[Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

[Leonardo]

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.

Really? Do you actually believe that open up the Prothalamos will kill the citizenship?

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

Every citizen who are opposed to Hader's Curia Overhaul proposal actually support GED's Thoughts on the Curia in one way or the other.

If that happen then it would be the worse scenario I can think of and I don't think any citizen wants that to happen.

[PikeStance]

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.

2015 it was already in a depression (to borrow an economic term). It was in decline when I joined the site in 2011. What you demonstrated above is a good analysis on why "opening up the Prothalomos will have no effect. The entire Curia was viewed with disdain by many members long before I joined. As I said, our goal should be trying to figure out what went wrong, then how to seek a solution. Opening up the Prohtalomos is treating the symptom and ignoring the cause.

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.

No one ever said "only."

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.

The problem with the mudpit is that people take themselves to seriously. There isn't a discussion you are going to have or win that is going to have any bearing on society. It is academic. A point completely lost with many.

Really? Do you actually believe that open up the Prothalamos will kill the citizenship?

Yes, why would I write it if I didn't believe it?

Every citizen who are opposed to Hader's Curia Overhaul proposal actually support GED's Thoughts on the Curia in one way or the other.

Not at all. GED's proposal and one of the many criticisms of it is that added an additional layer of role-playing. What he really wanted was a mechanism to separate the rank of file citizens with those citizens that have proven to be trustworthy, thus adding another layer. You can easily oppose both.

If that happen then it would be the worse scenario I can think of and I don't think any citizen wants that to happen.

I agree. I do not think any proposal is proposed to destroy TWC.

I could not agree more with Hitai!

[Hader]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Well I mean there's a reason you're the guys with the red names... override the Curia and force it through

[♔atthias♔]

let only the consul be a morderator plus the perfects but there is no need for a primus perfect IMHO

other than that I will gladly support it if that bit is solved for me because I think we need to try something new

[Leonardo]

I want to suggest a compromise and it is like this.

1. Cut out the 6th suggestion in this proposal as it seems complicated, probably too complicated, and I even don't fully understand it.
2. Let the Primus Praefect be in place for a year, but for two 6 months term with an election after 6 months then the new Primus Praefect will continue a second term.

After a year evaluate the Primus Praefect position and make the necessary changes, should there be anything to alter.


I agree with atthias, it's about time we try something new and different.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

let only the consul be a morderator plus the perfects but there is no need for a primus perfect IMHO

other than that I will gladly support it if that bit is solved for me because I think we need to try something new

I want to suggest a compromise and it is like this.

1. Cut out the 6th suggestion in this proposal as it seems complicated, probably too complicated, and I even don't fully understand it.
2. Let the Primus Praefect be in place for a year, but for two 6 months term with an election after 6 months then the new Primus Praefect will continue a second term.

After a year evaluate the Primus Praefect position and make the necessary changes, should there be anything to alter.

I agree with atthias, it's about time we try something new and different.

Plus one. I have checked most of the other replies and I think it's about time. Support!

[PikeStance]

I am not in agreement with the agreement of trying something different. The last time we did that is when the CdeC was removed. We spent years plugging the gaps of that decision and by the looks of it, we still are.

The central premise f the proposal is that the Curia has been ripe with ToS violations, but there is no evidence that is the case. One could argue that the Curia had many disingenuous discussions, but enforcing the ToS is not going to enforce that. The untinted consequence of this proposal would put the Prefect has judge and jury of any staff referrals, which was precisely why we created the Censor positions in the first place. I do not feel we did anything different, but just going into circles.

The other issue is opening up the Prothalomos. However, this ignores the underlining problem. We have active citizens who do not or no longer engage in any discussions, and in many cases, do not vote on any proposals. Many simply do not feel it is worth any time giving feedback or suggestions. Allowing non-citizens seems like the proverbial, avoiding the Christmas rush, by having "newer" member become frustrated sooner. In other words, it fails to address the cause, just the symptom.

Then there is this...

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./....he prothalamos does not change in function, only has more potential members coming to it to contribute to discussion.

In the past, we had a forum for non-citizens. It was hardly ever used. We have the CCT, which is also hardly used. In fact, when I joined, it was more active. You know where those people are now? If you guessed, here in the Curia, then you are right.
Again, what is the point of devaluing the very thing that makes this site unique and then gains nothing from it?

