[Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

[PikeStance]

Staff moderation is their check, since staff moderation has to issue infractions then anything that goes that route will most definitely be seen by staff moderation eventually. Any moderator action that does not go the route of a note/infraction is not something likely to be appealed in a referral format anyways. Much like the Tribunal.

The job of referrals is just passed on to preaefects as well. Other than considerations for the Ostrakon, there is little functional change here besides who is doing it. They are still citizens, like Censors are, and elected.

If you want to see something like praefects go beyond the curia, do propose that, however as I see it now it is best for them to remain in the curia and moderate here. What I liked about the initial proposal(s) regarding praefects weeks ago was the idea of a Curia office for moderation, and I wanted to expand that in a way that staff moderation was okay with allowing, a way to keep it within the Curia and a matter handled by citizens still, allow exposure to moderation processes for those interested, and keep the referral process and the good of it while combined with better enforcement of standards (still by citizens) to hopefully stop any abuse of the system and cover our bases for any other unforeseen circumstances.

I have been working on this proposal for weeks now, and the ideas had been there just before the Ostrakon proposal even passed. I even opposed that, but I am fine with it remaining, and would prefer it be alongside the old referral process (and the modifications this proposal makes) because that seems like a more waterproof system together. Citizen referrals would still exist because the issue with them before wasn't their existence, but their usage (and perceived abuse). They should still be few and far between, but they can have merit potentially and I don't think should be done away with because we all had one bad time with them being used improperly.

The issue of referrals being the problem is a red herring. As I stated numerous time the argument is speaking out of both sides of the mouth; on one hand, there is no standards in the Curia and on the other hand, referral misuse is an issue. You cannot have both. If people are issuing the referral system then they are statistically bound to get a referral to result in a further action. Moreover, the abuse itself will promote higher standards since people will be referring to each other on little provocation. I think we all know that referrals were never abused. If it needed reforming it just needed to have a iitial step of review before requesting a defense. That is about it.

Do the Curia needs moderators? I cannot recall any instances where someone violated the ToS. In fact, each time someone called out another member a moderator or an admin were quick to point out that it was not a ToS violation. Like the referral removal, needing moderators to police the ToS is also a red herring.

If we could use "prefects" it would be to endorse a higher standard of behavior beyond the ToS. I am not sure "staff moderators" are needed at all. Moreover, I proposed this amendment to have a violation of the ToS on the site, in general, to result in a further action. A former Censor and admin opposed this provision. It seems strange to have "moderators" enforce the ToS where we still believe that violating it is not conduct unbecoming a citizen. Sorry, this proposal just comes across as hallow. It just seems like a redressed version of this proposal.

I would be inclined to support it if the role was to enforce the code of conduct and the Triumvirate would review any appeals. I would not mind at all having the appeals be more private. Quick siide note, privatizing this part of the Curia would be enormously beneficial.

And where has that gotten us in the past few years? I realize you do quite well in looking for that new blood, but the overall stagnation of the curia in recent years doesn't show to me that just patronizing more people is in any way helping enough to matter on its own. I wonder what the number of new citizens is on average that apply and are accepted and have had no prior staff work as part of their resume? I feel it would be low. I could be wrong, but my perception is more people have staff work as part of their resume, meaning they are already doing something for the site before even being in the curia. So what does patronization do for them besides a shiny new badge?

I knew I would be met with a lot of resentment towards this particular item, and even so it still sorta irks me how many people care so much about this in this way. The Curia right now offers little reason for anyone to want to be part of it other than it maybe being a fun little way to pass time in some debate and banter among other citizens. Patronization is little more than the process to getting your first Curial award right now. It doesn't guarantee anyone will be able to be more productive in any way, especially if they were staff before. And I see little about all the discussions in the Proth that screams "higher standards" or "wow I can get so much done there!". We keep trying to incentivize people to want to become citizens with no reason other than the sake of becoming a citizens.

I don't say open the Proth because I aim to devalue everyone's citizenship, but to break down one important barrier of potential participation in a way that could better lead to the Curia having a better helpful presence on the site and maybe even give a decent incentive for people to want to become not just citizens, but active citizens.

I'm not sure I've expressed this properly here, but overall I am just sick and tired of this bit about the value of citizenship. We either make it something to value beyond the shiny badge or its pointless IMO. If current citizens would stop valuing their citizenship for the badge its worth and instead look towards how it can actually be useful, we may get somewhere. I think opening the Proth is a step in the right direction, or if I am wrong, will at least have a good chance of showing us where the right direction is.

Not all of the above is directed at you personally Pike, I'm speaking/soapboxing pretty generally there.

No worries, I know it is not directed at me. Trust me, if there is anyone here that walk the walk and not talk the talk, it is I.

The state of citizenship and patronization is a self- inflicted wound. Over the past few years, the Curia have gradually whittled away at the Citizenship that it is a mere shadow of its former self. Opening the proth will only deal the final deathblow to it. You cannot redefine it by removing the term "rank," refer to it as "just an award," or continuously denigrate it and expect anyone to value it. I'll explain...

Citizens are the backbone of the site. it is made up of the members who have invested the most time and energy to the site, and thus a significant stakeholder in the success and failure of the site. This is why it was tasked with providing feedback on improving the site. Over time, this one thing, which is the most important thing, was more or less forgotten. Sadly too many members see it has its secondary or tertiary function. It is actually its primary function. if you doubt me, then consider the fact that originally, an administrative committee proposing members for citizenship. It was much later that the concept of patronization was introduced. The Curia never was nor was it ever intended to be an "award committee." It is silly to think that members would just patronize another citizen unless it had some type of extrinsic value in doing so. Being awarded in order to award others is a silly notion.

Sadly, the Curia turned into a "role-playing" activity. The old civitates were no longer participating and as the importance of the Curia waned, so did the overdramatic discussion. This overdramatic discssion did more harm than good. After all, who in their right mind would want to propose something only to get entangled in that mess.

