Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
Moderator Emeritus
Administrator Emeritus
Re: [Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66
Originally Posted by
Garbarsardar
I don't see any problem with the position of PP being permanent. Given the usual turnaround time in staff positions, permanent means about 6 months. The only position on the site that has (usually) longer tenure is the Tribunes. Given the high requirements for PP, do we really expect a huge influx of candidates?
This is the initial thinking behind the decision for a permanent office. Though I am open to perhaps doing a 1 year term limit instead.
Originally Posted by
Garbarsardar
As to the contentious issue of opening the Prothalamus, a probable compromise would be a provisional opening for,say, 6 months, and a final decision then, after evaluating the effects, impact, fallout, benefits etc.
My issue with that is it doesn't feel like a compromise at all. That essentially relegates it to a trial period, a relatively short one I feel for such a potentially important change. I think it can give too much to the idea that "well, this is only temporary, so why take it as seriously?". It doesn't cement the change for anyone, citizens may too easily view it as not permanent so not worth taking fully seriously, and the non citizens that may participate in that short period may also not take it seriously since they know they face what is sure to be a very contentious review at that 6 month point.
Or in short, I don't think that is going to give a fair assessment of the merit of opening the proth. If it isn't brought on as a permanent change, people may not treat it as such and we don't get an honest assessment of it.
Originally Posted by
Katsumoto
I think a provisional opening of the Proth for 6 months would indeed be a good compromise. As for the rest of the proposal:
1) I concur with the sentiment about Praefects judging both infractions and referrals - doesn't really sit right me. The whole set-up seems a bit complicated to be honest, I do think the Dual Consulship with one Consul serving as a moderator was a more elegant solution to the issue of Curial moderation.
3) Doesn't make much sense to use Censor if that's not their job anymore. I would suggest renaming it, creating a new badge is not difficult.
I intended for the role to also add something more to the Curia in the form of a curial officer position, and multiple ones at that. To add a pretty well defined role, one that deals with moderation in the broadest sense, and not tack that on to the Consul as an additional duty. I know StealhFox for instance prefers to not diminish the role of the Consul, and while this certainly does this to some degree, I'm in the camp of giving those few more offices for the curia and its citizens to fill and spread out that curial work some. Hopefully that can (along with other things) bring more people together in the curia and get the ball rolling on more things overall. We don't need CdeC levels in terms of how many citizens are actively in some sort of office, but a few more besides one Curator, two Censors and assistants I think it a necessary step if the Curia ever does want to expand and contribute more to the site overall. Piling more on the Consul is unfair and unnecessary, and while a dual Consulship can solve potential workload issues, I don't think it is going to do much in terms of actually expanding the role and using that to also expand what the Curia as a whole could eventually do.
Originally Posted by
Katsumoto
3) Doesn't make much sense to use Censor if that's not their job anymore. I would suggest renaming it, creating a new badge is not difficult.
I just felt it better to keep the name and office and badge and shift it into a role that still fits practically if not necessarily in the spirit of what it is named for. I wouldn't oppose a future change to the name and badge on those grounds if people want it to be more fitting, though I more find the important part of this one is shifting Consular assistants to an official group separate from the same as the Consul's now.
Originally Posted by
Katsumoto
6) This role seems a bit unnecessary.
In general I think this proposal is fine, but I do hope this wasn't intended as some revitalizing shock to the system that would fire up the Curia again, because I don't see much here that would really facilitate that.
As has been said, and I have admitted, it is rough around the edges. It's a difficult thing to really get a handle on how it can truly be most beneficial to the Curia, Staff and the site, but I hope it to be a framework and springboard for ideas to actually expand it into something more meaningful later on. As it is now, it is pretty barebones and definitely not sustainable without revision and expansion in the future.
Originally Posted by
Elfdude
I'm currently opposed due to the permanent appointment. While I don't think it's likely we'll have an influx of candidates nor do I think it's likely for someone to abuse their position I think you should write policy on guard for potential misuse not based on the presumption of maturity or goodwill. With this in mind I see the potential issues arising from the permanent appointment and the double judgement of the same case to be egregious. I don't mind the rest of the proposal.
I'll be considering the term limit, probably of one year.
I feel like not giving the praefect position jurisdiction over the referral process really defeats half the purpose of having the office. While I'm still behind having them primarily be moderators, even in the worst cases of the proth being open to all and citizens and non citizens getting infractions at alarming rates, that job split between three people will still not have much to do otherwise, and even feels wrong to put more of a tribunal process on the Consul and Censors still when there is an office of three people already in the business of ToS stuff.
Originally Posted by
Hitai de Bodemloze
Why do you believe that opening up the Prothalamos is the best or only way forward? We have enough citizens, the problem is that most citizens don't want to come to the Curia. To use a poor analogy, opening up the Prothalamos is marketing to the wrong audience. We can already see that the problem we have is retaining active citizens and giving people useful and fun things to do here. If we don't solve that problem, then I don't see how opening up the Prothalamos is going to help. I have always said that the solution to our problems is additive, rather than subtractive; give citizens more things to do, not take things away from them. In the aftermath of such a decision, what incentive is there for citizens to come (or come back) to the Curia? What incentive do non-citizens even have to participate? If we can't encourage current citizens to come here now, then what makes you think non-citizens will be any different?
Because in the past years I have not seen anything from the Curia that proves it's going to get much of anywhere without it.
Opening the prothalamos is not meant to get those inactive citizens back of course, nor is it meant to devalue citizenship just for the hell of it. It's meant to be enough of a drastic change in an important aspect of the Curia to hopefully drive that change and meaningful future input.
I'm not entirely for the idea of just giving citizens more to do as a solution to everything, or much at all, but can be to an extent in the right way. The Praefect position is something that is giving citizens more to do. The liaison position at first may not be much for citizens, but can be with the right direction in growing the idea.
The incentive for citizens to come to the Curia doesn't change. The prothalamos does not change in function, only has more potential members coming to it to contribute to discussion. Citizens still hold the vote while members do not. And I do not expect it to open the floodgates and have a plethora of non citizens in here causing trouble (there would be curial moderation after all), but it breaks down any barriers between citizens and members as far as discussion goes, which I think is going to go a lot farther in getting the curia towards actually getting stuff done. Perhaps it may not, but I have not seen anything in the past years that is coming close and I feel this has a better chance at this point. Opening the proth, alongside the other changes in this proposal, is supposed to be the first big step in helping citizens and non citizens care about this place a bit more and perhaps start getting it to a place where that incentive to be and stay here is actually here.
=====
I will get back to replies after the last quoted tomorrow.