[Amendment] Overhaul of the Curial Community Team revisited

[Squid]

Before trying to reform it, the question of should it continue to exist needs to be answered. The CCT has done nothing in its entire existence and I can't see any of the proposed changes here doing anything to rectify that, why not just let it die an undignified death, bury it and move on.

[Inkie]

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.

That sounds great, Shank. Please let me know via PM if you have anything you'd like to share for now. As for the Head Historian position, there doesn't seem to be a mention of it in the Constitution so I have no idea what its remit is

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.

Sure, but the Constitution is there to ensure lay out things which are permitted and things which are inadmissible for Curial officials, so really what a good Curator would do shouldn't be a factor. Regardless of whether it's in his interests to do so, it should be unconstitutional for him to shut down people supposed to help the site without providing a reason.

Also, please address my above points if you'd like to argue for removing the VoNC component of the proposal. For now I haven't seen a reason to remove the possibility of VoNC'ing CCT members.

Before trying to reform it, the question of should it continue to exist needs to be answered. The CCT has done nothing in its entire existence and I can't see any of the proposed changes here doing anything to rectify that, why not just let it die an undignified death, bury it and move on.

You seem particularly intent on removing the CCT. If that's the best thing for the forum, could you please prove it by showing the points I made in the OP to be wrong?

[Aikanár]

Sure, but the Constitution is there to ensure lay out things which are permitted and things which are inadmissible for Curial officials, so really what a good Curator would do shouldn't be a factor. Regardless of whether it's in his interests to do so, it should be unconstitutional for him to shut down people supposed to help the site without providing a reason.

I think that's understood, but if adding it expressis verbis to the TWCC, oh well, no problem

Also, please address my above points if you'd like to argue for removing the VoNC component of the proposal. For now I haven't seen a reason to remove the possibility of VoNC'ing CCT members.

Which points? I haven't seen any points of you that show that the procedure of a VonC might be suitable for the CCT. And I'm happy with the Curator having the discretional power to remove members. He has them since we created the CAT and till now no Curator has abused that power or has one? You want to introduce VonCs for unelected CCT members, so the burden of proof lies with you my friend.

With you eliminating the voting part of the CCT, members of the CCT cease to be curial officials, they then are merely people who get access to certain fora in order to work on a project, even if the outcome of the project would be used for official curial purposes, that would not rebound or reflect on appointed CCT members and make them curial officials in hindsight.

To be honest, the more I think of it, the more I tend to agree with Squid. If you remove the elected part, how are they curial officials anymore? If you don't need to be a curial official to do the job, why would you need to be CCT in the first place? Is there anything CCT is still needed for or is there a need to be CCT to be able to do something? What is the purpose of being an unelected CCT in the first place or of the CCT in general? What has the CCT achieved since it's creation as CAT? Would this proposal change anything with the current state of the CCT?

[Squid]

You seem particularly intent on removing the CCT. If that's the best thing for the forum, could you please prove it by showing the points I made in the OP to be wrong?

I don't really care if it lives or dies, it doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose even with your amendments. At best it can be described as allowing curator approved groups of people doing things to exist, which aside from the elected part doesn't seem that much different than before. Having re-read the OP I'm not sure which points you'd like me to address.

As a heads up you'd also need to change other parts of the constitution since VonC's of non-elected positions are non-binding.

[Inkie]

Which points? I haven't seen any points of you that show that the procedure of a VonC might be suitable for the CCT. You want to introduce VonCs for unelected CCT members, so the burden of proof lies with you my friend.

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)?

I pointed out that it could be useful in several potential instances of the CCT running things, for the sake of accountability. You then said that your problem with it is that people might start VoNC's frivolously, and that frivolous VoNC's reflect badly on the CVRIA as a whole, which we addressed, didn't we?

And I'm happy with the Curator having the discretional power to remove members. He has them since we created the CAT and till now no Curator has abused that power or has one?

I'm willing to accept it myself as long as his actions are public. However, if the Curator is the only one who can remove CCT officers, we're only creating a hurdle to true accountability by making it so that any citizen who has a problem with a CCT member has to persuade the Curator of his cause in private, and there would be no way of knowing what the Curator's reaction to such approaches would be, nor would he need to explain himself or tell the truth if he doesn't feel like removing someone (perhaps one of his buddies) in the CCT. And then we'd see the citizen either back down or have to go through the malarkey of VoNC'ing the Curator in order to get his initial target shown up...

If there's one thing that's good about the 2/3 majority rule, it's that a VoNC had better be damn well accepted for it to pass. So I really don't see what problem you have to the idea of the Curial public having a direct ability to call out people running projects that affect them if they're failing to do it properly?

But wait, I'm not sure if I actually follow you, because first you seem to have said that VoNC is too 'threatening' to be possible against volunteers, but then you said that VoNC is in fact bad because it isn't threatening enough to work, relying on 2/3 majority?

I don't really care if it lives or dies, it doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose even with your amendments. At best it can be described as allowing curator approved groups of people doing things to exist, which aside from the elected part doesn't seem that much different than before. Having re-read the OP I'm not sure which points you'd like me to address.

With you eliminating the voting part of the CCT, members of the CCT cease to be curial officials, they then are merely people who get access to certain fora in order to work on a project, even if the outcome of the project would be used for official curial purposes, that would not rebound or reflect on appointed CCT members and make them curial officials in hindsight.