Now Hader, as someone who has to patronize a great number of members in the past, what was it that gave citizenship value for you? Ultimately that is where the secret to our solution lies.

Whenever I made a proposal for the Curia it was always with the intention of making it more hospitable for members to want to make suggestions and proposals. As long as citizens avoid the Curia, then citizenship will continue to be viewed with little regard. Therefore, any proposal needs to create a less hostile place. It isn't even good enough to be as good as other areas of the forum; it has to be better. For every citizen that refuses to make suggestions, the site loses. For every member that refuses to accept citizenship, this site loses.

Staff and citizenship work hand in hand. One can become a citizen via staff work, or one can contribute, become a citizen, and then choose to help out on staff. There is no inherent contradiction. I say this to you Hader, as you might recall that on the very night I inquire about citizenship, I also inquire about becoming a Librarian. As my post was misunderstood, you offered me the position. By the time I applied, my non-staff contribution was significantly more than my staff work, however, I have never stopped serving the site in some compacity. Staff, citizenship, and admin work hand and hand, and the more harmonious that relationship is, the better it is for citizenship and the site.

I probably did not see your proposal then, I've only pretty recently paid attention more consistently to the Curia. In any case it isn't a bad idea but one that does have trouble finding a way to implement. I have spoken a lot with the other Hex about this and it is still something that is hard to nail down. I'm hoping that the fact that this is coming from us in Hex more directly that it can show this concept is something we're willing to work more with and that such Curial dealings with staff are something we want to encourage, as long as we can find an appropriate way to do so. Really I think the hardest thing is that it may not be something that can easily be applied to all areas of staff. I excluded Tech and Mod staff, and Content is also a hard one to get this to work with, with Modding staff probably having some unforeseen issues with it as well, and only Gaming Staff being one where at this point in time it would implement the easiest.

As above, the idea is good, but I've gone with the reverse of citizens going to staff in some way, as I think that is what is more likely to foster the right relationship for the Curia, if at all. But as I and others have said, its rough around the edges and could use work. The concept though is something worth working towards.

Precisely what is going to vary in each part of staff. I can see them having a good bit of potential for gaming staff. Having been content hex before and speaking with Alwyn and other hex on it though, I can see many ways content can struggle to implement this in the same way gaming staff could. Hence why I have it along the lines of "as stipulated by that branch hex". The needs or abilities of each branch for a liaison may change over time, or may be untenable for some areas. It really becomes a case by case basis sort of thing. It may only serve as an extension of recruitment abilities for some places, especially Content. The end goal though is to start a process of fostering Curial involvement in the site and staff in a more meaningful way.

It was actually a discussion and which I did eventually make a formal proposal, but I was forced to abandon the Liason part due to the negative reaction of that part of the proposal.
Board of Directors Idea

The following would be Liaison Community Officers.
Responsibilities: Maintaining open communication between the board and the community, responding to concerns and proposing changes to the forum that would be beneficial to the community.
The Liaison officers will also oversea all referral cases.
+ Modding Community Officer
+Content (Blogs and AARs) Officer
+Debate and Discussion Community Officer
+Role-Playing Officer
+Multiplayer/ Hotseating Officer

A central emphasis of the proposal is awareness and communication. Having dedicated officers responsible to a specific community would be essential for gaining maximum participation and input from contributors to the site. The LCO's are not just there for citizens, but for the community at large.
The Curia is viewed as that place. A place that no one wants to step into. This is the advantage of the system proposed. It would allow the Curia to function by proxy and at the same time preserve what is currently in practice.
Ultimately, the goal is to build trust and a community spirit would develop and efficacy will increase. This will equate into greater participation thus circularly a better community.
Citizens intensely focus on their area of interest, so having a dedicated member of the community working with them and for them would build both community and action.

From the proposed ideas this was still my favorite part of the proposal because it does link the Curia with the rest of the site. Hitai in another thread mentioned something that the Curia could do to promote itself as a central place for the different areas of the site to come together and it was this proposal that I thought of immediately. As I said, it was falsely claimed that the LO's would interfere. The LO's come from the areas themselves, so they will only represent their areas within the Curia and provide a link with the whole site. You ask how we can make citizenship more attractive, then this is one way to do so.

[Hader]

The third post has been updated with some changes and additions, so as that is the most current and at the moment I believe not likely to change before moving to vote, please do re-read through what you need (the new stuff mostly of course) and reaffirm your support should you wish.

Here are the new changes:

• Off topic posting and personal references in the Curia will be tolerated, to a reasonable extent, given the nature of the Curia and its proceedings.
• This wasn't changed really, but perhaps more clarification is needed on it? I refer to Item 5, clarifying what it means to be a local mod. This isn't necessarily a new rule about being a local mod, but I think it best still to outline it specifically to avoid any future confusion. I have been on the fence about even including this item in the entirety of this proposal, because I haven't felt it is something that necessarily needs to be voted on, but to keep everyone on the same page I will still keep it in. If anything, it seems some people may have issues with the Curator/Consul being defined as a local mod in the first place? I am not quite sure how the votes go here. So if you have issues with this, is it with the actual clarification of what it means to be a local mod, or the definition of the Curator/Consul as a local mod in the first place? Should it be the latter, I would argue now that this distinction is now more important simply due to the addition of Praefects alongside the Curator/Consul now, so having the clearly defined roles is more important.
• I have considered some changes to the Liaison bit, but unfortunately I don't see anything big worth changing just yet, and would like more discussion on it to make more changes. I would prefer this whole proposal go to vote sooner rather than later just because of it though, and since some of staff is trying to figure ways to really potentially implement this, it is probably best to allow this in with the framework it provides and evolve it afterwards as time goes on. So nothing has changed here, but please don't let that be a reason for ideas relating to it to not come to fruition here or down the road.
• The single biggest change is the addition of Item 7, Forum Reshuffling. This aims to cleanup the forums a bit by removing some unused/barely used ones, and more appropriately categorizing the rest.
• Item 7: Forum Re-shuffling
  
