[Amendment(s)] Curial Overhaul Order 66

[Hader]

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

Then who reviews a Consul's moderation actions should that come to referral? The three praefect positions are there mainly to maintain that balance like in the tribunal and triumvirate, and the emphasis on the primus praefect position is there to have some experience added to the position that would not be too fleeting or pointless. Simply cutting out the primus position I feel undercuts the reasons for having the office at all in that case.

I had the thought after seeing the dual consulship proposal of something like that, with instead one Consul in the primus praefect spot, but then I feel the issues that causes with having what is essentially two consuls but one focuses on moderation and the other doesn't (and with no defined way of splitting duties) can cause more issues than this would in the case of curial infractions and staff referrals from them.

If the curia in the future (assuming this passes) would wanted to make the position a Consul position, and do a dual consulship then, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that, but I am still on the side of there needs to be the rank distinction between them to avoid more issues.

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.

Item 6 I wouldn't call too complicated in its current state, though perhaps my explanation for it makes it seem so. It has potential to become pretty complex though, but as it stands is a fairly simple thing and definitely won't amount to much unless expanded upon in the future. If you don't understand part of it let me know what parts and maybe I can explain it differently.

A ratification after 6 months may be alright, though I just feel unnecessary. I will be adding the 1 year term for the primus praefect in for sure though, beyond that I don't feel there is need to add more to that stipulation.

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...


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.

That is not the central premise of this proposal. I perhaps have worded it in such a way to make it seem like a bigger deal than it actually is, but it really isn't. But as I have said many times in this thread already, the praefect position in this proposal is meant to be more than just moderating the curia.

And I have also said I don't expect the opening of the Proth to open the floodgates in any way and change a whole lot here. I expect a fair few people to begin partaking in the Proth regularly then, and perhaps some others less consistently. This is more so about breaking down the barrier that has existed, at one point in a good way, but now I think in quite a negative way; that is, the barrier between members and citizens and the illusion now that the CCT or the old experiment of the FM was a way to be taken seriously by citizens and the goings on in this Prothalamos and the Curia at large. Many people will probably feel differently than I do on that, but I feel we're going to go a longer way in better discussion here by simply breaking down that barrier and opening the Proth to all for just discussion than we are in trying to get more citizens patronized to get them in here. You want the latter to work well, and I would love for it to as well, but it simply is not and is showing no signs of improving enough in a relatively good amount of time to be worth the wait.

It seems to me you keep grossly misinterpreting the uniqueness of the Curia to the TW community and internet at large. The Curia is but one unique thing about this site, and it only matters to a select few. No one is going around off TWC and praising the idea of our Curia and citizenship and how unique and awesome it is. The best thing I have seen people talk about TWC for is mods. Never heard the Curia mentioned once.

I believe I have beaten these subjects to hell and back now, so unless we're getting anywhere new with discussion on them I'm done commenting on them in the same fashion.

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.

Oh no not sacrilegious!

So we should just keep it because hey good old times sake right?

You seem to have just come back at quite the strange time into the Curia Bel, but even as your time back in Hex and Content, how much of what was done here did you feel mattered to the site and staff? (legit asking, not being facetious with it)

I've been a citizen for nearly 13 years now, and been in staff for probably a bit longer by now. The past 5 years at least, perhaps more, I haven't felt any strong connection to my staff work in any capacity from the curia, nor vice versa in any way.

If everyone only continues to oppose opening the Proth on the basis of devaluing citizenship (whether just their own or the concept at large of citizenship) and yet continues to find no way to make the Curia relevant, useful and a worthwhile endeavor again then I see no reason at all as to why I, as a staffer and especially Hexer, should give a single about anything that goes on here beyond the occasional awards.



@All, I will later update the proposal for a 1 year term for the Primus Praefect. Some other things are still being looked at. But I don't anticipate many more changes, especially big ones, anymore. Unless there are more questions or compelling arguments of course...I do not at this point intend to take out Item 4 from this proposal.

