(Moved to Vote) Removal of "one per month" limit.

[Halie Satanus]

Preamble;

I'd like to see the(hi-lite blue) one per month limit struck from the Syntagma, sorry if there's already a bill to do this but i can't find one, anyway, this seems a silly rule left over from pre CdeC, one which halts efforts to expand the citizenship of TWC more than anything......i keep hearing the CdeC have far to few votes to view, this doesn't help. There should be no limits on proposals let the CdeC vet them........Silly silly rule.

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:

1. The patron reviews the member before recommending him, ensuring the member has at least fifty posts, has been a registered member for at least one month and has no warnings in the last six months.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. If the nominee achieves at least a 60% 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 Patrician 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.

[gigagaia]

I endorse this... I'm more in favour of limiting a patrician if they propose poor candidates rather than limiting those who are choosing well...

[Rolanbek]

Sorry this stikes me as 'disposal of the inconvenient' rather than an improvement. Stick on something like what Gig was suggesting:

5. Citizens who have three failed patronees in any 30 day period will have their patronisation rights revoked for 60 days.

and i'll support

R

[Fabolous]

Sorry this stikes me as 'disposal of the inconvenient' rather than an improvement. Stick on something like what Gig was suggesting:

5. Citizens who have three failed patronees in any 30 day period will have their patronisation rights revoked for 60 days.

and i'll support

R

We already have "The nominating Patrician of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two months." If you want to remove what halie wants removed, and change what I quoted, that would be another issue, as I don't think that is what halie hopes to achieve.

[the Black Prince]

in trying to recall why there was a limit in the first place, i think it was to prevent some rather prolific patricians snapping up all the talent in their houses and cornering the market so to speak. those days are long past, not that we don't have prolific patrons anymore, but that whatever importance was attached to houses seems to have vanished altogether

[Halie Satanus]

If they are found standing on one leg in a yellow pak-a-mak??,

Sorry, to much red tape for my simple brain, yes it is an inconvenience, i see no need to this make it complicated, if someone thinks adding punishments is needed at a later date fine, but that's how we got to this point, to much negative legislation has strangled this process long enough.

[Simetrical]

I wholly support this, again.

[Publius]

I support.

If a patron chooses his potential patronees poorly, they will be voted against in the CdeC and the prospective patron of the candidate will have to wait the two months mandated by the Syntagma before patronizing again.

There should be no penalty so to speak for those who are nominating quality members.

[Sétanta]

I made a bill for this, had more than three supporters including all those who supported in this thread and the Curator/Pro-Curator never moved it too a vote. I reminded them of the Syntagma and what it said regarding votes, and it still didn't happen.

[Fabolous]

I made a bill for this, had more than three supporters including all those who supported in this thread and the Curator/Pro-Curator never moved it too a vote. I reminded them of the Syntagma and what it said regarding votes, and it still didn't happen.

Wow. You're right. I got tied up in that thread with Gig vs. Sim. I apologize. Though I would point out that your bill, addressed the punishment for having a canidate fail, while this addresses the overall one per month rule.

Perhaps they should be combined and allow patrons complete freedom? If you don't that, I'll put yours to vote Mudd if you wish to continue patronization at only once per month.

[Sétanta]

No hard feelings. I don't like the limit, so I'll repost my old amendment with halie's idea's included. Call it a merge!

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 would presume the supporters of my old version would still support, and the removal of all punishment has more than three supporters in this thread.

[Publius]

I do not support the merged bill as the 2 month restriction in my opinion justified Halie's bill.

In essence, if you are proposing good, quality candidates then you should have the freedom to continue doing as you are without restriction.

If you are proposing sub standard candidates then a two month removal of this priviledge allows this person to reevaluate why their candidate failed and what sorts of things they should be looking for in prospective citizens.

I would not be averse to reducing the time to one month, but removing it altogether is getting rid of one too many failsafes, in my opinion.

