Removing the ridiculous punishment for Patricians

[Sétanta]

Patronization

Any Citizen holding their rank for three months without warnings can Patronise a peregrinus for Citizenship at a rate of one per month (subject to requirements, section 1). The granting of Citizenship is determined by the Consilium de Civitate. The process for patronage works as follows:

The patron reviews the member before recommending him, ensuring the member has at least one hundred posts, has been a registered member for at least three months & has no warnings in the last six months.

The nominee sends a private message to explain his duties, privileges, and contributions towards TWC to his patron. The patron then sends this paragraph (along with his own paragraph outlining why he chose this person for a client) to a member of the CdeC.

The CdeC member then opens a thread and vote in the Consilium de Civitate section and the proposed nominee is then discussed and voted on.

If the nominee achieves at least a 75% majority, the nominee shall become a Citizen. This must be concluded within 1 week.

If a nominee fails his Citizenship vote he must wait a minimum of one month before being put up for vote again. The nominating Citizen of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two months. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on those they wish to patronize.

All CdeC votes associated with patronage shall be concluded within one week (7 days) of the thread being opened in the CdeC.

Points 3 and 4 above are used for the promotion of Patricians nominated by an existing Patrician as per the requirements listed in Appendix A.

I mean, why on earth do we need to punish people who's candidates fail the vote. I understand that it was put in place to prevent people from nominating people who aren't worthy of the rank, but with Curial activity down we really need to get rid of the worthless punishment and allow Patricians (and Civi/Artifex) to patronise people without fear of reprisal.

[Publius]

Should not we change this:

If a nominee fails his Citizenship vote he must wait a minimum of one month before being put up for vote again. The nominating Patrician of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on those they wish to patronize.

If a nominee fails his Citizenship vote he must wait a minimum of one month before being put up for vote again. The nominating Citizen of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on those they wish to patronize.

Also, I think given the current stagnation of patronizations as well as my faith in the CdeC as a body to screen applicants warrants me supporting this.

[Sétanta]

Yes, true. Changed.

[Perikles]

I also support, the CDC is empty of votes a lot of the time...

[Simetrical]

I oppose. Get rid of the limit entirely, don't just drop it to one month.

[Halie Satanus]

I agree with sim, a pointless rule that does no good.

[Sétanta]

Well, I kept it as one month because if we are forcing failed candidates to wait a month (which makes sense), then why wouldn't Citizens have to wait a certain amount of time as well. But I agree that it is a stupid limit.

Would Publius and jp still support if the time limit was removed entirely.

[Publius]

Would Publius and jp still support if the time limit was removed entirely.

Even more so. I have complete faith in the CdeC to perform its given tasks.

[PyrrhusIV]

I would agree with a one month time limit or a simple removal of the whole thing in general. The curia just isn't as active as it used to be (though, for some of us, now we can actually read stuff ), and that doesn't feel right.

I wouldn't mind seeing more people. Plus, I have faith in the current CdeC, so yes, I support.

[Hader]

I personally dont care whether it is a month to wait or no waiting time at all, but for a patronizing Citizen to have to wait longer than their failed canidate to patronize again....I think is stupid. I support.

[gigagaia]

I would support this. One month is a more reasonable time frame.

As for eliminating it entirely, I would only say that the intent behind this is to prevent people from patronzing en masse without putting in more effort to the selection of their candidate, ensuring their confidence in that candidate before they even come to a vote. This doesn't mean that every single member will pass their vote, but that patrons don't just submit every tom dick and harry, but choose more wisely.

[Sétanta]

I don't really think that is a concern, because (i) there aren't enough reasonable candidates for citizens to choose from, (ii) Citizens should be smart enough to take their time and only go through the proccess with people who actually are viable candidates, (iii) having no time limit allows people to patronise one after the other (which we have already established that would be good candidates), and (iv) even one month seems kinda offensive to people who are supposed to be the cream of the crop.

I mean, 95% of candidates in the CdeC who have ever been proposed are worthy, so I think we can trust citizens to use their judgement in who they patronise and not overwhelm the system.

[gigagaia]

I don't really think that is a concern, because (i) there aren't enough reasonable candidates for citizens to choose from, (ii) Citizens should be smart enough to take their time and only go through the proccess with people who actually are viable candidates, (iii) having no time limit allows people to patronise one after the other (which we have already established that would be good candidates), and (iv) even one month seems kinda offensive to people who are supposed to be the cream of the crop.

You say that, but that has not always been the case. I refer you to one case in the citizen antechamber which was a vote on two members at the same time. While I'm not here to debate their quality, which I cannot judge given my limited experience with them, that kind vote signals potential problem, that it's ok to just patronize and patronize and patronize. It shows that there may not have been sober though put into them. Perhaps there was, but he potential was there.
And I don't think it should be offensive. It's there to ensure people have confidence in their choices. Some will fail in a manner that will befuddle the patron and perhaps the rest.

I mean, 95% of candidates in the CdeC who have ever been proposed are worthy, so I think we can trust citizens to use their judgement in who they patronise and not overwhelm the system.

That doesn't mean they are worthy. It may just mean that the CdeC is hesitant to offend. It's hardly conclusive evidence because the CdeC is made up of people and is therefore falliable unto itself.

I get all of your points, however, they are reasonable. Let me propose a different wording, if I may;

If a nominee fails his or her Citizenship vote he must wait a minimum of one month before being put up for vote again. The nominating Citizen of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two one month. If a patron's vote fails with less than 50% of all non-abstaining votes, the CdeC may choose to suspend that citizen's patronizing rights for up to one month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on those they wish to patronize.

[John Wayne]

I prefer this version over the previous; main point being the optional review of the patroniser's ability if their patronee fails the vote with such a large nay margin.

[Publius]

When citizens bring forth formal accusations against another member via the CdeC and fail, they are automatically put up for review to establish whether or not the original claim was made in good faith or not. Perhaps the same could be done for those citizens who fail in their attempt at patronage (ie following this failure, they are reviewed and it is decided whether or not they should have the priviledge revoked for a month).

Might be a little harsh, I'm not sure. Just putting that out there as an option.

[John Wayne]

How about this?

If a nominee fails his or her Citizenship vote he must wait a minimum of one month before being put up for vote again. The nominating Citizen of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two one month. If a patron's vote fails with less than 50% of all non-abstaining votes, the CdeC will automatically review the patron in order to establish whether or not they should have the priviledge of patronization revoked for a month. Members of the CdeC must abstain from voting on those they wish to patronize.

[Publius]

The "may choose" should be removed, to make it more objective.

[Halie Satanus]

Either the CdeC can vet in coming Citizens or it can't, either those wishing to Patronise are trust worthy to chose wisely or their not, they are citizens so they should be. We already have a nanny state to some extent why compound it.

Drop the Punishment element all together.

[Evariste]

I agree, drop the punishment. Civitates, and especially patricians, should be trusted enough to bring worthy candidates up for vote. Even if they don't, that's why the CdeC exists, to weed out the 'unworthy.'

I support.

[wilpuri]

Let us return to the original syntagma. If a civitate is deemed unworthy during civitateship, this should reflect on his patron. If they fail the vote no damage has been done and no punishmentis needed.