  
  Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  
  In order to both clear up some forum space and more appropriately categorize the rest, let's move these forums around a bit:
  
  
  "The Capitol" Category Renamed to "Site Administration"
  
  -->Curia
  -->Prothalamos (because you're going to let this whole thing pass so this part happens...right?)
  -->Questions and Suggestions
  -->Infraction Appeals and Discussion
  -->Official TWC Store (Subject to temporary removal, but its place will be here if brought back)
  -->TWC Cemetery (should be private now, if and when it is ready to be cleaned up and perhaps made public again, it may go here, this is no guarantee for now though)
  
  Staff forums will also be slightly reshuffled, with the only major change being the Technical Bazaar will be made private and public Tech questions we are fine rerouting to the Q&S instead, where they are likely to get more visibility and quicker answers. Staff forums I will not mention here as those are seen only by staff members anyways, so their organization is entirely dependent on what part of staff one may or may not be in, so there is no point in getting too in depth about their reorganizing.
  
  
  

And some extra clarifications on some changes and why some may not have been made:

• Primus Praefect being an indefinite term I know doesn't sit well or have any precedent with any curial office, however we feel this is best to ensure some consistency in a position that requires knowledge of the ToS, especially considering that the pool for potential applicants for a position with such requirements may not always be big enough to have good overlap with those actually interested in it.
• Praefects will also continue to oversee both moderation of the Curia and referrals of citizens, staff and otherwise. Other than the Primus Praefect being a current global moderator (meaning they are technically capable to issue infractions), there is no overlap in the process of infracting and the referral process. Even should the Primus Praefect, as a global moderator, issue an infraction in the Curia that eventually comes to their desk again as a staff referral, the processes are separate and still going to be reviewed as such (moderation as a whole will always be able to review the infraction and initiate the staff referral likewise).
• My last clarification on Praefects is this; please remember it is meant to do many things, with the goal of course being positively doing them. It is not meant as solely a moderator of the curia position. They are there for more than that, and while I don't expect it to be an explosion of new moderator recruits stemming from it by any means, it is still just one possible avenue for one to become familiar with moderation while still fulfilling some Curial duties at the same time. In the future the position may easily be expanded in ways if we are pragmatic about it.
• Curator is not changed to Consul yet in any of my syntax, sorry I forgot by the time I hit submit

And before I sign off, my hopefully final appeal to seriously consider actually allowing Item 4 to pass (opening the Proth). Just do it.


Well, I wish it were so easy to argue for it that way. But I also feel like I am beating a dead horse either way still. I know there are many differing views on the Curia, what it means, what it should mean, and what citizenship should mean. I am however of the belief that citizenship is near meaningless now, at best, and we are currently doing nothing that would really make it meaningful again. And if we cannot make it meaningful beyond a shiny new badge and nothing more, then I'd just about be more ready to support getting rid of it altogether now. But don't let my extreme saltiness on the matter cloud things too much; opening the proth won't fix everything at once, but I still feel it is the best way to begin getting that new blood and new ideas potentially flowing towards the Curia, and in concordance with the rest of the changes in this proposal it should help facilitate that. This is really why I want this whole proposal to pass together, because much of it does better together than separately. In any case though, perhaps just opening the Proth, while not the end all solution to our problems, is just the shake up we need to collectively get on a better track.

[PikeStance]

The third post has been updated with some changes and additions, so as that is the most current and at the moment I believe not likely to change before moving to vote, please do re-read through what you need (the new stuff mostly of course) and reaffirm your support should you wish.

And before I sign off, my hopefully final appeal to seriously consider actually allowing Item 4 to pass (opening the Proth). Just do it.

Sorry, this is a definite deal breaker. There is absolutely no point in "reforming" anything if you going to destroy citizenship. As I said, either keep it or lose it, but letting die a slow death is strange.

We also do not need "moderators' in the Curia. I do not recall at any time that I have been a member of the Curia anyone violating the ToS or where an admin or moderator stating that someone has violated the ToS. This is red herring.
What we should be demanding is adherence to a higher standard and we do not need "moderators" for that. I am fine with the Consul doing this role. I'll say let thing progress and I think everyone will be satisfied.

Then there is the name shell game. Don't need that. Right now, there is some recourse.

There is no point suggesting the forum change here, it is already done here.

The only thing I see worth exploring here is the Liason concept, but you seem disinterested in the best idea in this thread.

[Sir Adrian]

Finally a common sense proposal for the betterment of the Curia.

Unconditional Support

[King Athelstan]

I support this very much, and I'm looking forward to see how it'll evolve. Ever since becoming a citizen I've noticed some negativity and bickering, trying to see what the point of all this (Citizenship, Curia) is. Implementing this would shake it up a bit, and change is almost always good, especially when well-thought and logical.

As for Gaming Staff liasons, in the Hotseat section at least I'd say we're already quite the well-oiled machine, liasons might find that they have much time and little work on their hands

[Flinn]

Finally a common sense proposal for the betterment of the Curia.

Unconditional Support

as well

I support this very much, and I'm looking forward to see how it'll evolve. Ever since becoming a citizen I've noticed some negativity and bickering, trying to see what the point of all this (Citizenship, Curia) is. Implementing this would shake it up a bit, and change is almost always good, especially when well-thought and logical.

all the old timers should carefully consider KA's words ...

[General Brewster]

I support this very much, and I'm looking forward to see how it'll evolve. Ever since becoming a citizen I've noticed some negativity and bickering, trying to see what the point of all this (Citizenship, Curia) is. Implementing this would shake it up a bit, and change is almost always good, especially when well-thought and logical.

As for Gaming Staff liasons, in the Hotseat section at least I'd say we're already quite the well-oiled machine, liasons might find that they have much time and little work on their hands

as well



all the old timers should carefully consider KA's words ...