To be honest, the more I think of it, the more I tend to agree with Squid. If you remove the elected part, how are they curial officials anymore? If you don't need to be a curial official to do the job, why would you need to be CCT in the first place? Is there anything CCT is still needed for or is there a need to be CCT to be able to do something? What is the purpose of being an unelected CCT in the first place or of the CCT in general? What has the CCT achieved since it's creation as CAT? Would this proposal change anything with the current state of the CCT?

Wait, where are you reading that people have to be elected in order to be Curial officers? I might have missed that, in which case please point it out to me.

I argued that the CCT has a purpose in that it can allow for accountability of the officers where required, thus making their projects public (Curial) rather than private, with the latter meaning that they would be free to manipulate them as desired, unlike the former. Additionally, it makes it crystal clear who is a part of the team at any given time. This avoids many potential disputes like if the founder of a project goes AWOL, then shows up again a month later and has a dispute with his successor over control of the project, whereas in the CCT it would be clear that if he was AWOL in such a case for X amount of days, he forfeited his position. This is particularly relevant if, for example, we're talking about members who have Local Moderation rights in the Symposium, in which case said person would be able to return and start moderating the place without anyone being able to contradict him because it was 'his' project.

As for the "What has CCT done", I don't find that a useful thing to say, even though I agree. The initial CCT had nothing to do after being elected whereas the main point of the original reform proposal (which people seem to have supported more than they do now) was to rectify this by ensuring that teams are formed for explicit purposes, thus redefining the body to the point that saying "it never did anything before" is pretty much simply explaining the reform. I mean, you can dismiss my points here, but if you find its current form so awfully purposeless, then please tell me how removing the CCT entirely would be more beneficial to all and every future Curia-driven project? Such as the House Cup?

What is there to be lost by seeing if the CCT can work in this form?

As a heads up you'd also need to change other parts of the constitution since VonC's of non-elected positions are non-binding.

Alright, noted. I'll check that out.

[Aikanár]

Just a one-liner from work concerning curial officials. There's only one kind of curial "official" who is not elected and that is the CA and in this special case the CA has no power of his own, he is not allowed to act other than on the whim and will of the Curator and the Curator is 100% responsible for the CAs actions.

If you want to regards appointed CCTs as curial officials, I oppose this, since I believe every official of the Curia (with the solem exception of the CA) should be elected.

[Inkie]

Just a one-liner from work concerning curial officials.

Not sure I follow you. Could you please show me this line?

There's only one kind of curial "official" who is not elected and that is the CA and in this special case the CA has no power of his own, he is not allowed to act other than on the whim and will of the Curator and the Curator is 100% responsible for the CAs actions.

If you want to regards appointed CCTs as curial officials, I oppose this, since I believe every official of the Curia (with the solem exception of the CA) should be elected.

I'm having a very hard time understanding your position, because since the OP it seems that you have been bouncing from one point of opposition to another. I mean no offence here, but I find this to be the most hair-splitting of those you have raised so far. What exactly does the 'Curial officer' status change about a position? Does it mean that they have any powers? No, CCT members don't get powers unless they become local moderators of the Symposium, which can be granted only by Hex. What it does mean is that they're citizens with defined responsibilities whose names will be listed in the 'Curial officers' thread so that people know who is and who isn't in charge of any project at a given time, and from whence they can be removed clearly.

[Aikanár]

I meant that I'm at work and don't have the time to reply to your detailed post in detail, as it's deserving

I'm not bouncing, even though I can understand why you might get the impression I would. I have a lot of issues with regards to a relation of CCT, unelected officials and VonC, which sadly all fall together in this proposal not simultaniously but depending on the relation between things.

I'll try to explain my views and adress your post in a proper form when I've time at hand - thonight I hope.

In the meanwhile, my biggest issue is with two things we've been talking about, I'll try to bring them to the point:

1. Why introduce VonC on appointed people - if it's easy to appoint them, it should be easy to fire them again (besides all my issues with the procedure and possible sideffects of it).
2. Why CCT at all? Is there a need for it? On a closer look it more or less appears to as if we're beating a dead horse here.

With regards to what Squid pointed out, VonCs of non-elected "officials" (i.e. Moderators, Staff in general, Hex) are non-binding and pretty much supferlous.

Sorry for being in a hurry, I just wanted to reply to you, since you made the effort to reply in detail. More tonight

[Aikanár]

Alright, here we go.

Regarding curial officers:

Every official curial office is an elected position: Curator, CdeC councillors with voting rights, Magistrate, Head Historian and the elected CCT members. The only exception to the rule are CAs and those cannot be regarded as independent curial officers but as dependent workers of the Curator. Those officers represent, in a way, the entirety of all citizens. Till now, there are no other curial officers. Every other officer mentioned in the TWCC is not a curial one, but a site officer: HEX, Moderation, Staff in general and Tribunes.

The Curia by nature is an assembly of peers and these peers decide in a democratic fashion, by voting, what they like to do, whom they like as their officers who represent them and indirectly, by electing the CdeC, they are even choosing their new peers in a democratic fashion (hopefully soon in a more direct way). If there exists one basic principal of the Curia, then it's this democratic fabric (besides the old ferris wheel ).

Now, if you eliminate the elected officers of the CCT, you eliminate it's curial representative status with these officers. Why would a society of peers be represented by some randomly appointed or picked people who want to work on a project? Take the team of the Head Historian for example, they are working for an elected curial official and on a more or less on-going project of the curia but they themselves are not curial officers nor curial officials in any shape or form and do not represent the entirety of the citizenry other than that some of them are citizens themselves.


