[Amendment] Citizenship Reform

[PikeStance]

I am a glutton for punishment!

The proposal:

Citizenship was meant to promote good behavior and good posting. The caveat was the ability to make suggestions to the site. The goal was to be inclusive and not to create an exclusive club. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. As some are starting to realize, citizenship is a unique invention of the site. We have must return it to its former glory and full utility.

DEFINING CITIZENSHIP
Any member that demonstrates 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 is eligible for citizenship.

PROCESS
In order to promote citizenship, a committee of devoted and committed members will be form. Any member can put forward any name of any member who fits the above description. The committee will then nominate, discuss, and then vote. If majority, then the proposed citizen will be honored with citizenship. Citizens may patronize under the current system or nominate a member to the committee for recognition.

APPLICATION REFORM
Any candidate will be asked to write a simple paragraph explaining why they want to be citizen and describing their contribution to the site and explain how it enhances the site. In a citizen's application, the patron will also explain why the propose member would be a good citizen and his merits as described above.

-------
The following should also be done
Reinstate the Prothalomos to the Curia. (any member that would want to participate should and ought to be a citizen).
Remove the Primus Praefects and prefects. (The Consul can moderate his own forum)

------

It is really time to either dissolve the Curia or fix it. This perpetual state of "meh" needs to end.

As an added stipulation for the proposal. Please state your willingness to participate in the committee. It will be dumb to pass this and have no volunteers.
Let's have the committee exist for one year. After one year we can vote to remove it or continue it.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

In my opinion this strikes as too little, too soon. There may not be, and in my opinion, should not be true progress on these affairs to utterly redo the Curia in a span measuring a few months, not just weeks since the This and That thread. It may strike you as wallowing in discussion, but I can assure you that for my own part, I am simply running on an extended schedule so decisions made are not too hasty and have every opportunity to involve other members who may not have happened here yet - a few very nice inputs have come from waiting at this point alone for my part as my instinct often times is to simply move. Yet this is not an issue that should be moved this quickly and not with the parameters involved.

The committee runs the exact same lines as people who perpetually roll out of their graves to decry the CdeC. I fail to see what process you'd institute that would make this committee any more effective and vetted than leaving it to open proposition between the already interested members and mutual decision on the standards. Further, as you should know, the effectiveness of this on a 'professional' level is undercut by a significant portion of the active curia being quite familiar with each other behind the scenes. What does this committee actually do?

The irony with the Protholamos is that the least constructive content so far has come from people donning the dark red shade of citizenship. There is no apparent ground this idea stands on as far as what it will improve. Current discussions lean heavily towards institutional reform and much of what the Protholamos does now may end up in other things to the extent it is dissolved entirely. Addressing the proth in this way does nothing. Especially since, again, the least constructive content has come from citizens. I, for one, would see what Mak has to say on matters in the thread itself, and I have nothing against Mish's input, nor anyone who seeks to give it, especially in this pivotal time.


I see no purpose achieved by this, simply progress for the sake of progress and a total lack of vision in how this will meaningfully improve the curia, which is utterly antithesis to my goals of instigating discussion on these matters.

I respect what you want and your opinions are a baseline in my current process, yet I believe you have a tendency to make these things too hastily, without attempting to address the bigger picture. I must definitively say no until there is the impression of substance, and advise that anything along these lines only be submitted at a later date.

[Frunk]

So, basically, "bring back the CdeC"?

Opposed.

As for creating a committee, look at all the inactive, former, failed committees we've already tried:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/foru...tees-(Archive)

[Lifthrasir]

^^ Agree and opposed as well.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Opposed.

Reinstate the Prothalomos to the Curia. (any member that would want to participate should and ought to be a citizen).

As history nerds we know that in the past the pressure to reform things came mainly from outside of the establishment.

Degrading non-citizen to petitioners again will lead to Standstill, as most of the established people are satisfied with the status quo.

[mishkin]

basically a throwback. no thanks.

