Divus Amedment II

[Ragabash]

Even though I was the one that proposed recent Divus Amedment, I knew it was far from perfect and saw the time requirement as a major issue within the bill. Now, discuss about this proposal, I know it might contain some grammar errors but these will be fixed later time, just ignore them and focus on the grand idea.

Proposer: Ragabash
Supporters: the Black Prince

Version 1.5

Divus Amendment II

• Divus
  To achieve apotheosis and Curial vote, the nominee must be supportedseconded by 3/4 members of the Consilium de Civitates and meet the following criteria:
  
  
• The candidate must have served as a site admin, and has to have made a clear and distinguished contribution to the community Served as a Administrator for at least 18 months and cannot be proposed within 3 months of their resignation from Staff.
• Provided exceptional service to TWC in their capacity as administratorstaff.
  
  The CdeC will contact the nominee and ask if he or she will accept the nomination. If the nominee should reject their nomination, for whatever reason, no further action will be taken and the nomination will be declared null and void.
  
  If the nominee should accept, the CdeC will create a thread within the CdeC forum to further investigate the legitimacy of the nominee’s accolades. The CdeC has the right to request any and all relevant material from staff to ascertain this with the approval of the Hex. The CdeC will discuss the nominee and his qualifications for at least a week before the vote is held inside the CdeC.
  
  After at least three days of discussion inside the Curia, qualifying nominees shall be voted upon in the Curia for a period of one week, and a two-thirdree-fourth majority is sufficient to become 'Divus'. A nominee who fails is eligible to be nominated again after a sixthree month period.

[the Black Prince]

i like that you've removed time requirements, however, i think something needs to replace them, otherwise every admin is likely to be put up for vote, which was not the intention of the rank

a line like "Served as an adfministrator and in that capacity made substantial contributions to further the excellence of the site" or something like this. What i wouldn't want to see (and no offence to nay of them) is someone who's simply a hard working admin getting the rank, because then we'd be handing it out to almost all of them and it devalues it. It should be only for someone who puts substantial effort in above and beyond what is normally expected

[Ragabash]

I would like to see CdeC involved in this procedure, replacing the time requirement in general.

There would have to be CdeC support for the nominee to get into Divus vote, and while CdeC has right to request (some?) evidence even from the staff forum, it can make impartial decision, thus replacing the time limit, is 8 CdeC members support for the candinate enough(?), that still remains a question.

If the nominee rejects CdeC offer for Divus nomination, of course there would be no need for closer investigation, in the end, decision would be up to nominee.

[Spartan]

I suggest a 3/4 majority of the CdeC for the vote and I also concur with withtBP suggestion. I would word it something like:

The candidate must have served as a site admin and has to have made a clear and distinguished contribution to the community.

[Ragabash]

I have made some small changes that the Black Prince and Spartan suggested, and remember to give me more feedback, no matter how small the issue might seem to be.

Grammar and spelling will be corrected later, so no reason to worry about it now, I guess.

[Spartan]

There are some grammar and spelling issues but otherwise it looks good. I would also suggest removal of the 12 for "seconded" as a second should only be one other person. Another option would be 'must be seconded and supported by at least 1/5 of the CdeC to be considered valid for a formal vote process.'

For the vote I would state the nomination must be affirmative by a vote of 3/4 of the CdeC to be considered accepted and passed.

[Justinian]

I like. Support.

[Garbarsardar]

Yes, including Spartan's last observation.

[the Black Prince]

bear in mind currently the Curia vote for deification requires 3/4s majority which is a standard higher than any other curia vote on top of already high standards for nomination within the CdeC. I don't believe the Curia standard need be any higher than the 2/3rds majority enjoyed elsewhere.

also, must be accepted (not seconded) by 12 members of the CdeC and 12 members of the full CdeC mean exactly the same thing. The inclusion of the word full makes no difference, since you refer to 12 members outright, rather than a proportion of current sitting members or a proportion of the full CdeC.

[Spartan]

bear in mind currently the Curia vote for deification requires 3/4s majority which is a standard higher than any other curia vote on top of already high standards for nomination within the CdeC. I don't believe the Curia standard need be any higher than the 2/3rds majority enjoyed elsewhere.

also, must be accepted (not seconded) by 12 members of the CdeC and 12 members of the full CdeC mean exactly the same thing. The inclusion of the word full makes no difference, since you refer to 12 members outright, rather than a proportion of current sitting members or a proportion of the full CdeC.

So you are saying you agree with my prior post except the percentage part?

[Lusted]

I support(who knows, maybe one day i'll make Divus )

[the Black Prince]

not sure

your last post calls

For the vote I would state the nomination must be affirmative by a vote of 3/4 of the CdeC to be considered accepted and passed.

and makes no mention of the vote in the Curia itself.

I'm not sure what you mean tbh

Are you saying that 12 members of the CdeC need to support, and that the nomination needs to be voted out of the CdeC by 3/4 affirmation.

Or are you saying that the CdeC alone grant the rank, not the Curia, and that with 12 members accepting the nomination, a vote then needs 3/4 to pass.

Or is it a simple typo, and you meant, 12 members of the CdeC need to support the nomination, and the Curia vote then needs to 3/4 to pass.

If the latter, then yes, i disagree. The curia vote should be set to 2/3rds like other votes.

[Spartan]

Sorry for the miscommunication. I think the nomination should require a single second as is standard in RRO to open a formal discussion. Then a call for a vote after a specified number of days - maybe a week. After which a 3/4 majority vote of the CdeC will be needed to forward the nomination the Curia for a ratification vote; which should be open for discussion for a week as well. Finally the Curia vote will require a 3/4 majority vote to pass.

[Ragabash]

Updated to version 1.3.

Please forgive old Ragabash for his grammar and spelling errors.

[Simetrical]

Practically every site admin has made "a clear and distinguished contribution to the community". If you're going to go with something like that, make it "a contribution to the community significantly greater than that of most administrators".

I would still prefer to focus on rulership, not adminship. Decision-making is important, adminship is a couple of extra buttons. Originally it was three months' service as sole effective ruler of the site, six months' rulership effectively shared with one other member, and nine months' rulership effectively shared with two others. I would like that restored, except also allow it for a year's rulership effectively shared with more than two others.

[Belisarius]

"made a clear and distinguished contribution to the community"

Brilliant, has my full support.

[the Black Prince]

After at least three days of discussion inside the Curia, qualifying nominees shall be voted upon in the Curia for a period of one week, and a three-fourth majority is sufficient to become 'Divus'. A nominee who fails is eligible to be nominated again after a sixthree month period.

i'm still not liking this final line. i don't think there needs to be a vote requiring 3/4 of the entire curia, when every other curia vote only requires 2/3s

[Justinian]

Yeah, I think there should be a clear requirement for every Curia vote so as to be consistent.

[Spartan]

My reasoning for the 3/4 instead of the 2/3 is that a vote of this nature is a very special thing indeed and it should be treated accordingly. As such the hearts and minds of the people should clearly be in overwhelming favor of it beyond that of a normal measure of business. However if you guys want to keep a 2/3 requirement for consistency in operations that is fine by me.

[the Black Prince]

it also ties in with Opifex votes