Regarding the CCT in general:

As far as I can see, there has been not much production of the CAT/CCT besides the early days of the Products Review Forum. Then there was the idea of the House-Cup which created some activity within CAT/CCT but, please correct me if I'm wrong and in the last 11 months this has changed, no production. Then there was and is the possibility of the CCT working with full members in the FM. I've only skimmed the FM, but to be honest, I can't find much production there either.

Now, if that is about to change and the House-Cup or other projects are driven forward and produce something other than mere planning activity, you know, actually achieve something, then I possibly could see a purpose for the CCT to exist further.

That being said, is an entire forum in the curia needed for the House-Cup or wouldn't a subforum in the FM or even a thread suffice? Is a constitutionalised body necessary for that very project? Do you really need LM rights in the Symp. and if so, do you need to be CCT in order to receive them? What kind of LM rights do you need? Just for threads you started or general LM rights and if so, why?

To be honest, when I take a look at the CCT I get the impression of it more or less being dead. Is there a reason for or a need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the CCT?


Concerning the VonC:

To start with that, as Squid has reminded us, a VonC is only binding for elected members and all other votes are non-binding. You could have all the VonCs you want, if the Curator does not choose to enact it, he would act in perfect accordance with the TWCC and that would be it. You cannot even VonC him if he would choose to ignore a VonC since he would have neither abused his authority nor his powers.

Next I wonder why a VonC, assuming that the nature of the VonC would be changed in order that a VonC of a non-elected member would become binding, would be needed in the first place. If I understand you correctly you like to eliminate elected CCT officials, which would leave us with appointed members only, which is pretty practical I think (in case the CCT has reason to exist in the future that is). Now you have a very easy and quick way to become a member of the CCT, just shoot the Curator a pm with your intended project or ask the leader of an existing project whether you could join the team and help. You either get accepted or not and then you would been given appropriate access rights.

Good!

But then you seem to want to make the removal a more or less tedious procedure, by introducing the VonC. In the first place I wonder why people, who get hired on the fly, cannot be fired on the fly also? If your concern is like you posted the lack of transparency, then why not just add a clause that the Curator or the leader of a team must present the Curia with a written justification of any demotion? Et voilà, if the explanation might not suffice the citizenry, they can still take further action.

Then there was the hypothetical case of a CCT member abusing his powers -what powers btw, abuse of LM rights in the Symp?- and the Curator not acting upon that abuse. How likely is that in the first place? And even in the event of such a strange thing happening, the Symp is moderated by HEX, if a CCT with LM rights would go bananas, he would be demoted by HEX in no time, don't you think?

So besides that a VonC seems to me overly complicating a procedure that should be as simple as the procedure to join the CCT, it as well appears superfluous to me.

Concerning the majority thingy and the impact a VonC can have, we've already discussed and have exchanged our different points of view.


I hope that might make my position a bit more clear.

[Inkie]

Added to the OP to provide for the possibility of VoNC'ing all Curial officers. The code keeps spazzing out on me though despite how I try to edit it, hence the empty box. Will have to look at that tomorrow. Also added what I proposed last page regarding Curator's removal of CCT officers.

Alright, here we go.

Regarding curial officers:

Every official curial office is an elected position: Curator, CdeC councillors with voting rights, Magistrate, Head Historian and the elected CCT members. The only exception to the rule are CAs and those cannot be regarded as independent curial officers but as dependent workers of the Curator. Those officers represent, in a way, the entirety of all citizens. Till now, there are no other curial officers. Every other officer mentioned in the TWCC is not a curial one, but a site officer: HEX, Moderation, Staff in general and Tribunes.

The Curia by nature is an assembly of peers and these peers decide in a democratic fashion, by voting, what they like to do, whom they like as their officers who represent them and indirectly, by electing the CdeC, they are even choosing their new peers in a democratic fashion (hopefully soon in a more direct way). If there exists one basic principal of the Curia, then it's this democratic fabric (besides the old ferris wheel ).

Now, if you eliminate the elected officers of the CCT, you eliminate it's curial representative status with these officers. Why would a society of peers be represented by some randomly appointed or picked people who want to work on a project? Take the team of the Head Historian for example, they are working for an elected curial official and on a more or less on-going project of the curia but they themselves are not curial officers nor curial officials in any shape or form and do not represent the entirety of the citizenry other than that some of them are citizens themselves.

That's the definition you have decided on though, it's not actually written anywhere. What about seeing Curial officers as, well...people serving in Curial offices? What is the point in restricting the type of office the Curia can make use of? Nothing states that they're supposed to be 'representatives' only, rather than workers of the Curia, its staff so to speak.

Let's take my two examples, of people working on the House Cup and people working on TWC history. These are members who are staffing Curial endeavours not very differently from Content members overseeing permanent Content projects. It's clear that electing them would be somewhat ridiculous. So what do you have left - either include them as officers so that they can be held accountable without obstruction by the Curia and so that their membership can be clearly determined and regulated, or simply refuse to allow them to be called 'Curial officers' so as to suit a rigid personal opinion of what these are supposed to be.