If you want future input, then that is the question you need to start with to figure out the solution.

[Iskar]

You keep talking of the supposed devaluation of the Curia and Citizenship as if they were equivalent. However, the vast majority of Citizens on this site does not care squat about the Curia at all and values their Citizenship nonetheless, just differently. It is only us twenty-something leftovers that would possibly tie our value of citizenship to the value of the Curia. You're going in circles running after your own tail and miss the rest of what is going on.

[PikeStance]

You keep talking of the supposed devaluation of the Curia and Citizenship as if they were equivalent. However, the vast majority of Citizens on this site does not care squat about the Curia at all and values their Citizenship nonetheless, just differently. It is only us twenty-something leftovers that would possibly tie our value of citizenship to the value of the Curia. You're going in circles running after your own tail and miss the rest of what is going on.

The Curia is citizenship. The Curia is the collection of citizens. The Curia, the institution, is the means in which a citizen expresses their concerns and suggestions for the site. This perspective is based entirely on my research on the history of the site and comments made by citizens of this site.

I do believe that certain members have a social idealism that is inconsistent with how this site would best function. I am, ironically, one of them, but probably for different reasons than anyone reading this now.

I will not argue there is one way only. I teach students to consider new ideas and to be open-minded every day. I would be remiss to be any other way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. That being said, I have yet read any argument that is remotely convincing (the doing something different because it is a different argument) to adopt a different way.

[Leonardo]

The Curia is citizenship. The Curia is the collection of citizens. The Curia, the institution, is the means in which a citizen expresses their concerns and suggestions for the site. This perspective is based entirely on my research on the history of the site and comments made by citizens of this site.

I do believe that certain members have a social idealism that is inconsistent with how this site would best function. I am, ironically, one of them, but probably for different reasons than anyone reading this now.

I will not argue there is one way only. I teach students to consider new ideas and to be open-minded every day. I would be remiss to be any other way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. That being said, I have yet read any argument that is remotely convincing (the doing something different because it is a different argument) to adopt a different way.

C'mon Pike, you cannot rely only to the history of TWC and the previous made suggestions for the site.

Also, what you do in RL has nothing to do with what can happen on TWC and the current system in the Curia doesn't seem to work, so I say it's about time we try something new and doing that wouldn't hurt would it.

[Iskar]

The Curia is citizenship. The Curia is the collection of citizens. The Curia, the institution, is the means in which a citizen expresses their concerns and suggestions for the site. This perspective is based entirely on my research on the history of the site and comments made by citizens of this site.

I do believe that certain members have a social idealism that is inconsistent with how this site would best function. I am, ironically, one of them, but probably for different reasons than anyone reading this now.

I will not argue there is one way only. I teach students to consider new ideas and to be open-minded every day. I would be remiss to be any other way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. That being said, I have yet read any argument that is remotely convincing (the doing something different because it is a different argument) to adopt a different way.

Repeating already addressed points - reference to "historical research" on the site - irrelevant statement about oneself - teaching reference.

Thanks but no thanks. There is only so much bad debating one can take. I'll be back for the vote, consider my support for this unhindered by any future changes unless stated explicitly otherwise.

[PikeStance]

C'mon Pike, you cannot rely only to the history of TWC and the previous made suggestions for the site.
Also, what you do in RL has nothing to do with what can happen on TWC and the current system in the Curia doesn't seem to work, so I say it's about time we try something new and doing that wouldn't hurt would it.

The question that the current state is unworkable is an obvious conclusion. This site is failing because it has not evolved. It has not evolved because most (meaning citizens) care to offer suggestions. Moreover, the site has done little to be receptive to any suggestions or criticism. Trying "something" is an option, but that something actually needs to address the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

The internet is as much part of real life as anything else. It does not exist in a vacuum. An appeal to have an open mind is hardly limiting in any aspect of "life."

[Leonardo]

The question that the current state is unworkable is an obvious conclusion. This site is failing because it has not evolved. It has not evolved because most (meaning citizens) care to offer suggestions.

I'm with Iskar here and this post hasn't convinced me one bit about how the Curia should actually work and keep talking about the same thing over and over again is a waste of time IMO.