[Sétanta]

I don't think that we should pretend to think that a Patrician of a failed candidate needs time to evaluate why that person failed. Usually a reason is given in a failing, anonymous quotes in the PM from the head of the CdeC to the Proposer and Candidate. It takes maybe 10 minutes, perhap, as the reason is layed out in front of them.

We don't need to worry about citizens spamming the CdeC with candidates that always fail...because it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will. If it does, disciplinary action can be taken pursuiant of other sections of the Syntagma. Having two months, even one month just seems like a petty punishment rather than a re-evaluation time. Most proposed candidates (a vast majority) are qualified to some extent. I look through the CdeC, and even the failed candidates mostly failed for a minor reason. I don't really see any substandard candidates, much less one being proposed over and over again. We have not had any problems in the past, we won't in the future, so lets just drop all the punishments together as they do nobody any good.

[Publius]

I don't think that we should pretend to think that a Patrician of a failed candidate needs time to evaluate why that person failed. Usually a reason is given in a failing, anonymous quotes in the PM from the head of the CdeC to the Proposer and Candidate. It takes maybe 10 minutes, perhap, as the reason is layed out in front of them.

We don't need to worry about citizens spamming the CdeC with candidates that always fail...because it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will. If it does, disciplinary action can be taken pursuiant of other sections of the Syntagma. Having two months, even one month just seems like a petty punishment rather than a re-evaluation time. Most proposed candidates (a vast majority) are qualified to some extent. I look through the CdeC, and even the failed candidates mostly failed for a minor reason. I don't really see any substandard candidates, much less one being proposed over and over again. We have not had any problems in the past, we won't in the future, so lets just drop all the punishments together as they do nobody any good.

Simply because something has not occured, does not mean it cannot or will not.

On a side note, you cannot judge something such as this on the basis of events which transpire as a result of its use, as in many ways it is a deterrent. People are more careful in who they nominate because in nominating someone not qualified enough, they risk losing some of their own priviledges for a time.

[imb39]

Do it seperately. Mudd's ammendment has had the required discussion and this one can be written in such a way as to accomodate the decision of the vote.

[Halie Satanus]

Sometimes you have to have to stop swinging the cat to skin it.

I'm fine with the removal of all punishments, unless of course we can't trust the CdeC to do their job, they seem to be doing fine to me.

I support.

[Simetrical]

Best to keep them separate. This bill seems sure to pass given the discussion here so far (although you never know), the other less so.

[Rolanbek]

We already have "The nominating Patrician of a failed candidate may not patronise again for two months." If you want to remove what halie wants removed, and change what I quoted, that would be another issue, as I don't think that is what halie hopes to achieve.

Yeah i know, was trying to soften the existing punishment. That needs addressing, i would not be happy to remove the punishment but with increased levels of possible patronisation we could be looking at a lot of people getting caught by the 60 day rule.

There is at least one member on 60 suspension of patronisation rights now.

I'm fine with the removal of all punishments, unless of course we can't trust the CdeC to do their job, they seem to be doing fine to me.

Haile, it is not Cdec who we don't trust, it is people who are inexperienced making foolish mistakes over and over again. With no recourse how would they know that it was not on to propose random or substandard candidates. Why should the presence of Cdec allow citizens to propose whomsoever they like?

R

[Halie Satanus]

it is not Cdec who we don't trust, it is people who are inexperienced making foolish mistakes over and over again. With no recourse how would they know that it was not on to propose random or substandard candidates. Why should the presence of Cdec allow citizens to propose whomsoever they like?

I see your point.

what am i missing here?? i proposed the removal of the "one per month" limit, Mudd has added from his previous bill the reduction of the removal of patronage rights to one month, What's the problem?? all sounds good to me.



And yes i know you know why I'm proposing this, i have the patients of a goldfi.....oo a donut!

[Rolanbek]

It is still one strike and you are out. That is my main concern, also it occurs to me that if you want to punish someone it should hurt. Maybe make the revocation of patronage rights 90days for 3 failed patronage votes in any 30day period. (rather than the piecemeal fail, 30days, fail, 30days ,fail, 30days that the current proposal would have.)

yes i know why, it dosen't make you wrong though

R