This and That about the Curia

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Of course we need an admin to be technical officer. When was the last time Squid was active. More importantly, GED needs to resolve whatever personal issues he has and start showing a damn about the site. Quite frankly, I think there are doen people who care more. I don't think i will bother doing a darn thing until he shows he cares.

I understand your passion on this, but I'm obliged to respond to it first as it's pretty dang fundamental.

I agree that an owner should be, ideally, an entity that also stands as a community leader and as a pivotal force of change when required. This was attempted mid last year, before I presume real life caught up to him again. Thus there is one example in pretty recent (though still, mid last year...) history that he definitely showed the will. Now, well, there's nothing - but the thing is, ideal doesn't work here. Without knowing the hardware and financial demands, none of us can presume the ability to keep the lights on in his place, even if they may care more in spirit right now. His technical competence is clearly vast, far beyond the median here at least. I'm actually in a similar boat, refraining a lot until I see more inspiring things from the top. If he's unable to be that force of change himself, someone should be around who can. But I think it's a matter of life catching up in general, where a return that might have happened by now has been delayed by real world events (even as we can waste quite a bit of time here, many are in the exact opposite boat for reasons out of their control - if for nobody else, that's certainly Hader's issue right now).

One can't just resolve their personal issues, just like that. Some nod, in my opinion, should have been given in a directing capacity by now, but still, there's a lot of patience that has to be afforded, because I really don't think it's a matter of him not giving a , but rather not currently being able to offer that . In the scope of this thread, as much as we absolutely need the top end to come back before true progress can be made, we need to acknowledge it's not very realistic to expect or demand that to happen immediately - what's happening at an ownership level isn't good, but it warrants understanding. If summer passes by and we don't hear anything, yeah, it's a good measure worse - but for now, there's still a good bit we can do with current numbers.

I am not sure what you want from me. But the only way to revive the Curia is to create a committee and have this committee identify and decide if citizenship is warranted. There aren't enough citizens willing and able to patronize at the moment. Still have that option though. This is how it was done in the beginning Citizens would often suggest members for citizenship and the committee would review and vote. Quick and easy.

Citizenship needs to go back to which it was intended.

Then return the proth back to the Curia.

Lastly, make it clear what a citizen is so that it never becomes self- absorbed elitist.

I'm game for the committee prospect. I'm actually considering a poll where thoughts on this can be acquired between multiple levels, work in progress being,
1 - Kill it, merge the functions off to Staff
2 - Exclusively give awards and elect magistrate, cut all non-essential things to this, merge all site initiative stuff with the Q&S
3 - Refresh an identity that sees citizens be a core for pushing site change in an advisory role to staff (per older purpose), more clearly defines the scope of a citizen, and includes the above functions while maintaining just enough internal staff to make these things run smoothly.

I'm game for Option 3 at the moment, which would preserve the most from now and involve a deliberate cultural shift as well as necessary changes to the word of law. I think it is impossible for the 'elitist' aspect to be permanently undone, but a refresher and some soul-searching would certainly help it become more useful now. If that's just too much or people don't want to see that again, I'll go to the second option and I guess all of the meta stuff in this thread can be routed over to the Q&S with anyone who cares to participate. But I'd like the unique potential of the Curia to be seen again. If that's the case, committee to get there might be a good start.

I suppose you've said about as much as you need to, unless it's to correct me on these things or clarify. All of this, it would seem to me, is coming months, years too late. Better a final burst now than fading into the sunset, I think.

[Leonardo]

Of course we need an admin to be technical officer. When was the last time Squid was active. More importantly, GED needs to resolve whatever personal issues he has and start showing a damn about the site. Quite frankly, I think there are doen people who care more. I don't think i will bother doing a darn thing until he shows he cares.

You know, the current situation here are quite similiar to what is going on GHF and Fliggerty, who is the site owner, are busy with RL. And I'm sure GED has a valid reason to be less active here due to RL.

Aside from that, anyone has a RL to attend too, which includes both of us. Try to remember that.

[PikeStance]

GED has not been active in years. Squid almost as long. Judging on what you wrote, I would say you have no idea just how long.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

GED has not been active in years. Squid almost as long. Judging on what you wrote, I would say you have no idea just how long.