Negativity and bickering only came when Pike was booted as Curator. Without (strong) leadership the place went absolutely bonkers, when Aik stepped in the situation quickly normalized and now under SF it has completely died down. These troubles opened the door to numerous proposals trying to combat something that already has been dealt with. Instead of rigorous overhauls of how moderation within the curia takes place they should've proposed idea's to fix the office of Curator. So that there's always continuity and leadership. I dare say this would've never happened if Pike wouldn't have been booted or if there had been any strong leadership.

Pretty much everyone here knows I often struggle in getting my point across in English. What I'm trying to say is that we are combating symptoms that are no longer there. The only solid thing in this proposal that I actually see fixing something would be the moderation. As it fills the gap a Curator can leave when he's either not around, removed or not a strong leader.

*This is aimed at the moderation bit and not the rest of the proposal.

That said, KA raises a good point. I'm not the director of the CRPG part of Gaming Staff but I'm not sure we'd have anything to do for a liaison. Especially when two active GS members of that section are active in the Curia already. (Gandalfus & myself)

[Hader]

As for Gaming Staff liasons, in the Hotseat section at least I'd say we're already quite the well-oiled machine, liasons might find that they have much time and little work on their hands

They may be something for Hotseats and RPGs, though perhaps won't amount to much for those communities or sections of GS, liaisons would more be useful now in developing and expanding GS elsewhere besides these two sections right now. Hence why right now I think they're best suited to GS, more so than Content and maybe even Modding staff.

The issue of referrals being the problem is a red herring. As I stated numerous time the argument is speaking out of both sides of the mouth; on one hand, there is no standards in the Curia and on the other hand, referral misuse is an issue. You cannot have both. If people are issuing the referral system then they are statistically bound to get a referral to result in a further action. Moreover, the abuse itself will promote higher standards since people will be referring to each other on little provocation. I think we all know that referrals were never abused. If it needed reforming it just needed to have a iitial step of review before requesting a defense. That is about it.

Do the Curia needs moderators? I cannot recall any instances where someone violated the ToS. In fact, each time someone called out another member a moderator or an admin were quick to point out that it was not a ToS violation. Like the referral removal, needing moderators to police the ToS is also a red herring.

If we could use "prefects" it would be to endorse a higher standard of behavior beyond the ToS. I am not sure "staff moderators" are needed at all. Moreover, I proposed this amendment to have a violation of the ToS on the site, in general, to result in a further action. A former Censor and admin opposed this provision. It seems strange to have "moderators" enforce the ToS where we still believe that violating it is not conduct unbecoming a citizen. Sorry, this proposal just comes across as hallow. It just seems like a redressed version of this proposal.

I would be inclined to support it if the role was to enforce the code of conduct and the Triumvirate would review any appeals. I would not mind at all having the appeals be more private. Quick siide note, privatizing this part of the Curia would be enormously beneficial.

I'd beg to differ on referrals being abused. Even if not knowingly so. It isn't a consistent issue but the way this sets up Praefects sets up a check to ensure it should discourage being abused and whether done knowingly or not that it is caught and stopped.

As I've said, I don't expect many actual ToS violations in the Curia in the first place, none of the worse infractions on the spectrum at least. For those instances it may happen, while hopefully rare or never, we'll at least have a team capable of handling it. They'll likely spend more time on referrals than anything else, and beyond that there is also the point of exposure of members without moderation experience to some moderation practices. Perhaps that can go a way in a better resume on Magistrate applications, or even staff moderator applications.

And again, I know this proposal as a whole has taken other ideas and reapplied them. The important thing here is the collective nature of this proposal, not just to steal and re-purpose or anything. It highlights again why I prefer this entire proposal to stay together and go to vote at once, the collective impact of all of this is an important factor.

No worries, I know it is not directed at me. Trust me, if there is anyone here that walk the walk and not talk the talk, it is I.

The state of citizenship and patronization is a self- inflicted wound. Over the past few years, the Curia have gradually whittled away at the Citizenship that it is a mere shadow of its former self. Opening the proth will only deal the final deathblow to it. You cannot redefine it by removing the term "rank," refer to it as "just an award," or continuously denigrate it and expect anyone to value it. I'll explain...

Citizens are the backbone of the site. it is made up of the members who have invested the most time and energy to the site, and thus a significant stakeholder in the success and failure of the site. This is why it was tasked with providing feedback on improving the site. Over time, this one thing, which is the most important thing, was more or less forgotten. Sadly too many members see it has its secondary or tertiary function. It is actually its primary function. if you doubt me, then consider the fact that originally, an administrative committee proposing members for citizenship. It was much later that the concept of patronization was introduced. The Curia never was nor was it ever intended to be an "award committee." It is silly to think that members would just patronize another citizen unless it had some type of extrinsic value in doing so. Being awarded in order to award others is a silly notion.

Sadly, the Curia turned into a "role-playing" activity. The old civitates were no longer participating and as the importance of the Curia waned, so did the overdramatic discussion. This overdramatic discssion did more harm than good. After all, who in their right mind would want to propose something only to get entangled in that mess.

Now Hader, as someone who has to patronize a great number of members in the past, what was it that gave citizenship value for you? Ultimately that is where the secret to our solution lies.

Whenever I made a proposal for the Curia it was always with the intention of making it more hospitable for members to want to make suggestions and proposals. As long as citizens avoid the Curia, then citizenship will continue to be viewed with little regard. Therefore, any proposal needs to create a less hostile place. It isn't even good enough to be as good as other areas of the forum; it has to be better. For every citizen that refuses to make suggestions, the site loses. For every member that refuses to accept citizenship, this site loses.

