[Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

[Leonardo]

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. )

- 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.



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

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

Hader made a correct observation as we both briefly discussed moving the Curia down to the Administration fora in the second thread page.

No point? Was it not this thread where yourself and Leonardo had talked a bit about this, and I was open to the idea? I took the notion to hex to discuss some forum movements we would be willing to do and came back after some discussion on that. That is so happened to be ready to add to this proposal soon after your proposal there is nothing beyond crazy coincidence.

Regardless, I attempted to include the Curia movement in the overall plan. If the Curia truly does not want to be moved out of this here "Capitol" category, then so be it, but a good few of those other forum movements are likely to happen regardless, as some do need to be cleaned, gotten rid of, repurposed, etc. (some not all staff or members will even see some of these forums still, which is why I try to focus on the absolutely public forums for this). So I'm keeping this included because I see no reason not to just because you make a similar proposal. I feel like this proposal in its entirety would get No votes from people from just about anything but Item 7 anyways, so if anyone is 100% on Items 1-6 but not Item 7 now for any reason, I would be surprised, and intrigued to know why.

You're indeed correct, Sir. See above what I bolded in blue and in black.

[PikeStance]

Part of me would be glad to that you do have faith in the current standing of the idea of citizenship now, but I also think it is naive to think that such current standing is anything truly valued by enough people on this site now to ever become fruitful for both the curia and site. Citizenship is already dying a slow death, and has been for some time, if opening the Proth indeed does help kill it then it is only speeding along the process, it is far from the instigator of it.

On the contrary, if it kills citizenship, then it kills the site. It would be your hand around its throat.
A repeated theme on what makes this site unique is citizenship. Without it, there is nothing distinguishable between this site and "org." Instead of going out of the way to continue to destroy what is cherished by those that have acquired it, perhaps we could work on revitalizing it so that it is once again a reason to continue to contribute. After all, that was the central purpose for citizenship, to encourage activity.

I would have agreed the Curia "needed" no moderation as well...ten years ago. I haven't thought it needed it badly, but it could definitely benefit from it, which is what I aim for this proposal to put on track, as it is more than just a simple "slap moderation in and fix".

I stand by what I have said here. There isn't a "moderation" problem in the Curia in regards to the ToS. It is a higher standard issue. Moderation is unlikely to make a real impact. The Mudpit is highly moderated and yet it isn't known for the most civilized discussion. If we want higher standards of conduct, then we need to demand higher standards. A more interesting question to ask is why is the discussion so poor now as opposed to 2005,2006, 2007, etc... What is different now than then? The answer to that question will give us a better solution than this.

Lastly, we will now have a situation when a person is given a violation in the Curia, then receive a staff referral and then is judged by the very same person that gave the infraction. We created the Censor precisely to prevent this entanglement. If the position was to enforce a higher standard (code of conduct passed by the Curia) then at least there is a check and balance in place. (incidentally, violating the ToS is part of the Code of Conduct). I am not really concerned with the term length if there is a check on their action (the Triumvirate) and if they there to enforce a higher standard. As it is right now, the proposal fixes a non- issue.

No point? Was it not this thread where yourself and Leonardo had talked a bit about this, and I was open to the idea? I took the notion to hex to discuss some forum movements we would be willing to do and came back after some discussion on that. That is so happened to be ready to add to this proposal soon after your proposal there is nothing beyond crazy coincidence.

Regardless, I attempted to include the Curia movement in the overall plan. If the Curia truly does not want to be moved out of this here "Capitol" category, then so be it, but a good few of those other forum movements are likely to happen regardless, as some do need to be cleaned, gotten rid of, repurposed, etc. (some not all staff or members will even see some of these forums still, which is why I try to focus on the absolutely public forums for this). So I'm keeping this included because I see no reason not to just because you make a similar proposal. I feel like this proposal in its entirety would get No votes from people from just about anything but Item 7 anyways, so if anyone is 100% on Items 1-6 but not Item 7 now for any reason, I would be surprised, and intrigued to know why.

My issue was that you were dismissive in the other thread while here you were not. What I mean is, you have other ideas, you could have shared them in the other proposal, then we could move forward on both if this fail.

I am not disinterested in the liaison idea, but there has been little discussion at all here on how to actually improve it beyond what I have, only talk that it can be. So without anything substantial to change on it, I'm not going to change it yet, as I also have no new revelations on that front, but feel it is enough to get groundwork for it laid and start working towards improving it later.

This isn't a novel idea, but instead of suggesting a conflicting change, maybe it is better to propose a "committee" who are charged to investigate and then come up with solutions to 'revitalized' the site. GED started something, but even then, it was more about what he thought as a good idea and it died with his own inactivity.