Moreover, the site has done little to be receptive to any suggestions or criticism. Trying "something" is an option, but that something actually needs to address the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

I find that to be nothing than a contradiction, because the actual disease is what symptoms a thing has e.g decline of the site, non-members with a few citizens doesn't value citizenship anymore and that's the symptons of a disease.

The internet is as much part of real life as anything else. It does not exist in a vacuum. An appeal to have an open mind is hardly limiting in any aspect of "life."

I concur to what Iskar said and I'll follow his example and that's stay out of the discussion until it gets moved to vote.

Repeating already addressed points - reference to "historical research" on the site - irrelevant statement about oneself - teaching reference.

Thanks but no thanks. There is only so much bad debating one can take. I'll be back for the vote, consider my support for this unhindered by any future changes unless stated explicitly otherwise.

[Flinn]

I'll be back for the vote, consider my support for this unhindered by any future changes unless stated explicitly otherwise.

this is my stance as well, unless I'll state differently Hader's proposal has my full support, in all its istances

[Belisarius]

Item 4 is sacrilegious and would overturn a 15 year precedent. It would require a more pronounced decentralisation of power from executive to legislative to justify.

I would oppose this.

The rest I support.

[Iskar]

Item 4 is sacrilegious and would overturn a 15 year precedent. It would require a more pronounced decentralisation of power from executive to legislative to justify.

I would oppose this.

The rest I support.

There is no legislative or executive structure on the site and the Curia has no power to shift around at all. All authority rests with the Administration at the behest of the site owner and any consideration of lofty "precedents" on "power" distribution between imaginary branches of a government that is not a government is chasing ghostly notions that may have meant something when it was still The Curia vs Ogre Net but are just empty shells by now.

[PikeStance]

There is no legislative or executive structure on the site and the Curia has no power to shift around at all. All authority rests with the Administration at the behest of the site owner and any consideration of lofty "precedents" on "power" distribution between imaginary branches of a government that is not a government is chasing ghostly notions that may have meant something when it was still The Curia vs Ogre Net but are just empty shells by now.

You are conflating different things. There was an administration when the site was owned by ogre.net. There was six-member administration that managed the site, thus the term "hex." The Curia was created by this administration.

Ogre.net, Ian, Garb, and GED all have the same thing in common. The site owner and the Curia's relationship has always been the same, except, ironically, ogre.net probably gave more freedom for the administrators of the site to act more independently than Ian, garb, and GED.

The original preamble

This document exists to define the roles of the bodies that run and govern this site and community. The guiding principle of the site is to be that barring technical or fiscal obstacles, any considered mandate from the appropriate legislative body of contributing members will be implemented by the Administrators.

Of course, the Curia shot itself when it changed it to this

It is the goal of the Curia to foster all communities within the forums of Total War Center, and in this spirit the Curia serves as an advisory group to, and an awards committee for, the site.Within this document lie the principles of the Curia and of Citizenship. Footnotes expand upon the basic principles; whilst not crucial, they are included for administrative purposes.

It certainly did itself nor the site any favors by changing it.

[Garbarsardar]

Hader, you are probably right, there is no point in a provisional opening. If it goes that bad (which I doubt) the citizens can always reverse this change.
I think I support this now.

Ogre.net, Ian, Garb, and GED all have the same thing in common. The site owner and the Curia's relationship has always been the same, except, ironically, ogre.net probably gave more freedom for the administrators of the site to act more independently than Ian, garb, and GED.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

And by "don't know", I mean "could not possibly know". The relation between owner (or owner/administrator) and administrators (the Hex as a whole) can be ascertained only by being privy to the discussions in the Hex forum or having been privy to the communications between owners; you are not and have not been.

[Belisarius]

There is no legislative or executive structure on the site and the Curia has no power to shift around at all. All authority rests with the Administration at the behest of the site owner and any consideration of lofty "precedents" on "power" distribution between imaginary branches of a government that is not a government is chasing ghostly notions that may have meant something when it was still The Curia vs Ogre Net but are just empty shells by now.

There is decentralisation of awards and community management, I said further decentralisation would be required. I didn't necessarily say it should be. I also like how people still think it was Orges who caused the strife, it was a faction of the community who used Ogre that caused all the trouble.