Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

  1. #21
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,937
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Then it would seem I needlessly breached my retirement from curial affairs.

  2. #22
    Lifthrasir's Avatar A Clockwork Orange
    Content Staff Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    11,512
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    The purpose of moving the Prothalomos was to get more direct insight from peregrinus. Furthermore, Hader argued that this would generate interest in citizenship.
    I do not see how Ostraka or VonC would be required to accomplish this goal. It is an internal Curia matter.
    How can you expect members to be interested in curial affairs if you are restricting their access? How to expect to not be seen as "elitist" (because it seems to be your main motto these days) if you are restricting their access? How can you make them interested with citizenship that way? I'd honestly like to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I honestly cannot follow these discussions. I never once stated that you are not "entitled to opposed" nor did I made any statement that I expect anyone to agree with me. I would prefer if you would stop trying to psychoanalyze my intentions and either opposed or support the proposal and leave me out of it.
    I'd simply appreciate if you could stick on the proposal. This kind of remark adds nothing to the debate. No point to throw oil on the fire.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    CMS Blogger Award medal poll up. Vote for your favorite.

  3. #23
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,693
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Lifthrasir View Post
    How can you expect members to be interested in curial affairs if you are restricting their access? How to expect to not be seen as "elitist" (because it seems to be your main motto these days) if you are restricting their access? How can you make them interested with citizenship that way? I'd honestly like to know.
    The elitist discussion has no bearing here. If the Curia is concerned about that comment the simple solution is to patronize. You cannot deny worthy individuals the right participation and absolve yourself by claiming openness. I have already explained to you the simple solution to solving that. it has nothing to do with this proposal. ironically, if citizens would more incline to patronize then this would not have been an issue to begin with.

    The entire Curia is viewable by everyone. The entire community can comment in the CCT. Moreover, the entire community has never been denied making proposals until he Curia closed that option. Again the charge of elitism reflects back.

    This proposal does not move back to the Prothalomos. Citizens application is in the QP and up until recently, appeals for referrals were posted in the QP. As far as I am concern anything dealing with citizenship should and ought to be placed for discussion in the QP. It is still viewable and comments can be made in the CCT, but whether or not someone should be or should not be considered a citizen is the rights of other citizens.

    A Vote of No Confidence is a recall of a Curial elected position. Why would a peregrinus have any interest in recalling a position they had no say in?

    By the same token, cold a pereginus discuss the merits of a Curial Service Award? i can possibly see an argument for a large award, but CSA? This is why I said I was on the fence.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  4. #24
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    12,571

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    If it bothers you to see a non-citizen giving his opinion you just have to ignore ihim.

    Nice try, but the recent changes do not prohibit non-citizens from using another section of the forum (Q&S, curia commentary thread) to make any proposal to the administration or the curia.

  5. #25
    Leonardo's Avatar Reborn Old Timer
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southern Sweden
    Posts
    3,879

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Opposed.

    Give it time, Pike.
    Under patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader.

  6. #26
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,693
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Give what time?

    This is not a black and white proposal. It is based on logical interpretation.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  7. #27
    Lifthrasir's Avatar A Clockwork Orange
    Content Staff Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    11,512
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Fully agree with mishkin here.
    If a non-citizen has no interest in the curial affairs, he won't post there, no matter where these VoNC, Referrals, curial awards, etc, are hosted or if they (non-citizens) are able to.

    Of course you have the choice to limit non-citizen post rights within the curial domain (because that's what this is about actually). But, for my own, I'm more in favor of supervising rather than limiting.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    CMS Blogger Award medal poll up. Vote for your favorite.

  8. #28
    Leonardo's Avatar Reborn Old Timer
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southern Sweden
    Posts
    3,879

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Give what time?
    I don't think I have to spell it out for you, but in case you don't know then I mean Hader's proposal.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    This is not a black and white proposal. It is based on logical interpretation.
    Why didn't you addressed this when we're discussing Hader's proposal. Why?

    Also, I don't expect an answer for my question.
    Under patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader.

  9. #29
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,940

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    I could maybe get behind some parts of this.

    Ostraka: I may be convinced it could be something for the QP, though how necessary that is is up for debate (and I don't think it really makes a big difference in the proceedings since praefects are involved regardless)

    VonC: I would say this should stay in the Proth and be allowable from non citizens, since they now have interaction in the Proth and thus subject to direct interaction with all Curial Officers, and can have legitimate grounds on that for starting a VonC.

    Awards: Also unnecessary I think, we've had little issue with awards in the past save a few cases (which were all issues made by citizens first), and I doubt discussion with non citizens on these matters is going to be any more detrimental on a regular basis for some reason.


    This again is just about breaking down that barrier of direct discussion between citizens and non citizens, moving anything to the curia main just because it is a "curial matter" is just further distancing the Proth from the Curia and defeating the main purpose of opening it in the first place. Ostraka as I said may be worth looking at making a QP sort of thing, but awards and VonC are plenty fine to be kept here.

    As it is now, opposed. I'd be willing to look more at Ostraka only, if anything, and perhaps clarification on terms as far as decisions/amendments and whatnot, but without any caveat of moving these things out of the Proth because of some perception of it being a Curial matter, or anything else for that matter.

  10. #30
    StealthFox's Avatar Consensus Achieved
    Content Emeritus Censor Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    8,166

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    I can see where this proposal is coming from. It doesn't make sense for someone who can't vote in elections to initiate a vote of no confidence. I'm not sure if it's worth all the intricacies of keeping up with what threads are allowed in the Proth vs. which ones aren't, especially since non-citizens can comment on any Curial matters anyway in the Curial Commentary thread.