Regarding the CCT in general:

As far as I can see, there has been not much production of the CAT/CCT besides the early days of the Products Review Forum. Then there was the idea of the House-Cup which created some activity within CAT/CCT but, please correct me if I'm wrong and in the last 11 months this has changed, no production. Then there was and is the possibility of the CCT working with full members in the FM. I've only skimmed the FM, but to be honest, I can't find much production there either.

Now, if that is about to change and the House-Cup or other projects are driven forward and produce something other than mere planning activity, you know, actually achieve something, then I possibly could see a purpose for the CCT to exist further.

That being said, is an entire forum in the curia needed for the House-Cup or wouldn't a subforum in the FM or even a thread suffice? Is a constitutionalised body necessary for that very project? Do you really need LM rights in the Symp. and if so, do you need to be CCT in order to receive them? What kind of LM rights do you need? Just for threads you started or general LM rights and if so, why?

To be honest, when I take a look at the CCT I get the impression of it more or less being dead. Is there a reason for or a need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the CCT?

Okay, you have not been around so I'll fill you in. The initial proposals for a House Cup petered out because of Content's prior refusal to allow the Curia access to scores from its competitions and a couple other reasons. The initial CCT failed because of its aimless nature. As for the bolded part, that's good, because if you look at the Curia main you'll see evidence of what is being worked on currently. As of yet we're close to being ready, but having worked on the project I'm unsatisfied by how wholly informal the whole thing is. There is no clear way of defining who has authority to plan and staff the Cup. There is no framework by which the volunteers are acting on behalf of the Curia rather than simply planning their own game located by happenstance in the Curia. There is no concrete way of removing people from the 'team', either. I am personally frustrated that there is such hostility and utter disinterest to the notion of having a form of structure in place for any such kind of Curial project that might come about in the future.

Concerning the VonC:

To start with that, as Squid has reminded us, a VonC is only binding for elected members and all other votes are non-binding. You could have all the VonCs you want, if the Curator does not choose to enact it, he would act in perfect accordance with the TWCC and that would be it. You cannot even VonC him if he would choose to ignore a VonC since he would have neither abused his authority nor his powers.

Next I wonder why a VonC, assuming that the nature of the VonC would be changed in order that a VonC of a non-elected member would become binding, would be needed in the first place. If I understand you correctly you like to eliminate elected CCT officials, which would leave us with appointed members only, which is pretty practical I think (in case the CCT has reason to exist in the future that is). Now you have a very easy and quick way to become a member of the CCT, just shoot the Curator a pm with your intended project or ask the leader of an existing project whether you could join the team and help. You either get accepted or not and then you would been given appropriate access rights.

Good!

But then you seem to want to make the removal a more or less tedious procedure, by introducing the VonC. In the first place I wonder why people, who get hired on the fly, cannot be fired on the fly also? If your concern is like you posted the lack of transparency, then why not just add a clause that the Curator or the leader of a team must present the Curia with a written justification of any demotion? Et voilà, if the explanation might not suffice the citizenry, they can still take further action.

Then there was the hypothetical case of a CCT member abusing his powers -what powers btw, abuse of LM rights in the Symp?- and the Curator not acting upon that abuse. How likely is that in the first place? And even in the event of such a strange thing happening, the Symp is moderated by HEX, if a CCT with LM rights would go bananas, he would be demoted by HEX in no time, don't you think?

So besides that a VonC seems to me overly complicating a procedure that should be as simple as the procedure to join the CCT, it as well appears superfluous to me.

Concerning the majority thingy and the impact a VonC can have, we've already discussed and have exchanged our different points of view.


I hope that might make my position a bit more clear.

As stated, I have edited the proposal so as to take care of the lack of binding VoNC's for the would-be CCT.

Secondly, you seem to be forgetting that the Curator can remove CCT members in the current proposal! The most frustrating part is bolded - you are reposting exactly what I said just last page, and which you disagreed with only two days ago. This ring any bells?

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.

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

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.

Sure, sloppy of me to have not included it in the OP until now, but still.

What we are talking about is providing the ability for citizens to voice a problem they have with a CCT member running things, without being completely dependent on going through the Curator. You say "it's not very likely that X happens". I reply that the Constitution is there precisely in order to provide for bad cases that are not likely, such as the Curator not acting upon such a thing for whatever reason. Also, "Hex can do it" can be said about anything. That's a second reason why we have the Constitution - so that the community can regulate itself by the written 'law' of the land rather than needing Hex intervention and arbitration of everything.

Phew, I think I could use a beer

[Aikanár]

Added to the OP to provide for the possibility of VoNC'ing all Curial officers. The code keeps spazzing out on me though despite how I try to edit it, hence the empty box. Will have to look at that tomorrow. Also added what I proposed last page regarding Curator's removal of CCT officers.

That's the definition you have decided on though, it's not actually written anywhere. What about seeing Curial officers as, well...people serving in Curial offices? What is the point in restricting the type of office the Curia can make use of? Nothing states that they're supposed to be 'representatives' only, rather than workers of the Curia, its staff so to speak.

Let's take my two examples, of people working on the House Cup and people working on TWC history. These are members who are staffing Curial endeavours not very differently from Content members overseeing permanent Content projects. It's clear that electing them would be somewhat ridiculous. So what do you have left - either include them as officers so that they can be held accountable without obstruction by the Curia and so that their membership can be clearly determined and regulated, or simply refuse to allow them to be called 'Curial officers' so as to suit a rigid personal opinion of what these are supposed to be.

