldn't you say? Please mention it if you think that the option of VoNC would not be useful in the examples I provided.

I mean, we're talking about a very hypothetical case, since I guess the regular thing would be that people resign until after their project is completed, don't you think?

Indeed, though some projects, such as the House Cup, will be indefinite

[Aikanár]

Hm. The VonC thingy is a bit tricky because you can either VonC somebody or not. Furthermore a VonC cannot be vetoed by the Curator (for obvious reasons^^). So if VonCing is possible, it is possible to do so with every CCT member, regardless what the result of such a VonC would be. I don't know, it just seems unfitting for the CCT.

I agree with you, that there needs to be a possibility to remove somebody from the CCT who is not willing to be removed. I, for myself, would suggest to entrust the Curator with that function. But if that's not democratic enough, how about waiting for the CdeC abolishment amendment to succeed and then let the triumvirate handle the removal of CCT members like they handle referrals?

[Inkie]

You're missing my point though. I'm not trying to only permit a VoNC for certain CCT detachments, I'm saying that use of a VoNC simply makes no sense in the cases you're referring to. It's not a valid criticism to level in my opinion, because nobody with an ounce of common sense would support its use against someone who's doing their own, benevolent project or something. Quite simply, it's about the citizenry not passing ridiculous VoNC's, which I'm sure you would agree is the outcome we'd get if you too support abolishing the CdeC? I'm also sure you'd agree that it has not been part of the history of the Curia to pass baseless VoNC's, unless there are some obscure cases I haven't heard about.

To be honest, I'm really much less fond of the idea of the Curator being able to unilaterally shut-down CCT detachments. If he feels he has a good reason to do so, he should present his case to the Curia in the form of a VoNC.

[Aikanár]

That's exactly my point actually with the VonC thingy ^^ making stupid or irrational use of it is what I'm a little afraid of. Not because a or a few individual citizens could make themselves ridiculous, but that it would, regardless of it's outcome, reflect very poorly on the whole citizenry by it's very initiation.

Concerning the Curator, well he can already cancel each and every single CCT decision and he is elected every quarter year and he can be held accountable, in fact the entire citizenry has a very good grip at the Curator, if he is mis- or abusing his powers. Even though that when the CdeC will be abolished, he cannot be dismissed that easily anymore for neglecting his duties or abusing his powers. ...
Hm..

[Inkie]

That's exactly my point actually with the VonC thingy ^^ making stupid or irrational use of it is what I'm a little afraid of. Not because a or a few individual citizens could make themselves ridiculous, but that it would, regardless of it's outcome, reflect very poorly on the whole citizenry by it's very initiation.

Concerning the Curator, well he can already cancel each and every single CCT decision and he is elected every quarter year and he can be held accountable, in fact the entire citizenry has a very good grip at the Curator, if he is mis- or abusing his powers. Even though that when the CdeC will be abolished, he cannot be dismissed that easily anymore for neglecting his duties or abusing his powers. ...
Hm..

Well no, to the contrary I think that a failed VoNC tends to be an embarrassing affair only for its creator seeing as the collective citizenry will be crapping on it. I don't see how such a thing displays that collective in a bad light at all. It's certainly no different at all to the case of a Curator abusing his powers before needing to be demoted - in fact that there is a case that could be taken to reflect badly upon the Curia, because a Curator is elected to oversee the whole place and wears different bling to reflect that. A random citizen making a loony accusation doesn't reflect on anyone.

[Aikanár]

Fair point. I guess I'm still used to the effect that if one citizen does something funny, it was often enough generalised on the entire citizenry - some minds of famous generalisers spring to my mind instantly ^^

Oh well then, how do we deal with the event of somebody needs to be removed from the CCT but neither being inactive nor having an open warning and winning his VonC? What do we do then?

[Inkie]

If he is not inactive and people don't feel like he is abusing his position somehow, then why would we assume that he "needs to be removed"?

[Aikanár]

The problem with a VonC and "the feel of abuse" is, that misconduct or abuse of power is merely defined by the general feel of 34% of the voting citizens. Which in the end is all what it takes to make a VonC fail.

[Inkie]

Well, as you know I have always had an issue with our across-the-board use of 2/3 majority requirements, but if there really is a case of someone acting abusively then I'd say yes, they will get removed.

To be honest, it seems like your problem is not with my proposal, but with our Constitution's rules regarding majority requirements, because I could apply your issues with this to any other position that can be VoNC'ed. Perhaps we can pick up the ball with that one again sometime?

[Aikanár]

No, I absolutely have no problem with the two-thirds majority. Never had actually. I only think that the VonC procedure is not adequate for the CCT and I wouldn't want to tinker around with neither the procedure of the VonC itself nor the voting majority.

Edit: I would support the rest of your proposal though, it's just the VonC that prevents me from doing so.

['Gunny]

I am in agreement with Aik on this, VonC is unnecessary, I'd suggest allowing the Curator discretion and leave it at that.

[Inkie]

Okay, well we have addressed the issues of VoNC'ing unelected officers, of frivolous VoNC's and the lack of threat these pose to anyone. If we're talking about VoNC's, I would normally ask this: How is it any better to have people working on Curial projects that cannot be VoNC'ed at all despite their abuse, than ones that can (but in which there's a very small chance that popularity might block it)?

Another thing I just noted in revisiting is that there is actually the following clause for the Curator's prerogative:

Incurring any infraction and/or inappropriate behavior or actions.

This is actually something I might have to consider, because there would be nothing unconstitutional currently in a Curator being able to unilaterally shut down CCT detachments. I would rather that it be used with reserve. Perhaps:

Incurring any infraction and/orinappropriate behavior or actions, though the latter case should be explained publicly.

['Gunny]

If a curator does that for no reason... VonC the curator

[Inkie]

Exactly, which is why I'd like to stress that he should explain his action publicly so that it can be scrutinized.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

About the History Squad, I have access (and do all the old members of the CAT) to the Living History private forum where I've done a bit here and there and wanted to get some of the threads there released into the public Living History forum, however Ponti is apparently the Head Historian and he hasn't posted there in a while and I didn't want to overstep any rules etc. so something could be done about that - which I'd support as I'm all for developing that section, although I think a separate proposal would be needed for some ideas I've got floating around. Just thought I'd mention it as you referred to the Living History.

[Aikanár]

I think that a good Curator will always explain his actions, when he is executing his discretional powers. And I think that most of the active citizens would demand an explanation from the Curator, if he would exercise his powers without explaining them.