Reasonable Patronization Standards Act

[Simetrical]

Quite simply, the standards for Citizenship have gotten too high. Typically there are between seven and eleven non-abstaining voters in the CdC, and with a three-fourths majority required even the opinions of two people can sink a nomination, with three being virtually inevitable failure. Citizenship is not meant to be a rank for some perceived super-elite. It's meant to be a reward for good posters and contributing members of the community. To that end, 75% is much too stringent. It keeps out perfectly worthy people who in the past would have easily become Civitates.

My proposal:

The following text will be removed from the "Patronization" section of the Syntagma:

If the nominee achieves at least a 75% majority, the nominee shall become a Citizen.

It will be replaced with the following:

If the nominee achieves at least a 60% majority, the nominee shall become a Citizen.

This reduced standard will be retroactively applied to all Citizenship votes held in the past.

I believe that the last clause is necessary to prevent tiresome bureaucracy of holding revotes that will inevitably pass under the more lenient standard.

[gigagaia]

Retroactive, no go. Waive the moritorium on their votes, maybe. But retroactive promotions is excessive. The CdeC legitmately voted them down, I don't see why we need to revisit the cases.

The Rest, I support. 60% for civitates is fair. I just hope that this isn't a prescursor to universal suffrage

[Fabolous]

Is 75% really too high? I glance at the citizen canidates proposed on the first page of the CDC antechamber and I see 2/3rds of the votes passing... which for my liking is too high, and as I look at the canidates, I again agree it is too high.

[gigagaia]

Is 75% really too high? I glance at the citizen canidates proposed on the first page of the CDC antechamber and I see 2/3rds of the votes passing... which for my liking is too high, and as I look at the canidates, I again agree it is too high.

Yet I think that the reforms sought to correct this Fab, in that citizenship is now a rank of reward for contribution and does not carry associated responsibilities. Why would you think that 2/3 is too high under these circumstances? Personally, I find most candidates make solid civitates. So I'd be interested to know why this may not be the case.

[Fabolous]

Yet I think that the reforms sought to correct this Fab, in that citizenship is now a rank of reward for contribution and does not carry associated responsibilities. Why would you think that 2/3 is too high under these circumstances? Personally, I find most candidates make solid civitates. So I'd be interested to know why this may not be the case.

Oh right civi's have no responsibilities currently...

I think I'll take this time to review my thoughts on this matter.

[Publius]

Retroactive, no go. Waive the moritorium on their votes, maybe. But retroactive promotions is excessive. The CdeC legitmately voted them down, I don't see why we need to revisit the cases.

The Rest, I support. 60% for civitates is fair. I just hope that this isn't a prescursor to universal suffrage

I agree with Gig's sentiments on this.

[John Wayne]

Sim, may you please explain in detail why you want the reduced standard to be aplied retroactivly?

[Sétanta]

Retroactively no. A big, juicy no. Like gigagaia mentioned, the CdeC turned them down for legitimate reasons. There is no need to give something to people who failed a vote in the past. Let them be re-patronised, by all means, but retroactively...no.

As for the sixty percent....seems reasonable. Since Citizens hold no real power, unlike real life, there is no fear from me that the standards will be juiced down.

[Simetrical]

Is 75% really too high? I glance at the citizen canidates proposed on the first page of the CDC antechamber and I see 2/3rds of the votes passing... which for my liking is too high, and as I look at the canidates, I again agree it is too high.

I have, of course, always disagreed with you on the standards we should have for Citizens. Citizen is a rank to honor our better contributors, not our very best. Trying to distinguish the good from the superlative is hopelessly subjective and will lead to perfectly good posters being rejected because of dumb luck. What one person views as compelling logic another person could easily view as sophistry, for instance. Anyone who follows the rules and contributes to the site extensively in any capacity should become a Citizen.

But observe the two oppose votes here. The candidate has contributed a great deal to the community . . . but is being opposed because it's only to one particular part of it. Nobody ever said Civitates can't contribute to just one part of the site, but apparently a couple of members of the CdC think that, so for their idiosyncratic standards this person is going to fail. For the second time, in fact (the first time it was three opposes, 70% support). That's why 75% is too high.

In fact, if you look back over the history, this candidate is the only one who would have passed under this bill, who otherwise failed, in the past seven months or so (I don't even know if the 75% standard was true that far back). It's not even a very big change.

Sim, may you please explain in detail why you want the reduced standard to be aplied retroactivly?

I did. But since people are getting all alarmed by it, and it's only one candidate, there's no point in keeping it. Version two:

The following text will be removed from the "Patronization" section of the Syntagma:

If the nominee achieves at least a 75% majority, the nominee shall become a Citizen.

It will be replaced with the following:

If the nominee achieves at least a 60% majority, the nominee shall become a Citizen.

[Sétanta]

I support version two.

[Rolanbek]

I support the second version.

I see no reason for the bar to be set as high as 3/4. 60% should be sufficient concurrence in that type of vote. Retroactive application of legislation can be very tricky, but with only one nominee affected I am sure that they well be renominated reasonably quickly in any case.

R

[John Wayne]

I support the second version.

[gigagaia]

Of course I support the second one. I believe it has what it needs to go to a vote.