[PikeStance]

It is bit shortsighted to call this committee CdeC.
CdeC vetted citizenship creating an elite cadre. It was an impediment to the system not a benefit.

This committee is more consistent with the original group that created citizenship. The proposed members, voted in the affirmative 99% of the time in which there was only one member who was denied. That member was voted citizen not long after.

Having citizens petition would be an improvement, not a downgrade and they were never petitioners in the past. Generally, the original committee, simply suggested members they thought was citizen. They voted and then they asked if that member wished to be a citizen. It wasn't until they instituted the patron system that non-members had to wait to be approached by a citizen. Having members request citizenship to the committee would be an improvement. if citizens are unwilling or unable to to do it themselves, then who will?

Moreover, if the committee fail, then citizenship is a lost cause. Arguing that we shouldn't have a dedicated group of patroniziers because of other committees failures is poor argument.

Thee is two choices; [1] There is no interest, dissolve the Curia or [2] there is interest and then let's get the ball rolling.

We need to stop opposing ideas because you fear failure. I can recall people being in favor of Order 66 because it was doing something. Order 66 didn't do a thing. Are we worse off now Debatable, but where are those people now. The people you said something is better than nothing?

@Commodus. I warned you in the other thread that you will never come up with an idea that people will like. They will always be some minute detail they do not like. You have now joined the party.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

It is bit shortsighted to call this committee CdeC.
CdeC vetted citizenship creating an elite cadre. It was an impediment to the system not a benefit.

This committee is more consistent with the original group that created citizenship. The proposed members, voted in the affirmative 99% of the time in which there was only one member who was denied. That member was voted citizen not long after.

What is the difference between this and now in any practical effects?

Having citizens petition would be an improvement, not a downgrade and they were never petitioners in the past. Generally, the original committee, simply suggested members they thought was citizen. They voted and then they asked if that member wished to be a citizen. It wasn't until they instituted the patron system that non-members had to wait to be approached by a citizen. Having members request citizenship to the committee would be an improvement. if citizens are unwilling or unable to to do it themselves, then who will?

How about the people who currently can and do add to the ranks based on individuals that seem like they may be worthy? How about Athelstan? How about the groups you are literally participating in that seek out members?

Problems include people seeing no point to becoming a citizen and perhaps the erosion of standards that constitute a citizen. In no way does this seem to be addressing them, or anything. You haven't properly identified your premise.

Moreover, if the committee fail, then citizenship is a lost cause.

If only the committee could better explain why it exists over people seeing an application and voting for it. Once more, you offer nothing that the current structure doesn't do. In making a definitive amendment and proposal, it should be expected that you offer means and reason. You have offered neither.

Thee is two choices; [1] There is no interest, dissolve the Curia or [2] there is interest and then let's get the ball rolling.

[3] there is interest, we explore our options, then we come up with a properly vetted and purposeful idea to get the ball rolling.

We need to stop opposing ideas because you fear failure.

I oppose ideas because I fear pointlessness, the very thing that landed us here. The very thing that has marked my opposition to your proposals in the past. You have a will, but it is not applied meaningfully. Things are suggested and instead of giving them reason, you dodge the fundamental question of purpose. That is the issue.

@Commodus. I warned you in the other thread that you will never come up with an idea that people will like. They will always be some minute detail they do not like. You have now joined the party.

I believe I've found the core difference between us.

As much as I stumble, say the wrong thing, act too zealous, appear to flip, appear to be ineffectual even, my movements are towards a best-fit direction, designed towards acquiring just enough people (or the right ones) to do what needs to be done, for something that is most suitable to the whole, using reasons for those ideas that can be explained by a more concise user than myself. I don't think you have this philosophy at all. You are not attempting to balance what is agreeable and summarily effective with what you want.

I suggest, update and suggest again in accordance to a perpetually widening picture. I do this because eventually, if it is persistently kept up and the past is properly learned from, a novel option comes to light. It will not be a perfect option. Not everyone will agree. But it will be truly better than what is, because the thought is evolutionary. It accounts for what people have said and what the bigger picture is for what they're saying and doing. It accounts for what is plausible.