[Leonardo]

Item 6 I wouldn't call too complicated in its current state, though perhaps my explanation for it makes it seem so. It has potential to become pretty complex though, but as it stands is a fairly simple thing and definitely won't amount to much unless expanded upon in the future. If you don't understand part of it let me know what parts and maybe I can explain it differently.

A ratification after 6 months may be alright, though I just feel unnecessary. I will be adding the 1 year term for the primus praefect in for sure though, beyond that I don't feel there is need to add more to that stipulation.

Could we at least let Item 6 be postponed for a year at the same time let the Praefect position be in place for a year with an election after 6 months. After a year Item 6 can be implemented and the Praefect position can be extended to a whole year instead of 6 months. Just to give the citizens time to get used to the changes in the Curia, not mention non-citizens will have enough time to show us that open up Prothalamos was a good idea or not.

[PikeStance]

That is not the central premise of this proposal. I perhaps have worded it in such a way to make it seem like a bigger deal than it actually is, but it really isn't. But as I have said many times in this thread already, the praefect position in this proposal is meant to be more than just moderating the curia.

I disagree, this is a dressed up version of the Global Moderation Act. You added on the opening up the prothalomos to get that passed as well. The rest of the proposal is a result of the moderation provision.(oh and my moving of the Curia bit)

And I have also said I don't expect the opening of the Proth to open the floodgates in any way and change a whole lot here. I expect a fair few people to begin partaking in the Proth regularly then, and perhaps some others less consistently. This is more so about breaking down the barrier that has existed, at one point in a good way, but now I think in quite a negative way; that is, the barrier between members and citizens and the illusion now that the CCT or the old experiment of the FM was a way to be taken seriously by citizens and the goings on in this Prothalamos and the Curia at large. Many people will probably feel differently than I do on that, but I feel we're going to go a longer way in better discussion here by simply breaking down that barrier and opening the Proth to all for just discussion than we are in trying to get more citizens patronized to get them in here. You want the latter to work well, and I would love for it to as well, but it simply is not and is showing no signs of improving enough in a relatively good amount of time to be worth the wait.

There is no barrier between citizenship and non-citizens. You have Q&S, CCT, and the old Forum Magnum, and yet nothing was ever proposed of note by a non-citizen. The problem is NO ONE cares to provide feedback and the site does not "ask." That's the barrier.

It seems to me you keep grossly misinterpreting the uniqueness of the Curia to the TW community and internet at large. The Curia is but one unique thing about this site, and it only matters to a select few. No one is going around off TWC and praising the idea of our Curia and citizenship and how unique and awesome it is. The best thing I have seen people talk about TWC for is mods. Never heard the Curia mentioned once.

Citizenship is unique. What is also unique is the Tribunal. This doesn't change the fact that citizenship and the subsequent structures created is not unique. The problem is a barrier was constructed, but that barrier gradually was blocked by indifference. Your proposal (opening up the prothalomos) ignores that indifference.

I believe I have beaten these subjects to hell and back now, so unless we're getting anywhere new with discussion on them I'm done commenting on them in the same fashion.

I thought you were done.

[StealthFox]

I'm satisfied with the one year appointment of the Primus Prefect, and I'm okay with the idea of opening of the Prothalmos be a trial period (I don't have a preference on time period though). With those changes I'll probably abstain rather than voting no. To move me to Support I'd like to see something done about prefects double judging infractions and referrals. Perhaps just have the Prefect as Curia moderator and allow that person to appoint assistants who will will also help the Curator with moving and managing threads like the current curator assistants do. Keep the Censors as they function in their current role. Or we could leave referrals as they are now having the entire Curia vote on them.

... yet continues to find no way to make the Curia relevant, useful and a worthwhile endeavor again then I see no reason at all as to why I, as a staffer and especially Hexer, should give a single about anything that goes on here beyond the occasional awards.

I'm going to push back on this. (see here) Just what exactly makes the Curia so useless and not worthwhile? Why do you think it is failing? As a mechanism to suggest and vet sitewide changes and award those who are long time contributing members the way the Curia functions and handles these two core aspects work just fine.

What you're trying to do is fix some minor problems with moderation and referrals and to make it more open by allowing more participation. Those things do not suddenly make the core of the Curia useless and irrelevant. It's not helpful to characterize it as such and use this sort of language.