I would say you've missed Squid's occasional appearance, particularly his last additive involvement in the site even if I can be found on record basically going 'streamables?... uh, okay', and certainly Ged's short resurgence in which he addressed technical issues, pushed some initiatives on the wiki, added SSL, and made a spree of commentary. It's ultimately not a vast amount of work and anything past that from Ged has been background upkeep, but if you are tying to tell me both have been utterly absent for years plural, I'm afraid you are provably incorrect even if they are indeed not truly active in a longer stretch. But then, I mentioned that myself, a few times. Before making such an assumption, do try for clarity.

It's ridiculous when I have to say it given my own poor clarity...

[Commissar Caligula_]

I'll just post this here as well.

Unfortunately you can barely even call the Curia an awards committee these days. Here is the grand sum of the Curia's activity over the past 16 months, since January 2019:

• 11 Awards were given out
• 2 Constitutional Amendments were passed
• 1 Decision was passed
• 12 Amendments/Decisions were abandoned
• 12 new Citizens were added
• 1 unsuccessful referral
• 1 unsuccessful VonC

Thats absolutely nothing.

[Lifthrasir]

I'm game for the committee prospect. I'm actually considering a poll where thoughts on this can be acquired between multiple levels, work in progress being,
1 - Kill it, merge the functions off to Staff
2 - Exclusively give awards and elect magistrate, cut all non-essential things to this, merge all site initiative stuff with the Q&S
3 - Refresh an identity that sees citizens be a core for pushing site change in an advisory role to staff (per older purpose), more clearly defines the scope of a citizen, and includes the above functions while maintaining just enough internal staff to make these things run smoothly.

I'm firmly opposed to any idea of a committee checking and validating citizen applications. That would bring us back to the CdeC system and would'nt serve the Curia for sure.

Option 1: basically the current proposal from Commissar Caligula_.
Option 2: More or less the current Curia.
Option3: Not sure to get the right understanding with "more clearly defines the scope of a citizen"
And before to have an advisory role, it might be good if the Curia has a supporting role first.

The elitist concept is what has brought the Curia to its current state wether or not nostalgies of bygone days like to hear it.

[PikeStance]

I'm game for the committee prospect. I'm actually considering a poll where thoughts on this can be acquired between multiple levels, work in progress being,
1 - Kill it, merge the functions off to Staff
2 - Exclusively give awards and elect magistrate, cut all non-essential things to this, merge all site initiative stuff with the Q&S
3 - Refresh an identity that sees citizens be a core for pushing site change in an advisory role to staff (per older purpose), more clearly defines the scope of a citizen, and includes the above functions while maintaining just enough internal staff to make these things run smoothly.

I'm game for Option 3 at the moment, which would preserve the most from now and involve a deliberate cultural shift as well as necessary changes to the word of law. I think it is impossible for the 'elitist' aspect to be permanently undone, but a refresher and some soul-searching would certainly help it become more useful now. If that's just too much or people don't want to see that again, I'll go to the second option and I guess all of the meta stuff in this thread can be routed over to the Q&S with anyone who cares to participate. But I'd like the unique potential of the Curia to be seen again. If that's the case, committee to get there might be a good start.

I suppose you've said about as much as you need to, unless it's to correct me on these things or clarify. All of this, it would seem to me, is coming months, years too late. Better a final burst now than fading into the sunset, I think.

It really isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel. The original intent of citizenship was novel idea onto itself. Reward members who post well and contribute to the site and as a caveat make them a "stakeholder" to the site. The requirements were simple and it was non-exclusive. Show interest in the site and post well. That in itself was god enough to start and should had remained well. When I joined the site I read up on citizenship and that was the impression i was left in the wiki. The reality was incessant elections for the CdeC and constant debate on what is a citizen. That was in 2011-2012. By then the Curia was nothing more than role play and the concept of being a stakholder was non-existent. At least it was never discussed and it still isn't. Whatever is done, what was initially created is the only form that will work.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I'm firmly opposed to any idea of a committee checking and validating citizen applications. That would bring us back to the CdeC system and would'nt serve the Curia for sure.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean something like this that active participants see, at least say 'sure' to, and that reflects what we want to do with the Curia going forwards with a little more clarity. It can, and should, remain mostly ambiguous for interpretation. Perhaps we just keep that thread, highlight it a bit and move along. But in this I think a refresher for what we're doing on standards and scope would be helpful - most folks, if not everyone, on the same page before moving to the next step.