In doing this one must take time. One must register a wide variety of input over a wider period, even the sort that may be disagreeable. It requires an open mind. I do not accuse you of lacking this, at least, not completely. But it would seem to me your proposition is, and always has been, too narrow. It does not account for bigger pictures. It does not try to tailor to key parties that may lead the rest even as you may not be the most agreeable on your own. It does not attempt to justify itself based on what the circumstances are and what will actually result from it.

Instead of going back to your shell and giving up, consider the other path. Consider what people are taking issue with. Consider why. Invite review from your peers before you make a hip-shot like this proposal. This is what the Curia did in a more successful time, did it not? People are not disagreeing because they fear change, because they actively want to go against any kind of compromise out of a servile need to appease their own tastes and anything else can off. People are disagreeing because what they see is a narrow, poorly justified proposal. They're not going after 'minute details', they're going after both the entire function of the proposal (or lack of one) and the justification behind it. Because it appears to them that you keep trying the same thing again and again and don't learn. This is a long trend. I don't want you to give up. I want you to see this, as harsh as the words stating it might be. To understand it, at least. That would be a step towards progress. Not hasty proposals done in the midst of a time when everyone's just a bit antsy with all the words flung about in neighboring threads.

[Mhaedros]

Ah yes, we could call it the Ponsilium de Pivitate! Wait..

[Leonardo]

Opposed!

It is bit shortsighted to call this committee CdeC.
CdeC vetted citizenship creating an elite cadre. It was an impediment to the system not a benefit.

This committee is more consistent with the original group that created citizenship. The proposed members, voted in the affirmative 99% of the time in which there was only one member who was denied. That member was voted citizen not long after.

Having citizens petition would be an improvement, not a downgrade and they were never petitioners in the past. Generally, the original committee, simply suggested members they thought was citizen. They voted and then they asked if that member wished to be a citizen. It wasn't until they instituted the patron system that non-members had to wait to be approached by a citizen. Having members request citizenship to the committee would be an improvement. if citizens are unwilling or unable to to do it themselves, then who will?

Moreover, if the committee fail, then citizenship is a lost cause. Arguing that we shouldn't have a dedicated group of patroniziers because of other committees failures is poor argument.

Thee is two choices; [1] There is no interest, dissolve the Curia or [2] there is interest and then let's get the ball rolling.

We need to stop opposing ideas because you fear failure. I can recall people being in favor of Order 66 because it was doing something. Order 66 didn't do a thing. Are we worse off now Debatable, but where are those people now. The people you said something is better than nothing?

Reading this makes me tired.

[PikeStance]

Ah yes, we could call it the Ponsilium de Pivitate! Wait..

It doesn't need a name. It could be an ad hoc group. A simple subforum with anyone interested can join as long as their goal is to patronize.

What is the difference between this and now in any practical effects?
How about the people who currently can and do add to the ranks based on individuals that seem like they may be worthy? How about Athelstan? How about the groups you are literally participating in that seek out members?

There is a huge difference. I already told the goal of CdeC was to vet candidates. This group goal is to promote members to citizenship. No one is committed to patronizing. We need to create a culture. If people were patronizing we will not be talking about the death of the Curia.

Problems include people seeing no point to becoming a citizen and perhaps the erosion of standards that constitute a citizen. In no way does this seem to be addressing them, or anything. You haven't properly identified your premise.

OMG! How many posts and threads do I have to make. This is the same nonsense I had to answer to when I kept saying the site was dying. I spent hours collecting data that people pushed aside until someone else validated my claims. This was years after I made the claim and I showed evidence then as well.