[Hader]

I'm satisfied with the one year appointment of the Primus Prefect, and I'm okay with the idea of opening of the Prothalmos be a trial period (I don't have a preference on time period though). With those changes I'll probably abstain rather than voting no. To move me to Support I'd like to see something done about prefects double judging infractions and referrals. Perhaps just have the Prefect as Curia moderator and allow that person to appoint assistants who will will also help the Curator with moving and managing threads like the current curator assistants do. Keep the Censors as they function in their current role. Or we could leave referrals as they are now having the entire Curia vote on them.

I'll just reiterate that I don't think a trial period, unless it is well over a year (even then I still think that's not too great) is not a good compromise in this situation. The stigma of a trial period I see bringing it down is that people will not take it seriously enough with the knowledge that it can be reverted at a certain point (and likely will be IMO). The permanence of it going through without a trial I think is necessary to reinforce the need to at least try to embrace it and make it work out for the better, instead of viewing it constantly as some blemish on citizenship forever.

And again to everyone, this issue of praefects judging infractions and referrals only becomes a case when the infraction was issued for a Curial post. Otherwise there is no issue.

I'd still prefer to keep praefects as the referral body, as otherwise I don't think it makes the office worthwhile enough to have just as moderators (though more so if the proth is also opened). I think we can make the Censors officially the Consul's Assistants still, and I feel if anything at all is changed to keep things balanced the best way to do that is just make the Curator and Censors a tribunal-like judging body for only Curial issued infraction referrals.

Not sure if I would still want to change the praefect part to do something like that, but it is currently the most I am willing to change about it. I would go out on a limb here and say part of the contention in this area may be because there is little to no precedent for curial infractions. The fact that it could be a thing that ends in a referral is perhaps a newer possibility, or at least more likely one. If the Consul had instead been given the moderation authority, and the referral system still used then, then how would the referral work with a Consul that is obviously involved in the case? Would we run a snap election for a third Censor just for that case? Or in the case of no more referrals and the Ostrakon, we'd still end up judging both the infracted member and potentially the moderation decision of a Consul, in which case if we ever reached such a weird case it would definitely be a somewhat turbulent time and touchy subject.

My point is that I think this is trying to tie things together in a way that hopefully reduces any amount of bureaucratic standstill, enough separation of duties to justify the office(s) and keep them within the Curia.

(I had another thought to go on here before and it's totally escaped me, so take that for now )

I'm going to push back on this. (see here) Just what exactly makes the Curia so useless and not worthwhile? Why do you think it is failing? As a mechanism to suggest and vet sitewide changes and award those who are long time contributing members the way the Curia functions and handles these two core aspects work just fine.

What you're trying to do is fix some minor problems with moderation and referrals and to make it more open by allowing more participation. Those things do not suddenly make the core of the Curia useless and irrelevant. It's not helpful to characterize it as such and use this sort of language.

The Curia handles awards just fine, and while the election of magistrates is important to the functioning of the tribunal it is still a simple process. Beyond that, I have not seen the Curia do much I would consider worthwhile. Suggesting and vetting changes for the site it is capable of but I don't thin it has done to the extent it potentially could for quite some time. There is far too much worrying about just the Curia in one way or another, and a whole lot of effort put into things that rarely ever bear fruit, or barely do at best. I can see some of this as the fault of staff and administration, which is why I want this proposal to hopefully be a start in bridging that gap, but the curia and citizenship still I think needs the biggest shift in thinking and direction to make any of it worthwhile.

This proposal may be heavy on moderation and referral related changes but it is not all, and I'll say again that part of the driving force for it is to have the entirety of the proposal be implemented together. I would really hope the liaison part can be expanded upon and truly turned into a much more fruitful and worthwhile venture, and the correct bridge between staff/administration and the Curia for the future, but it is still the item I am not getting much feedback on discussion on.