Staff and citizenship work hand in hand. One can become a citizen via staff work, or one can contribute, become a citizen, and then choose to help out on staff. There is no inherent contradiction. I say this to you Hader, as you might recall that on the very night I inquire about citizenship, I also inquire about becoming a Librarian. As my post was misunderstood, you offered me the position. By the time I applied, my non-staff contribution was significantly more than my staff work, however, I have never stopped serving the site in some compacity. Staff, citizenship, and admin work hand and hand, and the more harmonious that relationship is, the better it is for citizenship and the site.

Then we should wait for another deathblow, or just continue dying a slow death? We're not going to come up with an absolutely perfect solution. Nor a quick one. Even if this proposal passes in its entirety, I do not expect it to be the end of the road, nor intend it to be. It's the first step.

The thing is, Citizens are no longer the backbone of the site. That truly ended when staff became independent of Curial elections, even if some things in essence felt still relevant for some time afterwards. Hell, when I first became moderator, I was asked by current staff, still during the height of the Curia and its relevance/power in site function, and believe was at most only ratified by the Curia. But we have to be beyond looking back on these glory days for the Curia and what it used to mean. It's a good goal to try and get it back to some level of relevance akin to what it used to be, but we have to be more proactive and worry less about making it just like it used to be, because it's never going to be exactly that way again.

I honestly don't remember why I cared for citizenship for myself at first. Was a long time ago by now anyways, but I'm sure it had to do with the cool badge and wanting to do more on the site through the Curia where it was viewed as the main way to actually contribute. That ended up not being as much of the case as I figured, and became so more clearly over more years. I patronized people at first for the hell of it to do what everyone else was doing, eventually only trying to do so for people that actually expressed desire to be part of the curia (regardless of if I didn't think it was worth it for that alone or not). And then eventually stopped because it felt wholly unworthy of my time anymore. More to it then that but it's as in a nutshell as it gets.

The thing is, staff and citizenship don't go hand in hand in any meaningful way now. Many citizens now, especially active ones, are staff or former staff (and most likely just recently former staff). And while some have spent much time in the Curia and surely done some good in it, I doubt many needed that for their staff work, or surpassed their contributions via staff in any way. The Curia is such an afterthought now, I have been in the habit of essentially discouraging trying to get into it when asked about it, and I'd prefer to not be of that mind anymore because there is something more tangible for the Curia to aspire to in helping the site. The value of citizenship has diminished, and probably needs to be redefined, not just rekindled, to ever be seen as that worthy goal again.

It was actually a discussion and which I did eventually make a formal proposal, but I was forced to abandon the Liason part due to the negative reaction of that part of the proposal.
Board of Directors Idea

From the proposed ideas this was still my favorite part of the proposal because it does link the Curia with the rest of the site. Hitai in another thread mentioned something that the Curia could do to promote itself as a central place for the different areas of the site to come together and it was this proposal that I thought of immediately. As I said, it was falsely claimed that the LO's would interfere. The LO's come from the areas themselves, so they will only represent their areas within the Curia and provide a link with the whole site. You ask how we can make citizenship more attractive, then this is one way to do so

I may have opposed at the time for seeming a bit complicated for what it aimed to accomplish, especially based on overall citizen activity at the time and even now. But I don't want to comment too much on that in retrospect. Something akin to that could be a progression of this liaison idea, even if this is redone somewhat, but I think that first small step towards a more meaningful integration of the Curia to staff and the site to see exactly where we need to go afterwards is best now. We can't just simply link staff and the Curia, it has to have some defined purpose, even if small. This requires more from staff to figure out than the Curia now though.

Negativity and bickering only came when Pike was booted as Curator. Without (strong) leadership the place went absolutely bonkers, when Aik stepped in the situation quickly normalized and now under SF it has completely died down. These troubles opened the door to numerous proposals trying to combat something that already has been dealt with. Instead of rigorous overhauls of how moderation within the curia takes place they should've proposed idea's to fix the office of Curator. So that there's always continuity and leadership. I dare say this would've never happened if Pike wouldn't have been booted or if there had been any strong leadership.

Pretty much everyone here knows I often struggle in getting my point across in English. What I'm trying to say is that we are combating symptoms that are no longer there. The only solid thing in this proposal that I actually see fixing something would be the moderation. As it fills the gap a Curator can leave when he's either not around, removed or not a strong leader.

My point would be that a strong Curator is a useless entity without a strong and active Curia at the same time for them and the citizen body as a whole to make meaningful progress.

I've given the Curator a new potential duty through liaisons with this; they have not lost much in way of local moderator powers, which have been explicitly clarified, where there is no real loss in the Curator's moderator power as they could also never issue infractions or moderate in any staff moderation like capacity anyways. I wouldn't even say this proposal strengthens the office of Curator much, or at all, but it does help define it a bit better, and the only real thing that will go a long way for the Curator and the Curia is a strong Curator supporting and supported by an active and strong citizen body. That is at least the only way going forward we're actually going to bring the curia back into the fold in a meaningful way.




To all: I don't expect this to be moved to vote too rapidly, nor intend to just with enough support. I do want everyone on board with this. Maybe not everyone will be 100%, but it is my goal, and to and extent all of Hex's, to convince of the need for this. I have no problem replying to everything here and clarifying where needed, but I do want to see clear support/opposed for any part of this proposal and why so it can be modified as necessary (without changing the intent of it too much overall), as I would really hate to see the whole thing fail because of someone's issue with just one item.

[PikeStance]

Negativity and bickering only came when Pike was booted as Curator. Without (strong) leadership the place went absolutely bonkers, when Aik stepped in the situation quickly normalized and now under SF it has completely died down. These troubles opened the door to numerous proposals trying to combat something that already has been dealt with. Instead of rigorous overhauls of how moderation within the curia takes place they should've proposed idea's to fix the office of Curator. So that there's always continuity and leadership. I dare say this would've never happened if Pike wouldn't have been booted or if there had been any strong leadership.