Forgive me, if I resort to your own way of highlightning and argument, with the bolded part I can pretty much adress each and every argument you bring forth as well ;-)

The TWCC defines each and every existing office. Those offices are elected offices. You like to introduce unelected offices. That I am not a friend of and never will be.

If you want to have appointed workers, that's another matter. But all in all your idea appears to me as a creation of a curial staff. Why would we need a cuiral staff?

Okay, you have not been around so I'll fill you in. The initial proposals for a House Cup petered out because of Content's prior refusal to allow the Curia access to scores from its competitions and a couple other reasons. The initial CCT failed because of its aimless nature. As for the bolded part, that's good, because if you look at the Curia main you'll see evidence of what is being worked on currently. As of yet we're close to being ready, but having worked on the project I'm unsatisfied by how wholly informal the whole thing is. There is no clear way of defining who has authority to plan and staff the Cup. There is no framework by which the volunteers are acting on behalf of the Curia rather than simply planning their own game located by happenstance in the Curia. There is no concrete way of removing people from the 'team', either. I am personally frustrated that there is such hostility and utter disinterest to the notion of having a form of structure in place for any such kind of Curial project that might come about in the future.

Cheers for the headsup. I'm not hostile against curial projects, in the contrary, I encourage every citizen to contribute in exactly the way he likes to contribute. I question the need of an organisation such as the CCT in order to do so. Please don't mistake me questioning the CCT with me questioning citizens being active, I'm doing the former, not the latter.

As stated, I have edited the proposal so as to take care of the lack of binding VoNC's for the would-be CCT.

Secondly, you seem to be forgetting that the Curator can remove CCT members in the current proposal! The most frustrating part is bolded - you are reposting exactly what I said just last page, and which you disagreed with only two days ago. This ring any bells?



Sure, sloppy of me to have not included it in the OP until now, but still.

I've not forgotten about that. I'm still of the opinion that it does not need to be mentioned since I trust in the Curator doing his job porperly and if not so the Curia asking him questions. It was you who brought up the need for being perfectly sure that a written clause in the TWCC would be needed to ensure that. I just referred to that by picking it up and arguing that if you put such a clause in the TWCC, then why would you need to be able to VonC.

What we are talking about is providing the ability for citizens to voice a problem they have with a CCT member running things, without being completely dependent on going through the Curator.

Yes I understand that, but I don't see the need for it. I asked you what things and what powers and you've evaded answering these questions time and time again. If you don't plan to provide CCT members with powers they may be able to abuse, you don't need a safeguard such as a VonC.

If CCT is supposed to be for projects citizens are interested in to do which they can't do without being CCT, then I ask what kind of projects are we talking about? Again, it appears to me as if your vision of the CCT might be something like an alternate staff, a curial staff. If so, I think we don't need that. If not so, please correct me and please answer what projects and powers you have in mind that would demand the ability to VonC somebody.

You say "it's not very likely that X happens". I reply that the Constitution is there precisely in order to provide for bad cases that are not likely, such as the Curator not acting upon such a thing for whatever reason. Also, "Hex can do it" can be said about anything. That's a second reason why we have the Constitution - so that the community can regulate itself by the written 'law' of the land rather than needing Hex intervention and arbitration of everything.

Phew, I think I could use a beer

That's your idea of the TWCC. Fine. My idea of the TWCC is that it is a guideline off of which our society is based. Who's in the right? Who's in the wrong?

I think the safeguards already in place are totally sufficient in order to prevent any abuse in hindsight. You cannot prevent it before it happens anyways. By the way, even if you would have the VonC procdure applying to CCT members and in case of an abuse of power or authority happening, you still need a citizen to a) recognise that, b) take on the effort to initiate a VonC and c) the majority voting to VonC the member. So even with a possibly working VonC procedure in place, that is still a relatively unsure safeguard to rely upon.

Thinking the wohle thing through I think we two have a seriously differing idea of what the CCT is or should be and what the Curia might need. No problem with that mate, different views are what makes things interesting.


I can't have a beer right now, I'm on my late afternoon break and still have 3 meetings to come

[Inkie]

Forgive me, if I resort to your own way of highlightning and argument, with the bolded part I can pretty much adress each and every argument you bring forth as well ;-)

The TWCC defines each and every existing office. Those offices are elected offices. You like to introduce unelected offices. That I am not a friend of and never will be.

What you said at the bottom of your post is true. I suppose your position about Curial offices needing to be elected is an ideological one, watered-down as that expression may be on an internet forum, so I don't think I have the ability to dissuade you from it. It's interesting that the two people with a remote interest in the CCT disagree about it on almost every level.

Cheers for the headsup. I'm not hostile against curial projects, in the contrary, I encourage every citizen to contribute in exactly the way he likes to contribute. I question the need of an organisation such as the CCT in order to do so. Please don't mistake me questioning the CCT with me questioning citizens being active, I'm doing the former, not the latter.

Oh, I hope you don't misunderstand me. I did not think you were opposed to Curial projects. My point is that some of these projects will require a modicum of structure and professionalism, and that's where having the CCT can come in handy.

I've not forgotten about that. I'm still of the opinion that it does not need to be mentioned since I trust in the Curator doing his job porperly and if not so the Curia asking him questions. It was you who brought up the need for being perfectly sure that a written clause in the TWCC would be needed to ensure that. I just referred to that by picking it up and arguing that if you put such a clause in the TWCC, then why would you need to be able to VonC.