I know it may sound uselessly harsh to characterize the curia as such, but really my overall feeling now is I can ignore this place as it is now and focus entirely on putting my effort and energy into staff instead, and everyone and everything has a higher chance of coming out better for it. My citizenship would mean nothing in any of those efforts, and while I know as a hex it won't make the biggest difference to me, if citizens and citizenship doesn't have a better correlation of value to effort and time then I don't see the point of the Curia anymore (beyond awards and the tribunal still so if that's all people want the curia to keep doing forever, so be it).

[Leonardo]

This proposal may be heavy on moderation and referral related changes but it is not all, and I'll say again that part of the driving force for it is to have the entirety of the proposal be implemented together. I would really hope the liaison part can be expanded upon and truly turned into a much more fruitful and worthwhile venture, and the correct bridge between staff/administration and the Curia for the future, but it is still the item I am not getting much feedback on discussion on.

Is this Staff Liaison Curial position some sort of a coordinator between non-staffers, probably for other staffers too, and a staff branch, if I understood it correctly?

If it's then I think a discussion is in order to get the feedback you want to have, so I wonder if you could give us an example of what the Staff Liaison Curial position would be in practice.

[PikeStance]

I'll just reiterate that I don't think a trial period, unless it is well over a year (even then I still think that's not too great) is not a good compromise in this situation. The stigma of a trial period I see bringing it down is that people will not take it seriously enough with the knowledge that it can be reverted at a certain point (and likely will be IMO). The permanence of it going through without a trial I think is necessary to reinforce the need to at least try to embrace it and make it work out for the better, instead of viewing it constantly as some blemish on citizenship forever.

A year is not a trial period. More than a year is definitely implementation.

And again to everyone, this issue of praefects judging infractions and referrals only becomes a case when the infraction was issued for a Curial post. Otherwise there is no issue.

You still not understanding that we created the Censor position in response to the entanglement in the first place. Now, you want to revere the process again. If it was an issue then, why do you think it is not now? Absolutely nothing has changed.

I'd still prefer to keep praefects as the referral body, as otherwise I don't think it makes the office worthwhile enough to have just as moderators (though more so if the proth is also opened). I think we can make the Censors officially the Consul's Assistants still, and I feel if anything at all is changed to keep things balanced the best way to do that is just make the Curator and Censors a tribunal-like judging body for only Curial issued infraction referrals.

Moderation issue is a bit silly. The Curia is where to suggest improvements for the site. Most of the infighting took place over amendments which, to be honest, should be reduced. Minor, simple changes maybe. There is a reason why there was little need for moderation in the Curia in the past. Just how passionate can one get over site improvements. It is when the Curia turns on itself that the animosity was flamed.

My point is that I think this is trying to tie things together in a way that hopefully reduces any amount of bureaucratic standstill, enough separation of duties to justify the office(s) and keep them within the Curia.

A proposal that could change the "culture" of the Curia rather than one that will perpetuate its irrelevant would be much more productive.

The Curia handles awards just fine,.....and while the election of magistrates is important to the functioning of the tribunal it is still a simple process. Beyond that, I have not seen the Curia do much I would consider worthwhile. Suggesting and vetting changes for the site it is capable of but I don't thin it has done to the extent it potentially could for quite some time. There is far too much worrying about just the Curia in one way or another, and a whole lot of effort put into things that rarely ever bear fruit, or barely do at best. I can see some of this as the fault of staff and administration, which is why I want this proposal to hopefully be a start in bridging that gap, but the curia and citizenship still I think needs the biggest shift in thinking and direction to make any of it worthwhile.

Actually, the Curia doesn't award just fine. The data sows this

The bold begs the question. Why brainstorm an idea that would restore what it can do? The site needs feedback to stay relevant and current. Yet, your proposal main focus is on the Curia itself.
Citizenship does need a "big shift" but you are "shifting" in the opposite direction.

I know it may sound uselessly harsh to characterize the curia as such, but really my overall feeling now is I can ignore this place as it is now and focus entirely on putting my effort and energy into staff instead, and everyone and everything has a higher chance of coming out better for it. My citizenship would mean nothing in any of those efforts, and while I know as a hex it won't make the biggest difference to me, if citizens and citizenship doesn't have a better correlation of value to effort and time then I don't see the point of the Curia anymore (beyond awards and the tribunal still so if that's all people want the curia to keep doing forever, so be it).