Pretty much everyone here knows I often struggle in getting my point across in English. What I'm trying to say is that we are combating symptoms that are no longer there. The only solid thing in this proposal that I actually see fixing something would be the moderation. As it fills the gap a Curator can leave when he's either not around, removed or not a strong leader.

I agree. The Dual Consulship dealt with the issue of a lack of leadership, with the moderation of the forum and separating out the CA's with far less radical change than this.

I'd beg to differ on referrals being abused. Even if not knowingly so. It isn't a consistent issue but the way this sets up Praefects sets up a check to ensure it should discourage being abused and whether done knowingly or not that it is caught and stopped.

There were more practical means to reduce the issue, e.g. having a prestage where referrals were vetted prior to asking for a defense.

As I've said, I don't expect many actual ToS violations in the Curia in the first place, none of the worse infractions on the spectrum at least. For those instances it may happen, while hopefully rare or never, we'll at least have a team capable of handling it. They'll likely spend more time on referrals than anything else, and beyond that there is also the point of exposure of members without moderation experience to some moderation practices. Perhaps that can go a way in a better resume on Magistrate applications, or even staff moderator applications.

Well, this sort makes the proposal a bit silly. There is no practical reason for adding position whose role is essentially the Censor role we have now. Meanwhile, the "higher standard" or the Code of Conduct recently passed will go unenforced by anyone. As GB noted, you re addressing a non-issue while ignore the one minor issue that only briefly impacted the Curia. Really, the referral movement was akin the Salem Witch trials than addressing any real issue in the Curia. The only positive that came out of it was the Code of Conduct. We do not need prefects anymore than we needed "Global moderators."

And again, I know this proposal as a whole has taken other ideas and reapplied them. The important thing here is the collective nature of this proposal, not just to steal and re-purpose or anything. It highlights again why I prefer this entire proposal to stay together and go to vote at once, the collective impact of all of this is an important factor.

I am not so sure with this last response. We do not need prefects to be "global moderators" and it seems more like a street shell game to replace prefects with censors and censors with CAs.

Then we should wait for another deathblow, or just continue dying a slow death? We're not going to come up with an absolutely perfect solution. Nor a quick one. Even if this proposal passes in its entirety, I do not expect it to be the end of the road, nor intend it to be. It's the first step.

The thing is, Citizens are no longer the backbone of the site. That truly ended when staff became independent of Curial elections, even if some things in essence felt still relevant for some time afterwards. Hell, when I first became moderator, I was asked by current staff, still during the height of the Curia and its relevance/power in site function, and believe was at most only ratified by the Curia. But we have to be beyond looking back on these glory days for the Curia and what it used to mean. It's a good goal to try and get it back to some level of relevance akin to what it used to be, but we have to be more proactive and worry less about making it just like it used to be, because it's never going to be exactly that way again.

I honestly don't remember why I cared for citizenship for myself at first. Was a long time ago by now anyways, but I'm sure it had to do with the cool badge and wanting to do more on the site through the Curia where it was viewed as the main way to actually contribute. That ended up not being as much of the case as I figured, and became so more clearly over more years. I patronized people at first for the hell of it to do what everyone else was doing, eventually only trying to do so for people that actually expressed desire to be part of the curia (regardless of if I didn't think it was worth it for that alone or not). And then eventually stopped because it felt wholly unworthy of my time anymore. More to it then that but it's as in a nutshell as it gets.

The thing is, staff and citizenship don't go hand in hand in any meaningful way now. Many citizens now, especially active ones, are staff or former staff (and most likely just recently former staff). And while some have spent much time in the Curia and surely done some good in it, I doubt many needed that for their staff work, or surpassed their contributions via staff in any way. The Curia is such an afterthought now, I have been in the habit of essentially discouraging trying to get into it when asked about it, and I'd prefer to not be of that mind anymore because there is something more tangible for the Curia to aspire to in helping the site. The value of citizenship has diminished, and probably needs to be redefined, not just rekindled, to ever be seen as that worthy goal again.

You cannot break a man's legs and then expect him to walk. The Curia purpose is not to appoint staff position. As I stated already, its primary purpose is to be a feedback for site improvements. The fact that this site is failing is because the Curia has had a broken leg for some time now. Continuously undermining it hurts the site not improving it.

Every part of the site has a function; Citizens, the most invested stakeholders provide needed feedback for site improvements, the Admin manages the site and the staff assists the admin in that role. The fact that citizens are also staff members is not a contradiction. A citizen who is also a staff member simply becomes more invested and a greater stakeholder. You have done the site a huge disservice discouraging any citien from suggesting any improvement of the site. The Curia provides a public venue for ideas to be suggested garnishing support and approval. The site allowing the Curia to decline as it does prevented this site from changing with the times and making the needed changes.

Citizenship needs to emphasize has a special "rank" for members to aspire to and the Curia a place where real ideas about site improvement can be discussed. When the Curia was just that, this site was at its greatest. Read the history; it will hit you like a bucket of ice water. Believe me, I was one of those anti-elitist crowd too. I read the history and I realize my foolishness.

I may have opposed at the time for seeming a bit complicated for what it aimed to accomplish, especially based on overall citizen activity at the time and even now. But I don't want to comment too much on that in retrospect. Something akin to that could be a progression of this liaison idea, even if this is redone somewhat, but I think that first small step towards a more meaningful integration of the Curia to staff and the site to see exactly where we need to go afterwards is best now. We can't just simply link staff and the Curia, it has to have some defined purpose, even if small. This requires more from staff to figure out than the Curia now though

Well, we the bold we have common ground. There is only one way to promote citizenship. If you want to call it "redefined" (because it is no longer define int he same terms as it was in 2006) or rekindle, it doesn't matter. Citizenship has to be a meaningful thing to acquire. It doesn't mean voting in staff nonsense either. The admin needs to promote has the place to go. Any further shredding it (breaking its arms) will give us a cripple that cannot walk or write its own name.