Yes I understand that, but I don't see the need for it. I asked you what things and what powers and you've evaded answering these questions time and time again. If you don't plan to provide CCT members with powers they may be able to abuse, you don't need a safeguard such as a VonC.

If CCT is supposed to be for projects citizens are interested in to do which they can't do without being CCT, then I ask what kind of projects are we talking about? Again, it appears to me as if your vision of the CCT might be something like an alternate staff, a curial staff. If so, I think we don't need that. If not so, please correct me and please answer what projects and powers you have in mind that would demand the ability to VonC somebody.

That's your idea of the TWCC. Fine. My idea of the TWCC is that it is a guideline off of which our society is based. Who's in the right? Who's in the wrong?

If you want to have appointed workers, that's another matter. But all in all your idea appears to me as a creation of a curial staff. Why would we need a cuiral staff?

I don't see how I have evaded the question about CCT duties. I have brought up two concrete realms of Curial content, one of which I am already working in and the other which I plan to, and bring this proposal up as much to improve the way these tasks can be administered, as to provide for the likely case that in the future there will be more of their type. The reason I have not explained House Cup things in more detail is because the planned rules are still being kept under wraps until a draft can be agreed upon, but the competition will be a year-wide thing that requires a form of staff overseeing it. As for the people working on the forum's History, the Head Historian can be VoNC'ed even though his actual tasks are not clearly defined. We have already found, based on the wiki source explaining VoNC's provided, that VoNC's do not need to be restricted to people who are elected. If you take two people with pretty much the same important Curial tasks and with possibilities that they both might screw up, why should only the elected one be VoNC'able?

I think the safeguards already in place are totally sufficient in order to prevent any abuse in hindsight. You cannot prevent it before it happens anyways. By the way, even if you would have the VonC procdure applying to CCT members and in case of an abuse of power or authority happening, you still need a citizen to a) recognise that, b) take on the effort to initiate a VonC and c) the majority voting to VonC the member. So even with a possibly working VonC procedure in place, that is still a relatively unsure safeguard to rely upon.

Thinking the wohle thing through I think we two have a seriously differing idea of what the CCT is or should be and what the Curia might need. No problem with that mate, different views are what makes things interesting.

I can't have a beer right now, I'm on my late afternoon break and still have 3 meetings to come

The fact that citizens need to be aware of a wrongdoing in order to initiate a VoNC can't be a serious criticism against its usefulness.
The fact that citizens need to take the effort to write an OP in order to do so can't either.
As for the majority thing - well yes, as I have already said, the very point of a VoNC is to allow the citizenry to decide as a whole whether they find that the OP's objections warrant a removal of position, rather than only one man. This doesn't concern people who are working on their own individual projects - it's for these guys that you can question the necessity of them being in CCT. For instance, I would not need to be stamped with a CCT badge in order to write up my Curial survey - a ridiculous notion. What I am discussing are more-or-less permanent Curial projects and enterprises. Product Reviews could have been one before Content got it. In fact, if my memory of that is correct, I'm fairly certain that some VoNC's would have been in order before it came to that point. Or, if you'd prefer, telling the Curator that the CCT wasn't doing its job and waiting for him to decide to remove them, based on the assumption that he agrees it should be done.

[Aikanár]

What you said at the bottom of your post is true. I suppose your position about Curial offices needing to be elected is an ideological one, watered-down as that expression may be on an internet forum, so I don't think I have the ability to dissuade you from it. It's interesting that the two people with a remote interest in the CCT disagree about it on almost every level.

Indeed. You see, for a body of peers I don't like to have appointed offices that's pretty much the end of the story for me. Also I may have a different opinion about what the Curia is and what it may be good for or what its function is or should be. Remembering your curial survey I'm actually pretty sure that our views on those matters differ pretty much and I guess that is the root for our different view on the CCT or curial offices.

Oh, I hope you don't misunderstand me. I did not think you were opposed to Curial projects. My point is that some of these projects will require a modicum of structure and professionalism, and that's where having the CCT can come in handy.

Ah, see, then I don't like to speculate about future porjects before they actually exist. You see, I'm absolutely no fan of creating or expanding a body before that body hasn't anything to do. When CAT was created, its first and foremost purpose we created it for was Product Reviews. That was considered the base from where to start and maybe take off of to other ventures. Sadly that did not went the way it was intended to, meaning that besides Shanks initiatives there wasn't that much drive shown from the CAT to really make Product Reviews a success. I'm not venturing to argue whether the basic idea of CAT was crooked or whether we did not elect the right people with sufficient drive for doing the job or whether it was something else. Fact is, CAT failed.

I don't see how I have evaded the question about CCT duties. I have brought up two concrete realms of Curial content, one of which I am already working in and the other which I plan to, and bring this proposal up as much to improve the way these tasks can be administered, as to provide for the likely case that in the future there will be more of their type.

I was not asking about their duties, of course you cannot comment on them as long as they are not defined and they are selfexplanating, when they are defined. I was asking about their powers and authority because that's the other occasion where a VonC can be initiated, abuse of that. So which authority could CCT members possibly have? To me, that's pretty easy: none.
What kind of power could they have? LM rights spring to mind. Or are you thinking of other powers?

The reason I have not explained House Cup things in more detail is because the planned rules are still being kept under wraps until a draft can be agreed upon, but the competition will be a year-wide thing that requires a form of staff overseeing it.