It really isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel.

I don't ask its reinvention, rather, its clarification. If we can't point to something that isn't a single user's perception of what it is, that is clear, then it doesn't quite suffice. There's room for interpretation so long as we can vaguely recall and respect the wheel's shape in the first place.

My main advocacy seems to be pretty close to the original vision. Yet defining that anew, in my mind, is more helpful than saying 'well look at what it was!' We've lost it, and I think we should rediscover it.

Whatever is done, what was initially created is the only form that will work.

I caution against this idea. Even if the answer is in a new coat of paint to what originally was the point, pointing to what 'was' is an attitude the site doesn't need when everything, especially the franchise and its audience, has been steadily moving on. Sometimes the same, put differently ends up more effective.

[Leonardo]

GED has not been active in years. Squid almost as long. Judging on what you wrote, I would say you have no idea just how long.

You're wrong, because I know GED has been around and as for Squid he posted an update for a modding tool last year IIRC. That's months for Squid, not years as you stated.

So, stating that GED hasn't been around for years are false due to things I know in which you don't know a damn thing about.

[Lifthrasir]

No need to argue. GED was quite active a bit less than one year ago as mentionned by CommodusIV. Just have a look in this forum. If you take time to check his profe, you'll notice that he logged on March 3rd, 2020 (well officially if you get my meaning ).
Squid logged on March 11, 2020 and was active (well in public) in February 2019.
Finally, I'm sure that they come time to time and do things behing the curtains. Now that these questions have been cleared, shall we move on?

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

I ask for anyone who agrees to express their will to pursue such things, to discuss a modern 'goal' of the Curia so it is doing things for its own sake in a meaningful direction, rather than simply spiraling out into its many branches of thought as it does now even as other communities sap at the bottom line. I'd like to know who can avail themselves to doing what may be possible now, even with a concerning absence of technical staff in activity and numbers. Given the complete circle Modding Staff followed, clearly some things are possible. For this effort I'd like us to look at two things; where we want to go, and only once that's established, the first priorities in how to get there.

Tempted as I am to spout some cynical, defeatist spiel about the death of the Curia, I will oblige you, as I respect what you're trying to do here, and I do still hold a candle for this place, even if I don't believe anyone shares my specific views, or that they are tenable any longer in this day and age. That and I just have a penchant for my soapbox.

The questions of what the Curia is, what it should do and its identity crisis in this regard have been some of the key things holding the institution back, at least as long as I have been a part of it. Some believe it should be a counterweight to Hex and the staff, with authority of its own to exercise in the administration of the site. Others believe it should be a grandiose pseudo-political roleplay, wherein we can all revel in the drama and have fun at eachother's expense. Others want it to be a nexus for the site that joins together people from disparate communities across the forum, creating new relationships through the patronage and house systems. Others think it should exist to ensure those deserving contributors to the site are justly rewarded for their deeds. And some just think it's an elitist dumpster fire that needs to go. These differences in opinion and philosophy, not only among individual citizens, but also broader groups within the Curia, whilst overlapping at times have nevertheless still led to many a circular argument in these halls; without us even agreeing on what the Curia is, it was inevitable that we would see little progress, as we were all trying to pull it in different directions. Not only were proposals shot down for practical reasons, so too were they opposed for ideological ones, as the vision the proposer would have for the direction of the Curia didn't match anyone else's.

Order 66 led to something of a clean slate for the Curia though, at least inasmuch as it killed off what remaining hopes there were for a return to the 'good old days' - whatever that term meant to people. And with that, those ideas held by a broad part of the conservative and traditionalist wing of the citizenry became untenable, so much so that many of us are now rather disinclined to keep participating. Yet to my enduring surprise and resentment, our more progressively-minded peers haven't really done much to build upon this rather momentous bookend in Curial history either, despite having had relatively free reign to do so.

