Curial Rank Definition Amendment

[gigagaia]

The rationale behind this ammendment is simple. To change our perceptions of the patrician class, from "an even flashier badge than citizens" to "a member/citizen who is capable and has undertaken a role to participate in the curia." If we are to make the curia into something which can participate in the running of TWC to a degree and manner beyond that of existing as a flashy RPG, we need to shift our perceptions of the Patrician rank as one of an award, to one of a responsibility, like ranks in staff. It should also reflect the focus on citizenship as a rank to recognize excellence. The contribution requirement of patricians should merely be one to measure capability toparticipate, not one measuring recognition requirements. That is for citizenship.
I want this to be the first stepping stone in the development of the curia as a body which meanigfully contributes to policy of TWC.

Member Ranks and Rights

Citizen

• Contributing members of TWC have the opportunity to become a Citizen of the forum as per the Patronization section of the Syntagma. There are two ranks of Citizen, both ranks are equal in rights, and citizenship is awarded for contribution to TWC. There are two ranks of Citizen, An Artifex one is elevated for their contributions to the Total War Community (Artifex), A Civitate is elevated for their contribution to the Common Community (Civitate). Both ranks grant access to the Symposium and the [insert name of new forum dedicated for advanced discussion of Total War.]the Alchemist's Chambers.

Patrician

• Patricians are members who have proved they are good posters(as conferred by the rank of Civitate or Artifex), are interested in TWC and have made a good exceptional contribution to it, and who therefore deserve the right to have some say in the running of TWC.and thus have proven their capability to contribute to the running and development of TWC as a whole

• Patricianship is awardedgranted by the Consilium de Civitate to a member who has proven themselves worthy and capable throughfor significant contribution to TWC (Appendix A). None of these contributions provide automatic Patricianship however, but they do allow for nomination. In addition to those contributions, the member must have at least one month’s experience as a Citizen and have no active warnings at the time of the election. Patricians are expected to contribute to the developing the site. Involvement in the Curia is part of that.The rank of Patrician is a rank conferred solely for duties in the curia, and thus all patricians are expected to participate in the business of the curia.

• Patricians have the same rights asare Citizens but may also who have been given the responsibility to vote on legislation and post in the Curia and Curia Vote forums.

[Perikles]

Maybe this is the solution, I support. As long as you get rid of the (Civitate) bit you seem to have missed...

[gigagaia]

Oops... heh heh... well that's all sorted now...

[Wild Bill Kelso]

[fieldset]

Member Ranks and Rights

Citizen

• Contributing members of TWC have the opportunity to become a Citizen of the forum as per the Patronization section of the Syntagma. There are two ranks of Citizen, both ranks are equal in rights, and citizenship is awarded for contribution to TWC. There are two ranks of Citizen,Generally an Artifex one is elevated for their contributions to the Total War Community (Artifex), A Civitate is elevated for their contribution to the Common Community (Civitate). Both ranks grant access to the Symposium and the [insert name of new forum dedicated for advanced discussion of Total War.]the Alchemist's Chambers.

Perhaps by adding in the word "generally" or something similiar you allow flexibility for members whom for whatever reason could be given an artifex/civitate status outside of the normal requirements. What I mean to say can probably be written more clearly by a more adept witer

[the Black Prince]

purely pedantic, but for the last paragraph

patricians are citizens who have been given the additional responsibility...

[Kagemusha]

To me it looks more like a counter ammendment to Squekys proposal.:hmmm:

[Rolanbek]

Which is of itself, a counter to a similar proposal.

*sigh*

Do not support, and humbly suggest that this waits until the long overdue vote on tGS Bill occurs.

R

[Halie Satanus]

Enforced participation in the Curia, do we now start to look at the existing Patricians to see who we can purge??. No i can't support this as it will force members to participate, enforced participation will not mean good participation.

By the way the Alchemist Chambers doesn't exist any more.

[Kagemusha]

Enforced participation in the Curia, do we now start to look at the existing Patricians to see who we can purge??. No i can't support this as it will force members to participate, enforced participation will not mean good participation.

Quoted the truth.

[gigagaia]

Enforced participation in the Curia, do we now start to look at the existing Patricians to see who we can purge??. No i can't support this as it will force members to participate, enforced participation will not mean good participation.