This begs the question on why you are making a proposal in something you claim you have no investment in? It also characterizes the negative impact of the Curia as a result of the indifference and animosity the administration has for citizenship.

It would be more impressive if your motivation was to enhance and cultivate the relationship between admin and citizenship, rather than express total indifference and a nonchalant attitude towards its role and purpose. I supposed if the former was the motivation then we would have an entirely different proposal here; one that would help generate activity by shifting the culture.

[Commissar Caligula_]

There go my hopes and dreams of being an indefinite tyrant...

[Caillagh de Bodemloze]

I'll just reiterate that I don't think a trial period, unless it is well over a year (even then I still think that's not too great) is not a good compromise in this situation. The stigma of a trial period I see bringing it down is that people will not take it seriously enough with the knowledge that it can be reverted at a certain point (and likely will be IMO). The permanence of it going through without a trial I think is necessary to reinforce the need to at least try to embrace it and make it work out for the better, instead of viewing it constantly as some blemish on citizenship forever.

I'd agree about this. If it's reversible (which it is, as I understand it), then it can be reversed if it doesn't work out. There's no need for a trial period.

And again to everyone, this issue of praefects judging infractions and referrals only becomes a case when the infraction was issued for a Curial post. Otherwise there is no issue.

I see your point on this. However, it seems entirely possible that an infraction will - eventually - be issued for something posted in the Curia. I would agree with StealthFox that this is an issue in those circumstances, so it would be good to find a way of avoiding that issue.

It seems to me that we shouldn't just try to avoid things being actually unjust - though that's important, of course. We should also try to avoid things that will look as if they're unjust. If we have a system that looks unjust, then it's harder for people to have confidence in the system. That's true even if the system actually operates in a completely fair way - it's a problem of perception rather than necessarily a problem of reality. If we have a situation where a praefect might be involved in the process leading to an infraction, and then that same praefect might also be involved in the referral process relating to that same infraction, then that looks as if the referral case has been prejudged. We know what that praefect thinks before the referral process even starts. My preference would be to have different people involved in the infraction and the referral, so I'd prefer your suggestion of having the Curator and Censors deal with referrals relating to infractions incurred in the Curia over your original plan.

The term "liaison" cannot be taken for the expected meaning in this case, there may be little liaison-like acitivty in the role as we may think of an office with such a name. It's rather meant to signify an in-between, if anything, of staff and the rest of membership, that the Curia is in charge of fostering. As it stands, there is no obligation of the liaison to report to the Curia in any specific way, nor report to staff about the Curia in any way either. Perhaps it can be better likened to an internship that the Curia fosters and whatever area of staff they're going for finds some fit for them. Again, this is the basic framework, and not much will come of this much alone, so it definitely needs expansion and new ideas to build upon it.

Could you explain what you mean when you say the Curia will 'foster' the liaison arrangement? I mean, what do you see the Curia doing in this respect? I'm just having a little difficulty understanding how this would work, especially if the liaisons don't have to report to the Curia.

[Alwyn]

I've read this discussion with interest and appreciate the time that people have taken to comment.

While there has been debate over several items, it sounds like item 4 (opening the Prothalmos) is the most controversial. There are some who support it, but there are others for whom it's a deal-breaker. Hitai said that this is marketing to the wrong audience and that we need to give citizens more things to do, not take things away from them. For PikeStance, citizenship is what makes TWC unique and opening the Prothalmos would kill citizenship and kill the site. He asks: if the Prothalmos is open to all, why do we need citizenship? For Belisarius, item 4 would be sacrilege and would break with a 15-year tradition. (My apologies to anyone if I misrepresented your argument in the way that I summarised it). These are all serious arguments.

I agree with Hitai that giving citizens more to do would make citizenship more meaningful. I don't see item 4 as taking anything away from my citizenship; of course, I respect the fact that others see this differently.

I agree with PikeStance that citizenship is a distinctive and valuable feature of TWC. I don't see Hader's proposal as killing citizenship or the site, while understanding that PikeStance has a different view.