So it strikes me that, given that we're still having to have this conversation now, there is still no agreement on what the Curia is or what it should do. Thus I think you are right to ask, and I, for my part, am happy to answer - or to at least offer some counsel -, even if I have my coat on and I'm halfway out the door. I'm not sure this format is ideal though, as discussion threads tend to end up with a lot of discussion, and when the Curia discusses things...well, we don't often tend to get anywhere. Might be wiser to have some kind of form/questionnaire/poll/census where people can just give their opinion independently of eachother, so you can collect the data first and discuss it afterwards. Given how the majority of posts in this thread are about when different members of Hex last logged on, I'd say it's probably worth more of a punt. Instead of an open discussion right off the bat, just have a thread moderated by the praefects where everyone gets one post each to say what the Curia is to them and what its goal should be. At least then you have some kind of barometer of opinion and you can see what the prevailing views are, without getting lost in any rambling discussions. Could even make it a site-wide thing and ask non-Curialists and non-citizens too. Maybe then, if the stars aligned, people with similar views could cooperate to iron out a couple of different options that broadly represent what people want, you can put it to a vote and settle the question once and for all, then start building a future from there. Even if it's not the Curia I once envisioned, I'd rather see a new generation actually make a success of it in their own way than have it die off because no one could be bothered with it anymore.

[PikeStance]

You're wrong, because I know GED has been around and as for Squid he posted an update for a modding tool last year IIRC. That's months for Squid, not years as you stated.
So, stating that GED hasn't been around for years are false due to things I know in which you don't know a damn thing about.

I wish I was wrong, he would be right now telling me I am wrong. Unfortunately, he is not doing that. He has not been active in the site for a long time. Popping in here and there is NOT active. Let's not deceive ourselves and believing something is true that isn't. The fact is he is not here to drive the direction of the site. It is his investment, not ours. As far as I am concern, citizenship has been so emasculated over the years to suggest that we are "stakeholders is laughable.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean something like this that active participants see, at least say 'sure' to, and that reflects what we want to do with the Curia going forwards with a little more clarity. It can, and should, remain mostly ambiguous for interpretation. Perhaps we just keep that thread, highlight it a bit and move along. But in this I think a refresher for what we're doing on standards and scope would be helpful - most folks, if not everyone, on the same page before moving to the next step.

I don't ask its reinvention, rather, its clarification. If we can't point to something that isn't a single user's perception of what it is, that is clear, then it doesn't quite suffice. There's room for interpretation so long as we can vaguely recall and respect the wheel's shape in the first place.

My main advocacy seems to be pretty close to the original vision. Yet defining that anew, in my mind, is more helpful than saying 'well look at what it was!' We've lost it, and I think we should rediscover it.


I caution against this idea. Even if the answer is in a new coat of paint to what originally was the point, pointing to what 'was' is an attitude the site doesn't need when everything, especially the franchise and its audience, has been steadily moving on. Sometimes the same, put differently ends up more effective.

In this thread I shared the thoughts of the creators of the Curia. It defines what citizenship is.

THis is from GodEmperor Nicholas. This was in response to opening the Symposium to non- citvitates provided they meet some min requirements. He was championing the created system.

The civitates....class as an entity has succeeded in every way we had hoped when we conceived of it several months ago. Our objectives were:
1) To provide a smaller more intimate environment in which good members could post more intellectual material. The smaller community would serve to slow down the pace and increase the intimacy of the environment so that posts could really reach a zenith in depth of thought. (He is referring tot he Symposium)


2) To serve as a inspiration to the rest of the forum, so that members, in aspiring to join this elite group, would, in turn, demonstrate this worth through merit, good actions, and worthy debate, and in doing so enlarge and advance the purpose of this forum, which is to act as a conduit of discussion between individuals of different race, nationality, sex, etc. and in doing so, enlarge and expand the intellectual breadth of its members.
....