To all: I don't expect this to be moved to vote too rapidly, nor intend to just with enough support. I do want everyone on board with this. Maybe not everyone will be 100%, but it is my goal, and to and extent all of Hex's, to convince of the need for this. I have no problem replying to everything here and clarifying where needed, but I do want to see clear support/opposed for any part of this proposal and why so it can be modified as necessary (without changing the intent of it too much overall), as I would really hate to see the whole thing fail because of someone's issue with just one item.

If you want my support (for what it is worth)
- Have prefect, but have them enforce our code of conduct. Have the Censors serve as a "triumvirate." for citizens to appeal. prefects actions and to deal with staff referrals.
- Move the Curia back to the admin forums; signal to the site that admin supports and values citizenship and stop diminishing the importance of citizenship as well through words and actions.
- Do keep a separate user group for CAs, but choose a different name.
- Develop the liaisons position (though I hoped it would have when I first suggested it).

Do this and the Curia and the site would be set to recover. (IMHO, LOL, though I am not coming across so humble. )

[Iskar]

Maybe you should not imply that people disagreeing with your view on citizen-elitism are foolish. Also, discussing a proposal without referencing any of your own proposals would be a welcome change.

I doubt that forcing the Curia to become an extension of the administration (again) would be helpful at all, since it remains in the realm of looking for a kind of quasi-staff usefulness. That can and should never be the point of the Curia, or at least if that ever happens in full we should be honest enough to disband the citizen thing and just make it into another staff branch.

[Gaius Baltar]

Oppose, mostly because of Item #4, but in reality the whole amendment is misconceived. If passed, the nature of conversations within the Curia is unlikely to magically raise itself to some higher plane, and with the influx of non-citizens the sharp disagreements and polarization will continue, if not worsen.

It is sad to see this once proud forum turn into a troll farm, but that appears to be the future here.

[Hader]

If passed, the nature of conversations within the Curia is unlikely to magically raise itself to some higher plane

Well it sure as hell ain't doing that by any other means right now anyways

[Leonardo]

- Move the Curia back to the admin forums; signal to the site that admin supports and values citizenship

This is what I think is the best route to go and that's to let the Curia be a place for Hex to use as a pool of people with some experience in the various of areas of the site.

I suggest that the The Capital forum category in the main index is changed from a forum category to a forum in the Adminstration forum category and inside in The Capital forum restore the old, now archived, Rostra forum as part of the old Forum Magnum forum (I barely remember the old Forum Magnum forum).

Then move the Curial Commentary Thread in the Q & S forum into the Rostra forum or in the Forum Magnum forum.

and stop diminishing the importance of citizenship as well through words and actions.

That's actually for the Curia to improve and emphasize the importance of citizenship on TWC by not creating unnecessary drama.

[Hader]

I'll come back with a bit more later, but I fail to see how moving the Curia to the Administration category and any associated movements with that is supposed to accomplish anything on its own without some associated changes to what the Curia can actually do to impact staff and the site.

Though it does give me some thoughts on other forum reshuffling that could be useful in addition to such a move of the Curia, but even so I still feel what I have in mind there is mostly pointless other than a fair organizational change and not meaningful in actually driving things in the right direction.

[Leonardo]

I'll come back with a bit more later, but I fail to see how moving the Curia to the Administration category and any associated movements with that is supposed to accomplish anything on its own without some associated changes to what the Curia can actually do to impact staff and the site.

The only benefit it has by moving Curia down there is about the ToS, because outside the Administration any discussion about the ToS is not allowed. But it is allowed, within reason of course, inside the Aministration fora.

Though it does give me some thoughts on other forum reshuffling that could be useful in addition to such a move of the Curia, but even so I still feel what I have in mind there is mostly pointless other than a fair organizational change and not meaningful in actually driving things in the right direction.

Another reshuffing of the forum structure could actually be better than it is today and that's put together all commentary threads into one forum instead of spreading them around the forum.

Why not have the commentary threads inside the Rostra forum, should that forum be put back for all members as it once were.

[PikeStance]

..., discussing a proposal without referencing any of your own proposals would be a welcome change.

Iskar, If I feel references any proposal regardless who proposed them gives my point of view context, then I will continue to do so. You should avoid making any of this about an individual The discussion is the functioning of the Curia and the site in general.

I doubt that forcing the Curia to become an extension of the administration (again) would be helpful at all, since it remains in the realm of looking for a kind of quasi-staff usefulness. That can and should never be the point of the Curia, or at least if that ever happens in full we should be honest enough to disband the citizen thing and just make it into another staff branch.

Interesting notion given I already see it as a pseudo staff of the site by the nature of the benefits and responsibilities of being a citizen. Placing the Curia whithin the administrative forum will actually make it more apparent.

That's actually for the Curia to improve and emphasize the importance of citizenship on TWC by not creating unnecessary drama.

I could not agree more. My dream is that "we" can all agree on how the Curia should function. "We" can all agree that citizenship is a valued concept for the site and promote it has something special where the site values its input and thoughts for site improvements. If we do that, then members would want to be citizens and help others attain that level as well. The drama would end.

I'll come back with a bit more later, but I fail to see how moving the Curia to the Administration category and any associated movements with that is supposed to accomplish anything on its own without some associated changes to what the Curia can actually do to impact staff and the site.

On a quick side note; I have not found any references to when or why the Curia was moved out of the administrative forum. My suspicion was that it was done earlier than 2005.
One important change is perception. If the Curia is part of the administrative forum then it is now part of the maintenance of the site. The site would be sending a clear signal that it will value the feedback from those who have invested their time in the site.

it would be correct that simply moving it would not be enough. I had a look at the wiki regarding citizenship.

Citizenship is the fundamental award given by the Curia for contributions to the site and community of the Total War Center.

Citizens have no defined duties on the forum, they are not staff and do not moderate. However, citizens are expected to maintain a higher standard of behaviour than the minimum moderation requirements outlined in the ToS. Citizens who fail to behave in an exemplary manner can be referred to the Citizen's Triumvirate, see here for details. Whilst not binding The Citizens Handbook provides a useful guide to optimal behaviour.