You see, I have a problem with this line of reasoning. I'll give a few reasons why.
1) I have a problem the assumption that a functioning curia can arise out of a membership base that would rather make a go of their right to be involved in the curia through railing against the injustices of PMming members before a vote rather than ignoring pointless drama. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of a curia where people think its ok to cause such needless drama and ruin the chances of the best candidates. I'd rather see a curia where people found that type of behaviour unacceptable, even if it did originate from higher up the food chain.
Maybe that's just me though...

2) If a member doesn't want to participate or cannot do so in a quality way, why should they be given access to the curia at all? If they can't give quality contribution, should we even leave open the potential for the curia to be populated with members who can't give quality contribution?

3) Noone said that each and every member has to post essays thrice hourly. Posts which display the quality of the member and the fact that he or she understands the issue being discussed, give us a measure of trust to go on. If members simply don't post anything and don't vote, remind me why they bear the rank which gives access to the curia? Why not simply make citizenship the recognition and patricianship the responsibility, which is admitedly, what this bill sets out to do.

By the way the Alchemist Chambers doesn't exist any more.

Er... didn't see that part.

Quoted the truth.

If its true, then you should no problems demonstrating why.

----
WBK, tBP, I've added your suggestions in, so it should now reflect them:

v. 1.1

Member Ranks and Rights

Citizen

• Contributing members of TWC have the opportunity to become a Citizen of the forum as per the Patronization section of the Syntagma. There are two ranks of Citizen, both ranks are equal in rights, and citizenship is awarded for contribution to TWC. There are two ranks of Citizen Generally, An Artifex one is elevated for their contributions to the Total War Community (Artifex), A Civitate is elevated for their contribution to the Common Community (Civitate). Both ranks grant access to the Symposium

Patrician

• Patricians are members who have proved they are good posters(as conferred by the rank of Civitate or Artifex), are interested in TWC and have made a good exceptional contribution to it, and who therefore deserve the right to have some say in the running of TWC.and thus have proven their capability to contribute to the running and development of TWC as a whole

• Patricianship is awardedgranted by the Consilium de Civitate to a member who has proven themselves worthy and capable throughfor significant contribution to TWC (Appendix A). None of these contributions provide automatic Patricianship however, but they do allow for nomination. In addition to those contributions, the member must have at least one month’s experience as a Citizen and have no active warnings at the time of the election. Patricians are expected to contribute to the developing the site. Involvement in the Curia is part of that.The rank of Patrician is a rank conferred solely for duties in the curia, and thus all patricians are expected to participate in the business of the curia.

• Patricians have the same rights asare Citizens but may also who have been given the additional responsibility to vote on legislation and post in the Curia and Curia Vote forums.

[Halie Satanus]

Not wishing to go into specifics but point 1 was actually an example of the Curia standing up for a non issue that was rushed though by opportunist members of senior staff. so has no bearing on the current Curia at all.

2.Who is to say who will give quality contributions on future issues, i could say a member like bdh who rarely posted in the Curia made an excellent stance against the reforms and then in frustration handed over his civitate badge, how many more such members will you have purged because you don't know what they might contribute in the future.

3.You can't create trust by ridding yourselves of members you don't feel are worthy, all you will do is create a Curia populated by members who are constantly looking over their shoulder for the CdeC. As i said enforced participation will not make good participation.

And the Alchemist Chambers still doesn't exist.

[gigagaia]

Not wishing to go into specifics but point 1 was actually an example of the Curia standing up for a non issue that was rushed though by opportunist members of senior staff. so has no bearing on the current Curia at all.

Because they thought it was an OK move to pull in the curia, knew they could get away with it and that people would follow them. My point still stands. The way people, Hex, Trium and civitates, looked at the curia before was simply not conducive to responsibility.

2.Who is to say who will give quality contributions on future issues, i could say a member like bdh who rarely posted in the Curia made an excellent stance against the reforms and then in frustration handed over his civitate badge, how many more such members will you have purged because you don't know what they might contribute in the future.