The reforms suggested by Rububula would, In my humble opinion, endanger this system. By diluting the civitate pool, we are possibly allowing the very city on a hill of our forum to become overrun, and the basis of the hexagon councils plan for a post-Rome total war world to be swept aside in hopes of making this elite cadre more "inclusive".


The system is not flawed. The real people to blame are the patrons, for they are expected to be interested in finding excellent members to nominate and gain clients. The very responsibility of this system lies in the individual, not the government.

What can we take away from this; that diluting citizenship actually endangered it as he has predicted. Moreover, the defining characteristics of citizenship is basic enough that many would qualify. This was in 2004 well before the explosion of patronage.

Now to remove doubt; this is was Boris

Any member with 50 posts or more and deems himself to be a contributing member in good standing may seek the nomination and patronage of any Curator for Civitate status. The Curators will then review the members? posts and vote for his possible ascendancy into Civitate status. The vote will be in the form of a majority, and upon approval, the Civitate will hold all rights as granted by letters patent, a vote in the Curia and a voice in His Forum.
A nomination which does not win majority voted must abide by Amendments I-III as set forth in the Syntagma.
As proposed by NM and TBP

Where citizenship meant to be an elite body? No

inclusive would be a better word, as in it includes everyone but the spammers from voting (and spamming) on forum issues

- the Black Prince

It wasn't their intention to create a world of Sneetches.

the only difference is they get to vote in the curia, and I think, non civitates don't get to post in the curia either, (not sure there, but it would be a damn good idea&#33.we can set it up so that there is no difference between members and civitiates apart from the curia bit.

- the Black Prince.

Curia Today


Curia in the beginning



To make more real changes, like having just one badge. Artifex is an award. Create other awards that once would be citizenship for a specific contribution and rename citizenship to "Stakeholder."
This would largely depend on how tarnished the reputation of citizenship is. Plus, we will have to define it in which the original definition is maintained.

I have said this many times; citizenship survival and longevity depends on it being define with a high standard for behavior but an attainable contribution both indirectly (posting) or directly (staff) within a few months. it also have to be something citizens will give a darn about passing it on. Applications need to be simple and succinct.

This is also why i suggested a committee. A committee devoted to "patronizing" citizens would create an energy and enthusiasm for new members. This site needs about two application per week in order to reinvigorate the site.

[Lifthrasir]

I wish I was wrong, he would be right now telling me I am wrong. Unfortunately, he is not doing that. He has not been active in the site for a long time. Popping in here and there is NOT active. Let's not deceive ourselves and believing something is true that isn't. The fact is he is not here to drive the direction of the site. It is his investment, not ours. As far as I am concern, citizenship has been so emasculated over the years to suggest that we are "stakeholders is laughable.

Unless I've missed you (my eyes aren't that good anymore), I haven't seen in Staffs to whom GED interacted privately about a year ago
I'm sorry but actually Leonardo is right. Can we consider that point as solved now and move on? I don't think that the past GED activity is the purpose of this thread. Thank you for your understanding.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I'm inclined to let this sit longer for more input and also give a chance for other members or perhaps staff to stumble on this, but in the meantime, I'm considering a thread with a multiple-choice poll on options brought up here. Propositions, possible overhauls or collaboration, of course choices for downscaling completely or the utter pessimist to elect for deletion.

Given the significance of such a thread and its intent to define the mindset of the Curia, I wonder what could be done to promote it without being obnoxious. A pin, bumps, an announcement perhaps.

[PikeStance]

Unless I've missed you (my eyes aren't that good anymore), I haven't seen in Staffs to whom GED interacted privately about a year ago
I'm sorry but actually Leonardo is right. Can we consider that point as solved now and move on? I don't think that the past GED activity is the purpose of this thread. Thank you for your understanding.

You didn't read my post did you? I said there isn't much to be done as long as GED is an absentee owner. Period. When he post again, we will see. Until then, we are just chewing the fat.

----

@Commodus. I support your efforts despite my pessimism. it will take a group of committed people to make any real change. Until then, individuals will shred apart any proposal. GED's presence can go a long way of silencing the pettiness.

[Lifthrasir]

^^ Answer posted in the Townhall to do divert that thread anymore.