Citizenship gives the user the right to vote in Curial Bills and elect applicants for Curial Offices, as well as post in the Symposium and Curia. Citizens may also use custom use titles (the default for them is 'Citizen'). After a member has been a citizen for three months, without receiving any warnings, then they are eligible to run for a Curial Office, they can also act as Patrons to other members.

Stating that it is a "fundamental award" does not promote citizenship as anything meaningful in regards to the site. If you read further down, it mentioned rights and responsibilities. Here is short on "rights" but hard on responsibilities. Essentially there is an award that gives little to you, but you have to act to a higher standard. This should be re-written to emphasize the "rights" as I stated previously. No one wants an award that adds a burden on you while at the same time offer little benefits.

The last is what this any many proposals deal with; hospitability of the Curia. I do not think enforcing the ToS goes far enough. We expect higher standards, we should demand higher standards. Granted, the lack of any purpose has led the Curia to be "self- referential." It has become an island that focuses on itself, rather than the site. Expanding the focus to be site wise and promoting healthy and hospitable discourse will go a long way to encouraging all citizens to post ideas.

Though it does give me some thoughts on other forum reshuffling that could be useful in addition to such a move of the Curia, but even so I still feel what I have in mind there is mostly pointless other than a fair organizational change and not meaningful in actually driving things in the right direction.

You have piqued my interest.

[Leonardo]

You have piqued my interest.

He didn't piqued mine, instead he triggered it.

[Gaius Baltar]

Just a few comments on the proposal. Overall I don't think I can support this as a amendment, but think that I could support a section or two if they were proposed separately. The reason I state this is because of my firm objections to several of the items proposed.

Item 1: No, just enlarge and redefine the position of Censor. In many respects, this idea could be merged with material from Item 5.

Item 2: No, but because of the material from Item 1 above. The Curial referral system needs a complete overhaul starting with the personal involved.

Item 3: No. The Censor position needs refinement just like all curial officers.

Item 4: No. A more likely suggestion would be to use the proposed Liason (Item 6) position to recognize productive plebs.

Item 5: Undetermined: Curator position should be expanded and refined. Perhaps add ability to make staff referrals for TOS violations in the Curia.

Item 6: Yes, sounds like a lot of busy work without any recognition. Perfect.

[Leonardo]

I admit, I haven't been able to get the whole picture what result of this amendment will have as reading English text are not my strong side.

However, there are a few details I want to alter, but that can wait once the voting process of this amendment has a final result.

I support it with a remark to change a few things later.

[Hader]

Just a few comments on the proposal. Overall I don't think I can support this as a amendment, but think that I could support a section or two if they were proposed separately. The reason I state this is because of my firm objections to several of the items proposed.

Item 1: No, just enlarge and redefine the position of Censor. In many respects, this idea could be merged with material from Item 5.

Item 2: No, but because of the material from Item 1 above. The Curial referral system needs a complete overhaul starting with the personal involved.

Item 3: No. The Censor position needs refinement just like all curial officers.

Item 4: No. A more likely suggestion would be to use the proposed Liason (Item 6) position to recognize productive plebs.

Item 5: Undetermined: Curator position should be expanded and refined. Perhaps add ability to make staff referrals for TOS violations in the Curia.

Item 6: Yes, sounds like a lot of busy work without any recognition. Perfect.

1- This is essentially enlarging and redefining the position of Censor. New name and badge and shuffling of the title otherwise.

2- You can disagree on the referral system and what is best for it or the best way to handle citizen referrals/behavior in general. However I don't see the referral system as entirely flawed and don't see just ostrakons fixing anything, hence why this aims to make this a hybrid of sorts between referrals, ostrakons, and straight up moderation.

4- That only makes liaisons more pointless and doesn't get us trying something new with member involvement in the proposal process. It's not about recognizing productive non citizens, but trying to take a step towards greater curial involvement in staff and the site, alongside breaking a long standing barrier between citizens and the general membership. Staff already "recognizes productive plebs" fairly well. Either we can try and involve the Curia and citizens in this more, or we can just say it and not do anything for the curia in this regard.

5- The office of Curator could totally be expanded and redefined and given a lot more to do, but I feel putting more onto one person and office is a recipe for some disaster in the long run, or at the very least just too much for one person to always have to handle. I preferred the idea of praefects for many reasons, but one being that creating a new office does keep it in the curia and citizenship in a fairly meaningful way. Besides the point though, this item is almost entirely clarification. If we want to make it a footnote in the constitution, that's fine, but it's going to happen either way because we're not going to have more confusion and misinterpretation over what it means to be a local moderator anymore, regardless of how much we may try and shuffle local mod duties between offices or expand them beyond that.

6- So it all has to be about recognition? Do we need more awards maybe? Should the Curia just stay relegated to a glorified awards committee?

I've already stated in this thread the liaison idea is not perfect and could use work, but hope it lays some groundwork for something good or some progression later. If you have nothing meaningful to say about helping it then I've nothing more to say either.

And in all due respect, it almost seems to me half your reasons for no/opposing this are contrived or hardly relevant to the main items. My goal is to be convincing in that the overall nature and intent of this proposal is the best first step for the curia now and I get the feeling from you now it isn't worth even trying to convince you. Take that as you will.

I admit, I haven't been able to get the whole picture what result of this amendment will have as reading English text are not my strong side.

However, there are a few details I want to alter, but that can wait once the voting process of this amendment has a final result.

I support it with a remark to change a few things later.

If they are minor changes it may be better to go for that now rather than later.


To all: I cannot think of any major changes to make at this point (my ideas for some forum movement may or may not make it in here). So if there are further suggestions please go for it, otherwise I'm mainly here to argue support for the entirety of this, as I do prefer to see the support for it before moving it to vote.