Fair enough.

As for the people working on the forum's History, the Head Historian can be VoNC'ed even though his actual tasks are not clearly defined.

Yeah, that's why we probably will never ever see a VonC against the Head Historian in the first place ;-)

We have already found, based on the wiki source explaining VoNC's provided, that VoNC's do not need to be restricted to people who are elected. If you take two people with pretty much the same important Curial tasks and with possibilities that they both might screw up, why should only the elected one be VoNC'able?

How are CCT tasks supposed to be pretty much the same important Curial tasks as the tasks of the elected officers? They for sure are not the same as those of the Curator, Magistrates, CdeC (till it's abolished) or Head Historian. If you meant the elected CCT members, the intent of them being elected and being liable to a binding VonC was that they were supposed to work in an official function not only for the Curia, but for the entire site: Produc Reviews. To be honest, elected CCT members had serverd their purpose when Content took over Product Reviews. According to my opinion, they are just a leftover, which has not yet been undone.
I just don't see any similarity with appointed CCT members, who are in no way a representative of the Curia. If they should be, how and why?

The fact that citizens need to be aware of a wrongdoing in order to initiate a VoNC can't be a serious criticism against its usefulness.

Indeed it can, namely when it comes to the fact that the abuse of authority or power or the neglection of duty has to be recognised. Since you have the auto-removal thingy for AWOL, the neglection of duty cannot be being AWOL but must be somethin else, which must be recognisable within the given timeframe befor the AWOL claus takes effect. For the abuse of authority or power, that depends on the authority or power itself, if it'S LM rights, you really have to be aware of changes, deleting posts or editing posts or closing threads or deleting threads or what not may be obvious if they are on the FP, but what about other things? We once had the case of a CA abusing his LM rights and it was only due to the awareness of Ishan that this was even recognised. So bare with me if I'm not falling easily for that argument.

The fact that citizens need to take the effort to write an OP in order to do so can't either.

It's the correlation of things, that I wanted to point out. First you have to even realise there was an abuse and then the realising citizen has to care about that in order to even create a VonC. That's what I meant.

As for the majority thing - well yes, as I have already said, the very point of a VoNC is to allow the citizenry to decide as a whole whether they find that the OP's objections warrant a removal of position, rather than only one man.

And that combined just makes me believe that a VonC is not a fitting procedure for appointed workers in general and the CCT in particular.

This doesn't concern people who are working on their own individual projects - it's for these guys that you can question the necessity of them being in CCT. For instance, I would not need to be stamped with a CCT badge in order to write up my Curial survey - a ridiculous notion. What I am discussing are more-or-less permanent Curial projects and enterprises. Product Reviews could have been one before Content got it. In fact, if my memory of that is correct, I'm fairly certain that some VoNC's would have been in order before it came to that point. Or, if you'd prefer, telling the Curator that the CCT wasn't doing its job and waiting for him to decide to remove them, based on the assumption that he agrees it should be done.

While I agree with you on the VonC or dismissal at that time. I just don't see the need for a curial pseudo-staff as long as they have nothing to do. I trust you concerning the House-Cup, but I want to see it live and running its course to form an opinion about whether or not it justifys CCT.

By the way I agree with you concerning the interest in the CCT ;-) And I do enjoy discussing with you, cheers for that mate

[Inkie]

Indeed. You see, for a body of peers I don't like to have appointed offices that's pretty much the end of the story for me. Also I may have a different opinion about what the Curia is and what it may be good for or what its function is or should be. Remembering your curial survey I'm actually pretty sure that our views on those matters differ pretty much and I guess that is the root for our different view on the CCT or curial offices.

Though actually, you should remember that the Curator can currently appoint CCT members and that these become Curial officers. So in fact, there already are unelected Curial officers in the current law. What is your opinion on this?

Ah, see, then I don't like to speculate about future porjects before they actually exist. You see, I'm absolutely no fan of creating or expanding a body before that body hasn't anything to do. When CAT was created, its first and foremost purpose we created it for was Product Reviews. That was considered the base from where to start and maybe take off of to other ventures. Sadly that did not went the way it was intended to, meaning that besides Shanks initiatives there wasn't that much drive shown from the CAT to really make Product Reviews a success. I'm not venturing to argue whether the basic idea of CAT was crooked or whether we did not elect the right people with sufficient drive for doing the job or whether it was something else. Fact is, CAT failed.

You see, there I agree that it was both the elective and vague nature of the CAT and the fact that perhaps the wrong people were elected, that are the most likely causes of CAT failure in the Product Reviews area. Hence why volunteers who are applying with a specific task in mind and a strong desire to fulfil that task, are more suitable. That means that in the envisaged CCT, unlike in the initial CAT, the right people can be members rather than a collection of individuals who are supposed to fulfil a variety of tasks, some of which they might not be at all interested in (Product Reviews for most of the CAT I presume is a good example) and who might look have no common understanding of their role and of what they're supposed to do.

As for the roles that are currently on the table, I don't see what benefit there is in waiting to start before putting a more professional system in place? If the Curia is going to undertake any long-term projects like this which need to be staffed, it is going to have to take itself seriously enough to make sure that it's done properly, rather than decide that because we don't like red tape, we should just leave things as a mess and start projects without organizing them.