Your point, however, was that by making patricianship a curial rank, thereby attaching the responsibility of participation onto it, would lead to a curia weakend by contribution of a lower standard. My response is merely that if some members aren't contributing because they cannot, why are we allowing them access in the first place?
I'm not suggesting a purge. In fact I would be against it. I am personally of the opinion that all of the patricians now are more than capable of bearing a responsibility and making the curia better. What I am suggesting is altering our mindset as to how we view the curia, from less of an RPG, to more of a place which gets things done. I would also propose that we encourage absentee patricians to take up their place and participate. But if they don't want to, why give them "the option"? As long as the curia is a casual place, do you expect important decisions to be made? Can you imagine a staff (jokes aside ) made up entirely of people who only moderated or did anything when they felt like it, and a view that this was ok? We'd either have a massive staff to compensate, with associated security risks, or a totally absent administrative structure.

3.You can't create trust by ridding yourselves of members you don't feel are worthy, all you will do is create a Curia populated by members who are constantly looking over their shoulder for the CdeC. As i said enforced participation will not make good participation.

My proposal merely states that patricians are expected to participate. It doesn't say that it will be enforced, nor members purged, but if you would like, I can alter that to reflect a more passive participation. However I don't think it is unreasonable to state that it is expected of a person who has been given the right to access a forum which will decide policy and the direction of the curia, to, at the very lease, from time-to-time access it, inform themselves of the issues and vote.

Ideally, we don't need that line. But obviously people still view the curia as a casual pastime rather than something which could give members a much greater say in how this forum is run. I am simply trying to change that attitude. If you have any better suggestions, with concrete evidence, on how to change that mindset, I am all ears.

And the Alchemist Chambers still doesn't exist.

fixed it...

[Wild Bill Kelso]

If the Curia is to ever have a real say in site operations then it must have members within it who are up to date with what is going on within it and within other areas of the site. The members who are heavily involved within the TW half of TWC, especially modding, have my humble respect. However, if they wish to contribute to the functioning of the site then should they not know what is occuring within the body responsible for this? If your answer is no, then think of it another way; put yourself in the shoes of a Mod team leader. Would you as a modder want members who joined your mod team and disappeared, suddenly return when ever it suited them and influence how your mod would progress regardless of your and other members determined and mutual effort in the mods development? Now I don't intend to imply that modders are the sole group who do not participate here, but I think they make the best analogy.

That is no way to run a mod, imo, and also no way to run a forum government.

Addition- I would also like to add that Curial participation does not mean that the Curia needs to dominate your time at TWC. It means that you occasionally stop by, read over a topic enough to know what it is about and where you stand. Then if you wish, add something you think would improve the legislation or respond to a statement you do not agree with. If you have made up your mind on an issue you don't need to respond, but you should vote. I am sure that if you miss a vote do to time constraints, and yes the occasional apathetic spell, then you would not be removed. However, if you have never even entered the Curia, posted or voted, then yes, you should be removed (and really probably wouldn't care if you were removed). We have ranks to acknowledge members who have done great things, maybe these people are happy with that and don't wish to become more involved. I also believe that, if the definition of Patrician is changed, such members must be contacted and asked if they do indeed wish to paerticipate as a patrician, not simply removed.

[Sétanta]

Ah, another one!

To tell you the truth, I am quite glad that these debates are happening. The percieved problem within the Curia is being addressed with strong debate from both sides.

In principle, I support the idea behind this bill. I think it is very important for Patricians to participate in the Curia. The analogy I have used before is that representatives to real life legislative bodies are not elected to not participate in the body they were elected to. They are elected because they are expected to participate as fully as possible and give input representing the people who elected them. While we are not a representative body, we can still strive to acheive the same thing. If the Patricians in the Curia are exceptionally active and can refrain from petty in-fighting (and by petty I mean anything that has to do with punishment), then Hexagon has no choice but to listen and respect input given by the Curia. Ideally that would lead to some yet unnamed responsibility removed from electing moderators.

Participating in the Curia does not, and should not mean that you have no time for anything else, a concern that has been brought up before. If a Patrician participates when he feels secure with what he is debating or proposing, than there is no problem. If a Patrician participates all the time and dedicates his entire time on the site to the Curia, that is fine too. What is not fine is when a Patrician is voted in on the basis that they are exceptional members and does not participate a lick in the Curia, except when it concerns them keeping their rank. If a Patrician only does that, but regularly votes, then there is a problem. Again, a real world analogy gives insight. If members of a real life legislative body never bother to show up except for voting and instead delegate all debates to the leaders of their political parties, then that body is seriously malfunctioning.