If only the committee could better explain why it exists over people seeing an application and voting for it. Once more, you offer nothing that the current structure doesn't do. In making a definitive amendment and proposal, it should be expected that you offer means and reason. You have offered neither.
[3] there is interest, we explore our options, then we come up with a properly vetted and purposeful idea to get the ball rolling.
I oppose ideas because I fear pointlessness, the very thing that landed us here. The very thing that has marked my opposition to your proposals in the past. You have a will, but it is not applied meaningfully. Things are suggested and instead of giving them reason, you dodge the fundamental question of purpose. That is the issue.

Nothing is being done right now! That s the difference.
If people do not want it or people do not want to share it, then why keep it at all, but wait, those are the me people who want to keep it. Over the years, we continuous cripple citizenship to the point no one wants it and now we scratch our heads and ask why?

Citizenship was created by a group. It is silly to think it cannot reinvigorate it too.

I believe I've found the core difference between us.

Yes, you like to talk about change and do nothing. I mean you write long posts but you don't actually propose anything. A lot of talk by you. I want to take action. I promote change. The problem is, most just want to opposed what I suggest and they support the opposite and the results is what I predicted would happen. Not once, but every single time.

If i wrong now, then it wouldn't matter anyway.

I suggest, update and suggest again in accordance to a perpetually widening picture. I do this because eventually, if it is persistently kept up and the past is properly learned from, a novel option comes to light. It will not be a perfect option. Not everyone will agree. But it will be truly better than what is, because the thought is evolutionary. It accounts for what people have said and what the bigger picture is for what they're saying and doing. It accounts for what is plausible.

In doing this one must take time. One must register a wide variety of input over a wider period, even the sort that may be disagreeable. It requires an open mind. I do not accuse you of lacking this, at least, not completely. But it would seem to me your proposition is, and always has been, too narrow. It does not account for bigger pictures. It does not try to tailor to key parties that may lead the rest even as you may not be the most agreeable on your own. It does not attempt to justify itself based on what the circumstances are and what will actually result from it.

Do you know how many times I have made threads and posts asking for feedback on how to fix things? There was really only one thread where anything bear fruit. Unfortunately, no GED, then nothing got done. The Modding Staff did come out of it, but that got totally warped until something completely useless. I didn't even get a chance to make it work.

Instead of going back to your shell and giving up, consider the other path. Consider what people are taking issue with. Consider why. Invite review from your peers before you make a hip-shot like this proposal. This is what the Curia did in a more successful time, did it not? People are not disagreeing because they fear change, because they actively want to go against any kind of compromise out of a servile need to appease their own tastes and anything else can off. People are disagreeing because what they see is a narrow, poorly justified proposal. They're not going after 'minute details', they're going after both the entire function of the proposal (or lack of one) and the justification behind it. Because it appears to them that you keep trying the same thing again and again and don't learn. This is a long trend. I don't want you to give up. I want you to see this, as harsh as the words stating it might be. To understand it, at least. That would be a step towards progress. Not hasty proposals done in the midst of a time when everyone's just a bit antsy with all the words flung about in neighboring threads.

There is only two options, let it die or revive it.
No one ever offers any alternative. They just say no for "x" reasons. Period.
I explain the nature of the group is to act in the same capacity as the original group. There were zero issues when that group handed out citizenship so I see no reason why a similar group would be able to do that as well.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

It doesn't need a name. It could be an ad hoc group. A simple subforum with anyone interested can join as long as their goal is to patronize.
[...]
There is a huge difference. I already told the goal of CdeC was to vet candidates. This group goal is to promote members to citizenship. No one is committed to patronizing. We need to create a culture. If people were patronizing we will not be talking about the death of the Curia.

I'm going to ask this one more time.

What is regulating a committee for this going to do over recruiting some folks from the crowd and doing this yourself, as there are plans to do behind the scenes only on hold because of these discussions? Why do you think trying to regulate this is going to change the culture over simply doing it and convincing others to follow you? As you do not do so anymore, I'm using the vague 'you'. Were I able to and had more faith in the direction of things, I'd probably go for it myself, and I know a number of folks who would follow. Yet this is not the priority right now.