I was not asking about their duties, of course you cannot comment on them as long as they are not defined and they are selfexplanating, when they are defined. I was asking about their powers and authority because that's the other occasion where a VonC can be initiated, abuse of that. So which authority could CCT members possibly have? To me, that's pretty easy: none.
What kind of power could they have? LM rights spring to mind. Or are you thinking of other powers?

LM rights are already things which can be abused to any degree, but as I already feel I have mentioned, power is a limiting term. I'm talking about responsibilities. In the House Cup CCT members would need to record tallies and count points between the Houses, they would need to be referees in competitions, arbitrate disputes between Houses, keep things recording and information up to date, and do so fairly. The fact that they do so properly is crucial to the success of the competition as a project, and in most cases I presume that if they're responsible for any problems, it will be competing House members who would have the most likelihood and potential cause to see a problem with the people running it, not the Curator. You need to show me why he should be the only one who can take action.

Fair enough.

Yeah, that's why we probably will never ever see a VonC against the Head Historian in the first place ;-)

How are CCT tasks supposed to be pretty much the same important Curial tasks as the tasks of the elected officers? They for sure are not the same as those of the Curator, Magistrates, CdeC (till it's abolished) or Head Historian. If you meant the elected CCT members, the intent of them being elected and being liable to a binding VonC was that they were supposed to work in an official function not only for the Curia, but for the entire site: Produc Reviews. To be honest, elected CCT members had serverd their purpose when Content took over Product Reviews. According to my opinion, they are just a leftover, which has not yet been undone.
I just don't see any similarity with appointed CCT members, who are in no way a representative of the Curia. If they should be, how and why?

No, I was referring specifically to my idea, the 'History Squad' in comparison to the 'Head Historian', who can be VoNC'ed if need be, even if they both have the same task. You seem to be misunderstanding my proposal. CCT would not be a monolithic body, it would be a collection of independent 'detachments', each with a single purpose.

As for VoNC'ing the Head Historian, don't be so sure. I'd like to find out what the incumbent HH has done so far during his lifelong term, and if it's nothing then I'd quite comfortably say that I don't have confidence in his ability or willingness to do his job.

Indeed it can, namely when it comes to the fact that the abuse of authority or power or the neglection of duty has to be recognised. Since you have the auto-removal thingy for AWOL, the neglection of duty cannot be being AWOL but must be somethin else, which must be recognisable within the given timeframe befor the AWOL claus takes effect. For the abuse of authority or power, that depends on the authority or power itself, if it'S LM rights, you really have to be aware of changes, deleting posts or editing posts or closing threads or deleting threads or what not may be obvious if they are on the FP, but what about other things? We once had the case of a CA abusing his LM rights and it was only due to the awareness of Ishan that this was even recognised. So bare with me if I'm not falling easily for that argument.

It's the correlation of things, that I wanted to point out. First you have to even realise there was an abuse and then the realising citizen has to care about that in order to even create a VonC. That's what I meant.

And that combined just makes me believe that a VonC is not a fitting procedure for appointed workers in general and the CCT in particular.

While I agree with you on the VonC or dismissal at that time. I just don't see the need for a curial pseudo-staff as long as they have nothing to do. I trust you concerning the House-Cup, but I want to see it live and running its course to form an opinion about whether or not it justifys CCT.

By the way I agree with you concerning the interest in the CCT ;-) And I do enjoy discussing with you, cheers for that mate

The clause about inactivity in the Constitution refers solely to whether the member in question has logged on in X amount of days. Further than this, 'activity' is subjective as there is a chance the member has been logging on but not doing the amount of work they're supposed to. This is where the VoNC comes in.

As for being aware of LM abuse, why don't you think that members who have their posts edited or deleted might notice them and have a problem with them? And that still doesn't change the fact that if they do, they need to be in possession of their own, personal avenue for action, if they don't find the Curator a satisfactory option. This could be because the Curator doesn't like them, because the Curator is buddies or involved with the CCT member the individual has a problem with, because the individual has already contacted the Curator with genuine concern but the latter simply didn't respond or didn't agree that removal was the right course of action, etcetera...

The fact that some people might not be aware of a fault is no reason to obstruct the ability of those that are to take action.

And once again, I really don't think you're in touch with the prospects of this House Cup proposal, and I hope that if you really do trust me concerning it, you'll trust my wish for this change to come about before it begins rather than afterwards. It would be highly counter-productive to not begin it with an organized structure for the sake of a formality (waiting until something is inevitably started to support a proposal). 'Curial projects' is a battered and bruised notion already and I really don't fancy seeing this one shooting itself in the foot before it starts, thank you.

I wish I could say the same about enjoying this discussion. Nothing personal of course, it's just that I'm surprised not a single person has expressed interest, and that the only feedback has been a sea of various criticisms from the first post onwards. At this point, the proposal feels bogged-down to the point that I'm not sure if anyone would even read through it rather than just say "wow, looks like there are a lot of problems with this one". Still, I'm not going to complain. To not expect frustrations when you pitch an idea to the public would be naive

[Ishan]

As much as i appreciate your effort here Inkie, i don't really see the need for CCT\CAT. I mean no one is stopping citizens to form a group and work on anything they like in curia main or Proth. I wasn't around when this idea was proposed and i would've opposed its creation in the first place.

But i do see its use i guess, i will have to read all the thread. Lot of text for me.

[Inkie]

Alright, I'd like to see once more if there's anyone at all interested in this proposal. I've edited the OP so as to better include my arguments.

[Inkie]

Expired and archived.