Another point, that off Patricianship being a reward rank. I seem to remember during the reforms that Staff was opperating on the basis that Civitate/Artifex would take over the role as a reward rank for good contributions, and that Patricians were the ones who would take an active role in the running of the site. Sure, Patricianship is given in part because of exceptional contributions, but that is not the reason for its existance. If people want a reward rank that gives them a vote, then they should have argued more vehemently against the reforms.

[Kagemusha]

If the Curia is to ever have a real say in site operations then it must have members within it who are up to date with what is going on within it and within other areas of the site. The members who are heavily involved within the TW half of TWC, especially modding, have my humble respect. However, if they wish to contribute to the functioning of the site then should they not know what is occuring within the body responsible for this? If your answer is no, then think of it another way; put yourself in the shoes of a Mod team leader. Would you as a modder want members who joined your mod team and disappeared, suddenly return when ever it suited them and influence how your mod would progress regardless of your and other members determined and mutual effort in the mods development? Now I don't intend to imply that modders are the sole group who do not participate here, but I think they make the best analogy.

Its a rare occurance,but Patron i must disagree with you. Curia is voluntary work,just like modding. You cant motivate people by threatening them or forcing them to do anything if they work voluntarily.
In mod teams people come and go,the only motivation beeing the will and desire to create the mod,but still in the end the real life comes first, what ever the desire to create a certain mod is for the person. Same goes with the Curia.
We are not payed to attend in the Curia and so there are many things that are much more important to many individuals here and that can severely restrict the time sayed individuals can participate here even for long period of times. No matter if their contributions when they are present can be of huge importance. Now if you accept the concept that its a duty of the Patrician to attend the Curia on regular bases, while you may mean well by that, you also open up the way for next purges.
I would like to play Oracle here and tell that the obvious next step if this law is passed is an amendment that assigns the CdeC to monitor the Curial activity of Patricians and dismiss their rank from them based on their inactivity. Is this what we really want? Purges after purges as long as there are only the ones left who live and breath for the Curia. Im sure that when and if the day comes the Curia will be more "effective",since there are no others left then few hardcore Curialist.
If that is what the majority wants, then its the way we will proceed. But i have to ask,is it worth all this to alienate the many members that have made significant contributions to the TWC, becouse i have no doubt in my mind that many of us choose to leave in that case from their own free will, rather then to be forced contributors or kicked out,becouse they have their real lives and other projects also to look after.
I think we are standing in the crossroads. I cant tell you which is the right way to proceed,only my personal opinion on these issues,but please think carefully what you vote, before you do that.

[Ragabash]

There have been some discussion about the role of Patricians inside the site and that the rank should be tied to the Curial matters before more responsibilities could be given to the body.

Please let us know that what responsibilities(ideas) would be given to the CVRIA if this bill would take place. :hmmm:

I understand that the requirements for being a Patrician might alter somewhat if there would be a new role for this body, but current system for current responsibilities seems to work quite well.

However I can see a reason behind this legistation and have contradictory opinion about this for now.

[Simetrical]

As long as it's stated that Patricianship is given even partly due to excellence in contributions, anyone who doesn't get it will feel slighted. If you want to make it a Curia-only rank, fine, but then remove the qualifiers: make it like CoW or CdC election, appointment to do a specific job and not any kind of recognition.

[Aemilianus]

Do not support, for the exact same reason I just posted in the other thread.

WBK- Mods have team members dedicated to specific tasks based on their abilities, so losing one for an extended period of time hurts the mod for a while. This Curia has a large number of "yea or nay specialists" and "debate specialists". All do the same job, so if you lose one of them, you don't even notice most of the time, till they come back and post pictures of their excursions in the Say Cheese thread. It's much less "skilled labor".

Mudd- Voting and not posting is better than nothing. If a Patrician comes in and votes the way he/she believes the site should be run, they come in regularly enough to enjoy the site, and they earned the rank of Patrician, what's the problem? This isn't the Ways and Means Committee- we vote on things like rank names and patronization, things that really don't matter in the long run.