Belisarius is right, as I understand it (more experienced citizens know the traditions of the site better than I do) that this would depart from tradition. For me, the question is whether this is a helpful change or a harmful one. It seems clear that Belisarius's view is that it's the latter.

All I've done so far is to say that my view is different from those of several very experienced and well-known citizens. I haven't provided a reason for anyone to agree that opening the Prothalmos won't take something away from citizenship, or that or won't kill citizenship, or that it won't be a harmful break from tradition. My reason for seeing item 4 differently is straightforward.

For me, item 4 is simply a step in the direction of more efficiency. Non-citizens already can, and do, comment on what's happening in the Prothalmos. As you know, they do this on the Curial Commentary Thread. My view is that it's inefficient to keep track of discussions happening on threads in the Prothalmos at the same time as following discussions of the same issues on the CCT. Curial commentary by non-citizens doesn't take anything away from my citizenship, kill citizenship or harm the site. I suggest that allowing the commentary to occur on the relevant threads would not so either.

PikeStance said that people he remembers commenting on the CCT became citizens afterwards, so this simply reinforces the importance of encouraging more citizens. Pike has a point. People making an investment in TWC, through mods, modding tutorials, debates, hot-seats, AAR writing, staff work and other activities, often do become citizens. We'd like to encourage more members to join us in the Curia and to be active here. On the other hand, there are people who have also made, and continue to make, an investment in TWC and who choose not to become citizens. I value their contributions, just as I value the contributions of citizens. As I said, in my view it's simply more efficient for comments to go on the relevant thread in the Prothalmos, instead of a separate CCT.

My answer to PikeStance's question "if the Prothalmos is open to all, why do we need citizenship?" is that citizenship encourages members to build a track-record of positive participation in the site and provides influence over the site's direction. Under the current system and the proposed system, every member has a voice and only citizens have a vote. Having a vote matters. As I see it, citizenship would continue to support these goals, if commentary by non-citizens occurred on the the relevant threads instead of the CCT.

[z3n]

It appears the people who have been most active within the curia oppose item 4 entirely.

I oppose it based on my own personal anecdote wherein I realized the curia was special due to the fact that I could not post there; it was something to be earned, not used by people who did not understand it's significance yet.

[Hader]

So, you're saying that the Staff Liasion position is a bridge between the administration and the Curia as the Curia is gonna to foster members for a staff position, sort of a staff academy that works similar to what an academy building does in RTW.

Also, why can't a staff liasion be for a staff branch one already serve?

In a way, yes. The caveat that comes with the whole thing is that there is no one way to pin this down that can apply to every staff branch equally, which is part of why it is fairly vague and rough around the edges overall.

Being a liaison for a branch you already serve in is equal parts redundant and pointless; the objective of it is more to help staff with people not in that branch, or more so for the Curia to help Staff by potentially pushing people their way (which is in a way recruitment, but not in a bad way I'd say) and for Staff to help the Curia by hopefully having people come back to the Curia with better working knowledge of staff which can also hopefully translate to more productive activity here.

I see your point on this. However, it seems entirely possible that an infraction will - eventually - be issued for something posted in the Curia. I would agree with StealthFox that this is an issue in those circumstances, so it would be good to find a way of avoiding that issue.

It seems to me that we shouldn't just try to avoid things being actually unjust - though that's important, of course. We should also try to avoid things that will look as if they're unjust. If we have a system that looks unjust, then it's harder for people to have confidence in the system. That's true even if the system actually operates in a completely fair way - it's a problem of perception rather than necessarily a problem of reality. If we have a situation where a praefect might be involved in the process leading to an infraction, and then that same praefect might also be involved in the referral process relating to that same infraction, then that looks as if the referral case has been prejudged. We know what that praefect thinks before the referral process even starts. My preference would be to have different people involved in the infraction and the referral, so I'd prefer your suggestion of having the Curator and Censors deal with referrals relating to infractions incurred in the Curia over your original plan.


Could you explain what you mean when you say the Curia will 'foster' the liaison arrangement? I mean, what do you see the Curia doing in this respect? I'm just having a little difficulty understanding how this would work, especially if the liaisons don't have to report to the Curia.