Anyway, I OPPOSE for the reasons already stated. I think this proposal will only expedite the demise of the site.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Apparently I need to reaffirm my vows. Oh Captain, my Captain! I support your proposal in perpetuity so that it may go to the vote, and stand as a monument for our children to behold.

[Tango12345]

Support (again).

[Iskar]

I'll support this as well. While I do not have much hope for the Curia left as a whole I do not think it has any chance to survive if it continues to ask for special treatment regarding Moderation and not letting non citizens at least voice their opinion in the Proth.

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

Opposed, as Item 4 remains on the agenda.

[StealthFox]

Sorry I haven't posted here sooner. But here are my brief/general thoughts.

I agree with a few concerns mentioned already by others:

• Although unintentional, this feels like a lessening of the role of Curator and further cementing it as a clerical type position
• I'm uneasy with the prefects both judging ToS infractions in the Curia and then rejudging those same infractions as staff referrals. I remember back when we had the original idea of the Triumvirate it was going to include the Curator and the two magistrates, but people agreed it wasn't right for the magistrates to judge on both infractions and referrals.
• I'm opposed to opening the Prothalamos in the sense that it's further eroding the identity of something I think TWC has that's unique from most other fora (citizenship)
• I also agree with Elfdue about the permanent appointment doesn't seem right.

I think those are the main points. Now, none of these on their own would get me to vote against this, but all things considered right now I'm leaning towards opposed. I'm not sure what kind of compromises might be made on some of these points, but will try and give it some more thought.

[PointOfViewGun]

From an inexperienced Citizen, overall looks good. Nothing I would be against other than some of the points mentioned by others such as the indefinite appointment. Some are very much welcomed changes/clarifications as far as I can tell. I just didn't understand the Liaison part.

[Iskar]

If permament appointment of the Primus Prefect is a problem, then just reduce their indefinite term to one year terms. That way you can still vote them out of office without having to find reasons for a VoNC, but retain the relative stability of a long term.

[Leonardo]

If permament appointment of the Primus Prefect is a problem, then just reduce their indefinite term to one year terms. That way you can still vote them out of office without having to find reasons for a VoNC, but retain the relative stability of a long term.

I concur.

[Sir Adrian]

I support in perpetuity unless stated otherwise any present and future changes made by Hader to this proposal

[Hader]

I will look at making the primus praefect a one year term then.

I don't anticipate changing anything related to praefects moderating as well as judging referrals, though I'll look at it some more. I still don't feel the overlap is an issue, and don't think people should be comparing it so closely with the tribunal and staff moderation.

Opening the Proth is something I still see no way to budge on, mostly because it's an either do-or-don't sort of deal. I either take it out completely or leave it as is, I see no way to go in between with it. I'd be willing to maybe look at an in-between if there's suggestions, though right now I don't think I would support even that, as I am still firmly behind fully opening it. I knew it would be the biggest point of contention anyways, and what I hope to sway people on more than anything. So, while I can definitely understand most all the reasons people don't support this bit, for the sake of argument let me ask, why? How is this going to devalue your citizenship so much that it makes the potential gain from it not worth it?

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

for the sake of argument let me ask, why? How is this going to devalue your citizenship so much that it makes the potential gain from it not worth it?

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?

[Commissar Caligula_]

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?

My view is that by letting non-Citizens in, we will have much more discussion and views on what the Curia can do. This in turn gives Citizens ideas for proposals, and more stuff is done because there is more conversation. You say there aren't enough citizens that are active - if so, how are they meant to spark conversation between themselves and come up with ideas?

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

You say there aren't enough citizens that are active - if so, how are they meant to spark conversation between themselves and come up with ideas?

We should be reaching out to them and getting them to participate here. Different people have different reasons for why they avoid the Curia, some find it pointless, some find it stuffy and elitist, some simply don't have the time, and some never even really learned what it was. We should be looking more at how we can reconnect with these citizens and encourage them to use the Curia.

[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?

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.

[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.

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.

[Gaius Baltar]

Rather than argue the details of each point, I will oppose this multifaceted amendment in its totality.

And with each revision of the original OP their must be a reaffirmation of support.

[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.

[Iskar]

How many citizens are there? And how many of them have actively participated in the Curia for the past years? Our discussions rarely feature more than 5 active posters, 10 at most, and there are usually around 20 votes in polls. The site hasn't collapsed for the past, say, three years (which is since I joined the Curia and have basically seen the numbers above over the entire time). Hence the argument that killing the Curia would kill the site is nonsense. The largest part of the site and its activity happens completely oblivious of our little drama down here.

A step forward would already be to stop taking ourselves so seriously, as if the Curia was the only salvation to show the Administration the needs and wants of the general membership. That is patently false simply because we are not a representative sample by mere numbers.

You're also turning the causalities upside down for the Mudpit: It is just narrowly bearable in its atmosphere because it is so heavily moderated. If it wasn't it would have to be closed within a week.