OMG! How many posts and threads do I have to make. This is the same nonsense I had to answer to when I kept saying the site was dying. I spent hours collecting data that people pushed aside until someone else validated my claims. This was years after I made the claim and I showed evidence then as well.

People can be quite thick, I agree.

Unfortunately, the above is not sufficiently linked to results that would actually stop the site from dying.

Nothing is being done right now! That s the difference.
If people do not want it or people do not want to share it, then why keep it at all, but wait, those are the me people who want to keep it. Over the years, we continuous cripple citizenship to the point no one wants it and now we scratch our heads and ask why?

Honestly scratching our heads and asking why based on post-vonc events, with the amount of varied participation I've seen in the past week alone, is far more promising to me than the path of several years. It is also my definitive attempt to get a handle on the issue and make do-or-don't propositions. It is absolutely silly to rush said proceedings when such an immediate urgency without trying to account for a wider population has clearly failed for this many years. I will digress if I've waited a reasonable period of time and the people I want to see haven't shown themselves. Yet given the circumstances, especially since several key people are absent - in no small part due to real world affairs - it is not wise to rush to a conclusion right now. Certainly not to a conclusion that offers as little as yours does. You fall back to how the site is dying, yet you do nothing to link your proposition to what would change it. The only thing I see is an attempt to change the culture. Except culture isn't changed by trying to press rules. It's changed by example, and by setting it in a way you can get others to follow. It is a domino effect to exploit. Yelling into a well, alone, the same way every time, is counter to that thinking.

Yes, you like to talk about change and do nothing. I mean you write long posts but you don't actually propose anything. A lot of talk by you. I want to take action. I promote change. The problem is, most just want to opposed what I suggest and they support the opposite and the results is what I predicted would happen. Not once, but every single time.

I'm going to assume you're a bit heated and not take this too seriously; if I did, I'm afraid I would have strong words in response. I'll stick to a barb. Read my positions; carefully, differently if you must. Then judge what I am doing.

Do you know how many times I have made threads and posts asking for feedback on how to fix things? There was really only one thread where anything bear fruit. Unfortunately, no GED, then nothing got done. The Modding Staff did come out of it, but that got totally warped until something completely useless. I didn't even get a chance to make it work.

Naturally, there is a cutoff point when there's been more than enough to hear and action is necessary. That is not reached yet for the Curia, in this time, given we have some participants giving a go at things more than than's been done in years in regards to recognizing and addressing core problems. If we cannot agree on so much as what we're addressing, let alone the goal and then how to get there with clarity, the effort is useless. I believe the latest thread in the Curia makes good reading to this end. The fact this proposal doesn't appear to have asked anybody for its credibility before posting and seems like a lazy 'come on guys lets just do it' effort should be statement enough. I, for one, would rather make propositions when they are more vetted, better scouted for agreeability, and already have a core to them that understands why things are as they are so I do not have to be the one individual against the sea, because I, like you, have a tendency to alienate with my approach, and the result is that having other folks on board 'in the retinue' is required.

There is only two options, let it die or revive it.
No one ever offers any alternative. They just say no for "x" reasons. Period.

Rather than snort at the 'x' you consider so insignificant, take a better look at the 'x' and why it keeps cropping up every single time you do things. I hope you understand what's wrong when I put it this way, 'why are you all booing? I'm right!'. As convinced as you are of your path, I think you require some insight into your methods reaching the destination. I cannot give it to you. It would just be Commodus spouting words again. You need to be open to it yourself, instead of the easier, but less productive course of blaming everyone giving reasons why your things seem to have a problem and meanwhile other propositions make it through or farther. Unless you're asserting that everyone currently in discussion right now means ill towards TWC and are intentionally trying to see it die.

Perhaps some are. But I digress. They are certainly not the base to appeal to. Please make a distinction between them.

[Gaius Baltar]

I like Pikestance's idea of recruiting new citizens, albeit via an informal group. Perhaps we could loosen up some of the current restrictions that are in place, for example, the moderation penalties.