I see the point behind the sentiment, and I am looking at how to change it, but even so I don't see going any farther than what I mentioned earlier happening.

Could you explain what you mean when you say the Curia will 'foster' the liaison arrangement? I mean, what do you see the Curia doing in this respect? I'm just having a little difficulty understanding how this would work, especially if the liaisons don't have to report to the Curia.

Because the Curia is in charge of some minor vetting for the liaison candidates and then setting them up with staff. A simple enough process, maybe not entirely necessary to even have the Curia/Consul doing this part, but I want a way to tie it to the Curia and make it something they have investment in, which still hopefully grows beyond just that role.

This is actually my point. We should make changes that bring about a culture change where feedback is not met with indifference or indignation but is expected. This proposal, just adds more potential people into the mix, while at the same time undermines the current situation and hampers patronage system. It as if we have a bullet wound in the arm and out the reaction is to cut off the arm. Yes, no more wound, but we now have one arm.

I hardly see it as hampering the patronage system much, only a bit, and if anything can help bring to light more people not just worthy of citizenship but willing to use it to participate more.

Random related thoughts: if you open up the Prothalomos, then why would they be a need for moderation in the Curia? Most of the drama takes place in the Prothalomos. If the Prothalomos is open to all, then why do we need citizenship? To vote? If to vote, why bother with any standard of conduct?

You need citizenship to vote. To post in the Curia main. To post in the Symposium. To run for any curial office.

The Proth is still entirely in Curial jurisdiction, citizens are still capable of generating as much drama as they want in there, with more people to play with. Just because there are non citizens mingled with citizens in the Proth, standards of conduct suddenly don't matter anymore? Do they only matter now because there is a CCT where we can mingle and throw down with each other?

Αlwyn's thoughts are exactly my thoughts and he sums it up pretty well. I'm a bit concerned though, about an open to all Prothalamos that's my only concern atm.

Why then? I've addressed many concerns related to it already so only if you wish to be more specific can I hope to address it for you as well.

It appears the people who have been most active within the curia oppose item 4 entirely.

I oppose it based on my own personal anecdote wherein I realized the curia was special due to the fact that I could not post there; it was something to be earned, not used by people who did not understand it's significance yet.

I felt the same way when I first became a citizen. It had definitely felt like I had earned something more than a badge back then. I won't be able to understand totally the feeling of any new citizens these days, but I can't help but look at the curia and citizenship now and wonder what they are earning beyond a shiny badge. If we can't make it significant again, then citizenship will never be either, and may just continue to be relegated to a shiny new badge for some hard work.

[Leonardo]

In a way, yes. The caveat that comes with the whole thing is that there is no one way to pin this down that can apply to every staff branch equally, which is part of why it is fairly vague and rough around the edges overall.

Being a liaison for a branch you already serve in is equal parts redundant and pointless; the objective of it is more to help staff with people not in that branch, or more so for the Curia to help Staff by potentially pushing people their way (which is in a way recruitment, but not in a bad way I'd say) and for Staff to help the Curia by hopefully having people come back to the Curia with better working knowledge of staff which can also hopefully translate to more productive activity here.

There is another way to assign one to a Staff Liasion position is to offer that to those people who have retired from a staff branch. Just to avoid of throwing away experience too soon when a former staff member is no longer active.

[Hader]

There is another way to assign one to a Staff Liasion position is to offer that to those people who have retired from a staff branch. Just to avoid of throwing away experience too soon when a former staff member is no longer active.

If they've retired, they have that experience already they can bring back to the curia if they wish, and if they've decided to retire they probably aren't keen on staff work at that point in time so it isn't an issue of retaining experience that liaisons is even trying to address. There is also emeritus that keeps such retired staff able to contribute some discussion within staff still. If a former staff member leaves staff that is no guarantee that they are going to now start spending more time in the curia instead.

[Iskar]

It appears the people who have been most active within the curia oppose item 4 entirely.

That is incorrect.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Αlwyn's thoughts are exactly my thoughts and he sums it up pretty well. I'm a bit concerned though, about an open to all Prothalamos that's my only concern atm.