[the Black Prince]

i do not support

not so long ago we had round after round of complaints and people moaning that citizenship standards were too low and that any old poster could become a citizen these days.

now you say it is too hard.


but if there is a problem here, it cannot be fixed by the reducing or changing the numbers needed to pass a citizen.

if there are 7 to 11 non abstaining votes on a citizen, then that meansd between 9 and 5 CdeC members are abstaining, or simply not voting.
that can easily be addressed by forcing Cdec members to make their minds up by forcing them to vote yes or no, and removing the abstaining option. i'm sure you'd expect our elected CdeC members to actually be able to make decisoons, and do the research into a member required to find out if they are worthy or not. the only reason why a cdeC member should not be voting is if he proposed the candidate in the first place, or is temporarily absent.

not to mentuion that a member cannot pass with 60%.
60% of the CdeC members is 9.4 votes. i'd like to see any member achieve that.

if a citizen achieves 62.5% of the vote, then 10 have voted in favour, but 6 have voted against. if 6 patricians do not feel a person is worthy of civitateship, this person should not be getting it. there is obvious some serious issue to make six of us doubtful of his contributuion. this threshold is way to low.

as it stands, at 75% 12 have voted in favour, and only 4 have voted against. as above, if more than 4 patricians have problems with a member, then there is clearly some issue here that could and should be dealt with before a member is passed.

if less than 16 people are voting, then yes, this will adjust the numbers downwards.

but this is NOT reason to change the threshold, this is reason to hold the CdeC to higher account, make them make the decisions they were elected to, make sure the CdeC members are pulling their weight and doing their job, and make sure - through the Curator - that if there is one (or more) members so inactive that they cannot do the job they are elected for, then they are removed and new members elected to fill their seats.

i see no reason nor need to confuse and issue with the CdeC not making proper decisions with that of the threshold for civitateship being too high

[Simetrical]

not so long ago we had round after round of complaints and people moaning that citizenship standards were too low and that any old poster could become a citizen these days.

now you say it is too hard.

I never agreed that citizenship quality dropped to begin with.

if there are 7 to 11 non abstaining votes on a citizen, then that meansd between 9 and 5 CdeC members are abstaining, or simply not voting.
that can easily be addressed by forcing Cdec members to make their minds up by forcing them to vote yes or no, and removing the abstaining option. i'm sure you'd expect our elected CdeC members to actually be able to make decisoons, and do the research into a member required to find out if they are worthy or not. the only reason why a cdeC member should not be voting is if he proposed the candidate in the first place, or is temporarily absent.

That has nothing to do with high standards. And I would like to point out that highly-paid legislators usually don't have anywhere near a 100% attendance rate, let alone such a vote rate, and you think CdC members should?

if a citizen achieves 62.5% of the vote, then 10 have voted in favour, but 6 have voted against.

Only if you continue to pretend that all sixteen actually vote. As I said, with the current standard it's more typically two or three that are required to blackball a candidate. It brings in far too much idiosyncrasy.

I would like to remind you that in "the good old days", staff voted with a simple majority, and I didn't see many complaints about Civitates quality back then (except by Crandar). Some Civitates are controversial, and some voters are biased against certain types of contributions. This needs to be taken into account.

[Fabolous]

Only if you continue to pretend that all sixteen actually vote. As I said, with the current standard it's more typically two or three that are required to blackball a candidate. It brings in far too much idiosyncrasy.

Then that is my fault (and I guess Spiff to a lesser degree). All 16 CDC members are required to vote, and it is my job as Curator to make sure they do, or replace them with those that will.

I would like to remind you that in "the good old days", staff voted with a simple majority, and I didn't see many complaints about Civitates quality back then (except by Crandar). Some Civitates are controversial, and some voters are biased against certain types of contributions. This needs to be taken into account.

There were cries about civitate quality, which is why the staff vote moved from simple majority to 66%. Then later, as the cries continued, we moved from staff to CDC in hopes that a dedicated body could confirm that the quality was there, and that staff wasn't just voting yes for fun. When it moved to 75%, I don't know. Its likely a side thing done during the reforms. But a move back to 66% or even 60% isn't one I find to be terrible. I stopped whining about civ quality after we moved to 66% from 50%. If we have a solid body like the CDC that is active and that many support, I'm fine with it.

[gigagaia]

Unless some of the Patricians are acting as above, there should be no reason so many do not vote yay or nay, very few if any should be in Gig's position in any one vote, certainly not five.

I say the abstaining option should be removed, if they are in the position of Gig, and face a conflict of interests, then they can say so and just simply not vote. Seriously, if three out of those voting have a problem with the candidate, then they should be convinced he is worthy of the rank, if there is no hope of convincing them then their is cause for doubt that he is worthy of it. 60% is too low.

Why does it make a difference? Either way, there has to be a way of keeping track of people who are in conflicts of interest or in a position where they cannot vote.

Then that is my fault (and I guess Spiff to a lesser degree). All 16 CDC members are required to vote, and it is my job as Curator to make sure they do, or replace them with those that will.

Don't be so hard on yourself, nor hard on other people. This is an internet forum. You do a mervelous job with the time and resources you are given. Some people simply can't log in every day. If they choose not to undertake their role, but visit the forums regularly to partake in other instances, that is one thing. But as you know, absences are often excusable and should be forgiven :original:

[the Black Prince]

all 16 should be voting though, unless they are absent as stated. non voters are derelicting their duty...


as to quality, i would say perhaps you were in the minority there, though its hard to quantify.

nor do i advocate 100% attendance rate
but if a CdeC member is here, but choosing to not vote, thats an issue, and one that directly concerns this, since it reduces the number of people required to fail a candidate

as i'm reminded so many times, this is not the "good old days" though its hard to be sure exactly what you refer to by them.

as to bias
perhaps you ought to banish the absurd distinction between artifex and civitate, and simply have a citizen rank awarded for contribution to TWC's Community in any form

[John Wayne]

It is the responsibility of those with the privilage to vote to do so. It is within their rights, however, to decide if they will vote yes, no, or abstain.

[gigagaia]

Perhaps an aside, but I don't think that removal of abstentions should be allowed. There have been several times I have abstained when I have felt that I was facing a conflict of interest, and I would vehmently oppose any attempt to put me into such a situation where I have vote in such a circumstance.