So, in principal, support.

[mishkin]

At any time you can create a social group (an informal group) where its members are dedicated to finding new citizens.

The only real restriction that exists at the moment is the one that you mention; not to have active moderation points. Are you desperate enough to reward with citizenship users unable to respect minimum rules of coexistence? Is this what you want for citizenship (as a concept)?

Edit: Give me a sign and I'll give you the names of a few perfectly polite users who deserve to be awarded.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

At any time you can create a social group (an informal group) where its members are dedicated to finding new citizens.

The only real restriction that exists at the moment is the one that you mention; not to have active moderation points. Are you desperate enough to reward with citizenship users unable to respect minimum rules of coexistence? Is this what you want for citizenship (as a concept)?

Edit: Give me a sign and I'll give you the names of a few perfectly polite users who deserve to be awarded.

If nothing else, I'll take the list for whenever I'm capable, or someone I know wants to follow up on it.

[mishkin]

If nothing else, I'll take the list for whenever I'm capable, or someone I know wants to follow up on it.

K. Athelchan contacted me, but thanks anyway.

[PikeStance]

At any time you can create a social group (an informal group) where its members are dedicated to finding new citizens.

The only real restriction that exists at the moment is the one that you mention; not to have active moderation points. Are you desperate enough to reward with citizenship users unable to respect minimum rules of coexistence? Is this what you want for citizenship (as a concept)?

Edit: Give me a sign and I'll give you the names of a few perfectly polite users who deserve to be awarded.

There was always an unwritten rule at least of basic behavior. The first person rejected by the original committee was rejected for such a reason. This member was later re-propose from the "gallery" (citizens) and then approved. ironically (or appropriately) he was removed as well. I believe he was the first to lose is citizenship.

Originally, the committee function like a suggestion board.... what about member A, He is x,y, and z. He was voted on and then he was asked if he was interested. In my prposal this is slightly altered. A suggestion is made, then a PM is sent to the person, then the response is posted and then a vote. It streamlines the system to bring in more members and get them active with the site. One of the goals is to get rid of the elitism of the group and create an inclusive environment which was the original intent.

I like Pikestance's idea of recruiting new citizens, albeit via an informal group. Perhaps we could loosen up some of the current restrictions that are in place, for example, the moderation penalties.

So, in principal, support.

Awesome this is one.

If you like the concept of citizenship but hate the elitism, then this proposal would be a step in the right direction.
More important than support is people willing to serve on the committee to get the fires burning.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

If you like the concept of citizenship but hate the elitism, then this proposal would be a step in the right direction.
More important than support is people willing to serve on the committee to get the fires burning.

How about ya make a group, bypass the voting business that keeps everything slow, and execute every step of this idea yourself? There is literally no functional thing stopping you from doing this with everyone interested at full capabilities. Start with Van Zandt and yourself, see who else would like to contribute.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Easy answer to the extent this comment is accurate:

Does it reinstate the CdeC? Then support.

[PikeStance]

Easy answer to the extent this comment is accurate:

Does it reinstate the CdeC? Then support.

Well,
The CdeC goal was passive vetters of candidates. This committee will be active pursuing worthy members of citizenship.

How about ya make a group, bypass the voting business that keeps everything slow, and execute every step of this idea yourself? There is literally no functional thing stopping you from doing this with everyone interested at full capabilities. Start with Van Zandt and yourself, see who else would like to contribute.

That would be easy to do. I have contemplated this before. However, citizenship needs to be something we all get behind. The goal is to break down the high standard of contribution to what they were when it was created. Despite people disdain for elitism, they still support exclusivity when it comes to citizenship. This will always be an impediment. Universal support for a committee would demonstrate a quantum shift to a more inclusive Curia and a true positive step. Plus, I asked for interest in such a committee and have not received any interest. This proposal needs more than support, but participation. There appears to be no will to promote citizenship despite claims to the contrary.