[Hader]

Apologies for such delay. Life is busy.

The following changes have been made (or shall be pending my actual edit of post 2):


1) One year term for primus praefect

2) Any citizen curial infractions (meaning an infraction given to a member as a result of a post in the curia) are judged by Curator and 2 Censors instead of praefects. Note this does not affect a non-citizen receiving an infraction in a prothalamos post, since this process still only deals with citizens.

3) Removing Item 6 (liaisons); reason being I believe, along with other's similar sentiments, that it needs more work, and more importantly I believe an upcoming staff project I have planned may be a potentially good way to act as a litmus test of it to some degree. Therefore I will hold off on it until it can be more properly discussed while also, hopefully, being actually tested extensively. It may still be some time for this to come to fruition, so I find it unfortunate we can't get some framework in with the rest of the proposal now, but this will have to do.


That is it for changes. I still have no intent of removing Item 4. Feel free to discuss as before of course, but I feel at this point this is likely the iteration I will eventually ask moved to vote.

[Leonardo]

Apologies for such delay. Life is busy.

The following changes have been made (or shall be pending my actual edit of post 2):


1) One year term for primus praefect

2) Any citizen curial infractions (meaning an infraction given to a member as a result of a post in the curia) are judged by Curator and 2 Censors instead of praefects. Note this does not affect a non-citizen receiving an infraction in a prothalamos post, since this process still only deals with citizens.

3) Removing Item 6 (liaisons); reason being I believe, along with other's similar sentiments, that it needs more work, and more importantly I believe an upcoming staff project I have planned may be a potentially good way to act as a litmus test of it to some degree. Therefore I will hold off on it until it can be more properly discussed while also, hopefully, being actually tested extensively. It may still be some time for this to come to fruition, so I find it unfortunate we can't get some framework in with the rest of the proposal now, but this will have to do.


That is it for changes. I still have no intent of removing Item 4. Feel free to discuss as before of course, but I feel at this point this is likely the iteration I will eventually ask moved to vote.

Sounds good to me.

Although, I am curious about what kind of a staff project you have in mind, but I guess that the time will tell.

[General Brewster]

Apologies for such delay. Life is busy.

The following changes have been made (or shall be pending my actual edit of post 2):


1) One year term for primus praefect

2) Any citizen curial infractions (meaning an infraction given to a member as a result of a post in the curia) are judged by Curator and 2 Censors instead of praefects. Note this does not affect a non-citizen receiving an infraction in a prothalamos post, since this process still only deals with citizens.

3) Removing Item 6 (liaisons); reason being I believe, along with other's similar sentiments, that it needs more work, and more importantly I believe an upcoming staff project I have planned may be a potentially good way to act as a litmus test of it to some degree. Therefore I will hold off on it until it can be more properly discussed while also, hopefully, being actually tested extensively. It may still be some time for this to come to fruition, so I find it unfortunate we can't get some framework in with the rest of the proposal now, but this will have to do.


That is it for changes. I still have no intent of removing Item 4. Feel free to discuss as before of course, but I feel at this point this is likely the iteration I will eventually ask moved to vote.

Glad with these changes, sad for the liasons but happy that you're not discontinuing it all together.

Due to item 4 still being there I'm still opposed but considering the mood here I have no doubt that it'll pass anyway. This will probably be my last interaction on a proposal here. I hope your ultimate goal will be accomplished.

[Hader]

Post 3 should be updated correctly and fully now. Item 6 is removed, but Item 7 shall remain Item 7 and not be bumped down a number due to the change, just so any references to Item 6 or 7 before these changes doesn't seem confusing to anyone viewing this at a later date.

Glad with these changes, sad for the liasons but happy that you're not discontinuing it all together.

Due to item 4 still being there I'm still opposed but considering the mood here I have no doubt that it'll pass anyway. This will probably be my last interaction on a proposal here. I hope your ultimate goal will be accomplished.

I'd still say it's a shame this one item is the one thing that would hold you, and others, back from voting yes. I think I've made my case on it plenty of times in much depth here already, so I won't again here, but I'd hope people would see the sentiment for it and importance within the whole of this proposal.