Need I remind you all that this is a play "legislature" you want to keep neatly clipped, and it doesn't have any actual power. Trust me, it doesn't. If this was the Staff, or CdC, some body with an ability to go in and do something other than aesthetic, then that would be a different story. If there was something we were voting on that required a time-sensitive, site shaking decision, then that would be a different story. This? This is the best posters on all of TWC arguing about what it really means to be a participant in this elite body. There's a reason everyone deserves to be here, and whenever Staff feels like it, they'll ask us. Until then, I don't see the problem.

[Rolanbek]

remind away, my friend, remind away.....

Mudd, we have too many threads with the same bloody argument going on at the moment.

One, question exists in all:

What should a Patrician be?

Instead of discussing this directly, we are discussing this piecemeal, across many threads. A lot of the current argument falls across three main groups.

• The Regulators. who are moving towards regulation and oversight
• Proponents of Curial Laissez faire. who believe regulation is the road to enforcement and enforcement will reduce quality
• The Middle ground. Discretion, expectation and leniency

Those who are calling for regulation, are in the main in a position to expect to be doing the regulating. Most who see their proposals have difficulty not hearing crashing jackboots in the background, however reasonable the proposal is. Eveything they say of do is considered part of a slippery slope, so even some potientially useful ideas are being discarded because a vocal number of patricians do not like the manner in which regulation is being presented.

Those who are proposing little or no regulation, are very clearly only doing so to block regulatory legislation. Oddly at least one piece of anti-regulatory legislation has sufficient support to go to a vote. However is still sitting in limbo waiting for the regulatory faction to stop bleating.

The Middle ground, is where the Ents sit currently. Slowly shaking there heads and repeating..."what are you all doing...."

Perhaps a non-discussion discussion thread in the Curia Proper, where we can all put our opinions and thoughts without getting drawn into defending those positions. This will help us see what the consensus is.

R

[gigagaia]

As long as it's stated that Patricianship is given even partly due to excellence in contributions, anyone who doesn't get it will feel slighted. If you want to make it a Curia-only rank, fine, but then remove the qualifiers: make it like CoW or CdC election, appointment to do a specific job and not any kind of recognition.

The mention of contribution is through consequence, not through recognition. I've done my best to ammend it so it reflects that. I don't necessarily think that removing contribution as a condition of promotion is best, but I think its best to make it an indicator of qualification and not what the rank is bestowed for. I'm open on suggestions for how to improve the wording with respect to contribution.

WBK- Mods have team members dedicated to specific tasks based on their abilities, so losing one for an extended period of time hurts the mod for a while. This Curia has a large number of "yea or nay specialists" and "debate specialists". All do the same job, so if you lose one of them, you don't even notice most of the time, till they come back and post pictures of their excursions in the Say Cheese thread. It's much less "skilled labor".

The point is that the Curia should be made up of skilled labour and members able to contribute, if it is to be a meaningful body which does more that you are identifying below. It should have members that come into the curia, post on the important issues to them, inform themselves of all the others by reading what is going on and making an informed vote.

Mudd- Voting and not posting is better than nothing. If a Patrician comes in and votes the way he/she believes the site should be run, they come in regularly enough to enjoy the site, and they earned the rank of Patrician, what's the problem? This isn't the Ways and Means Committee- we vote on things like rank names and patronization, things that really don't matter in the long run.
Need I remind you all that this is a play "legislature" you want to keep neatly clipped, and it doesn't have any actual power. Trust me, it doesn't. If this was the Staff, or CdC, some body with an ability to go in and do something other than aesthetic, then that would be a different story. If there was something we were voting on that required a time-sensitive, site shaking decision, then that would be a different story. This? This is the best posters on all of TWC arguing about what it really means to be a participant in this elite body. There's a reason everyone deserves to be here, and whenever Staff feels like it, they'll ask us. Until then, I don't see the problem.

Indeed it doesn't, and that is the very premise this argument hinges on; the curia is a glorified RPG that sometimes gets to elect moderators. The whole point of this proposal is to foster a curia which can shoulder power and do more than pretend to be important.
If the curia had a dependable member base, it could be productive and could be more than a "play legislature." That is the very nature of what is trying to be accomplished. Noone here is arguing about what the status quo is but what it could be.