    Anyways, it's all a moot point right now though as the Constitution currently only allows for resolutions to be proposed by citizens. Even though the Overhaul bill discussed opening the Prothalomos to posting and commenting by non-citizens I don't think it was explicit in allowing non-citizens to open proposal. If we want that to happen I think we need another amendment. I also don't think the language in the Overhaul bill was specific enough to reintroduce Ostrakons. If we want that to return I believe we need another amendment that outlines that process. There are also probably several other things that need voting on that were unintended impacts of the overhaul bill that I tried to ferret out here. I've been thinking about putting together a Curial Overhaul Cleanup Bill, to address all of these things but haven't gotten around to it yet. Maybe this weekend.

  11. #31
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,937
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    EDIT: Nevermind, The fox has spoken and I agree.
    Last edited by General Brewster; March 07, 2019 at 09:11 PM. Reason: Sleeky foxes.

  12. #32
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,693
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonardo View Post
    I don't think I have to spell it out for you, but in case you don't know then I mean Hader's proposal.
    Why didn't you addressed this when we're discussing Hader's proposal. Why?
    I actually address both of these points on page 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonardo View Post
    Also, I don't expect an answer for my question.
    Be polite; there is nothing personal here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    I could maybe get behind some parts of this.
    Ostraka: I may be convinced it could be something for the QP, though how necessary that is is up for debate (and I don't think it really makes a big difference in the proceedings since praefects are involved regardless)

    VonC: I would say this should stay in the Proth and be allowable from non citizens, since they now have interaction in the Proth and thus subject to direct interaction with all Curial Officers, and can have legitimate grounds on that for starting a VonC.

    Awards: Also unnecessary I think, we've had little issue with awards in the past save a few cases (which were all issues made by citizens first), and I doubt discussion with non citizens on these matters is going to be any more detrimental on a regular basis for some reason.
    This again is just about breaking down that barrier of direct discussion between citizens and non citizens, moving anything to the curia main just because it is a "curial matter" is just further distancing the Proth from the Curia and defeating the main purpose of opening it in the first place. Ostraka as I said may be worth looking at making a QP sort of thing, but awards and VonC are plenty fine to be kept here.

    As it is now, opposed. I'd be willing to look more at Ostraka only, if anything, and perhaps clarification on terms as far as decisions/amendments and whatnot, but without any caveat of moving these things out of the Proth because of some perception of it being a Curial matter, or anything else for that matter.
    The difference between "amendment" and "decisions" is that it impacts everyone on the board directly.

    Ostraka has no direct impact on a peregrinii. Until recently, all appeals of referrals were done in the QP. It is where it belongs. In regards to a VonC, Peregrinii have no vote in who is a Curial Officer nor can they vote to remove. It is odd that someone that cannot even vote can initiate a VonC. Really, why should a peregrinii initiate a VonC against someone who they never voted for and cannot vote to remove?

    The barriers can be lowered just as well by allowing every board member to weigh in on the matter that concerns everyone.

    I can remove the medium award parts as long s it is understood that pereginii cannot initiate a nominee or resolution.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  13. #33
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    12,571

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    VonC: I would say this should stay in the Proth and be allowable from non citizens, since they now have interaction in the Proth and thus subject to direct interaction with all Curial Officers, and can have legitimate grounds on that for starting a VonC.
    Totally agree. If a non-citizen can be affected by the actions of a citizen in his curial position, he should be able to initiate a VoNC against him.

    Is there going to be a storm of partial or global amendments against an amendment recently approved by the majority of the citizens? You know that this makes some people see the curia as a boring and pityful show of amendments, counteramendments, personal quarrels, veiled threats, ego trips, etc., right?
    Last edited by mishkin; March 08, 2019 at 04:39 AM.

  14. #34
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,940

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Ostraka has no direct impact on a peregrinii. Until recently, all appeals of referrals were done in the QP. It is where it belongs.
    The process may not have any direct impact on any non citizen, but that doesn't mean that they could not have been affected by whatever bad behavior that may be part of that initiation of the ostraka, and thus have important input on it.

    I am on the fence over it as far as Ostraka go, but I think it needs a separate discussion to go further.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    In regards to a VonC, Peregrinii have no vote in who is a Curial Officer nor can they vote to remove. It is odd that someone that cannot even vote can initiate a VonC. Really, why should a peregrinii initiate a VonC against someone who they never voted for and cannot vote to remove?
    I reiterate myself in that they can be affected by the actions of a Curial Officer since they can interact with them in the Prothalamos directly. Just because they don't have a vote in their appointment or VonC does not mean they are totally unaffected by that officer's behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I can remove the medium award parts as long s it is understood that pereginii cannot initiate a nominee or resolution.
    This I think also needs it separate discussion, as for myself now though I am not convinced it needs to happen as you've outlined. Semantics on proposals, resolutions, etc., can probably instead be clarified and posted in a sticky in the Proth now for all members to be able to reference and clear any confusion on the matter by clearly stating what each is and what the extent of participation is for non citizens.

  15. #35
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician Consul

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12,940

    Default Re: [Amendment] Resolving Issue with Prothalomos' Movement

    As this thread has had no posts in over 28 days, I'll be archiving this and marking as abandoned.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •