Curia - a vision

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I've been thinking of this for a while and the 4 threads I posted have provided further ideas, as have other posts such as WBK's. Personally I see two real problems with the Curia:

1. We are far too beaurocratic. For some reason everything we do in here seems to have to be legislated for and there is an army of 'lawyers' who argue every single last letter.
2. We are obsessed with staff, staff structure, staff voting, staff ranks. Yet we don't actually know what we should be doing.

What I am proposing is a Syntagma for the Curia, and that the Curia is run by the Curator. Staff is not an issue here, the Curia and the Citizens are, if we get the Curia sorted and simplified then we can allow al citizens a huge amount more freedom to do things without having to go through the legislative process.

Anyway, see what you think, I have tried to pare it back to the bone to keep it as clean and simple as possible.

So, here goes............

Syntagma

Preamble
This document outlines the rights, authority and structure of the Curia and the members. It covers general aspects of the site, and can be altered by a vote in the Curia. Ideally it is the citizens of the site (via the medium of the Curia) that should drive how the site matures, develops and grows and staff's job then becomes how to implement it and keep it running. This document aims to lay out the framwork in which the members can do this.

All Citizens are expected to adhere to the rules of the Syntagma and the forums Terms of Service. The Syntagma can be suspended by the Hexagon Council in times of crisis or danger to the community and website as a whole. If the Syntagma is suspended it is the duty of the Hexagon Council to inform the Curia why the action was required, and to estimate how long the Syntagma is to be suspended for.

The Curia

The Curia is the forum in which the second half of the constitution is managed. Only citizens may post in the Curia or any of its sub-forums, although it is open to viewing by all members of the site.

Structure
The Curia comprises of several sub-forums which can be altered as desired. At a minimum there should be:

• Curia
  For general discussion of governance related matters. Polls are not permitted within the Curia main. All Citizens may post in this area and propose informal legislation for discussion, though it will require two Patrician/Opifex/Divus’ support to become officially recognised in the Lobby.
• An area specifically for formally proposing and discussing legislation and ideas relating to the site as stated in the "Legislation" section of the Constitution.
• An area strictly used for voting on proposed legislation and in Curial Elections

The Curator
The Curator is the elected manager of the Curia and is responsible for all aspects of the running of the Curia. In particular:

• Can appoint Pro-Curators as deputies to help them
• Is responsible for running all elections and voting for bills
• Is elected by the citizens of the site (majority vote)
• Can be removed from the post by a majority vote of the citizens of the site

The most important role of the Curator is that of leader of the Curia. As such if a citizen has a suggestion then the Curator is the one who decides whether new legislation is required. As an alternative, the Curator owns a stickied 'Curial Announcements' thread wherein they can post any new initiatives that do not require legislation.

Member Ranks
All members of the site are divided into the classes listed below. Each class confers to the member who holds it a specific set of rights and privileges unavailable to other classes unless specifically stated. It is possible for a member to hold more than one of these classes, in which case he may choose which he wishes to display while still retaining the associated rights of the additional classes he holds.

Member
this rank is conferred automatically with registration to the site. Any member has the right to ask questions and suggest changes in the "Questions and Suggestions" forum.

Civitate
any existing Civitate can propose any member with a 3 month clean record for citizenship by posting the proposal in the appropriate thread in the Curia. Promotion of candidates, and demotion of failing Citizens, is carried out by the Citizens’ Council (see below)

Only Citizens may post and vote in the Curia (see below) and therefore only citizens have a say in how the site runs.

There are several sub-classes of Civitate, all of which are still referred to as citizens:

Patrician
Patricians are those citizens that the Curia members feel have contributed to the site above the norm. Any existing citizen can be nominated for the honour in the appropriate thread in the Curia. Promotion of candidates, and demotion of failing Patricians, is carried out by the Citizens’ Council (see below)

Artifex
Any citizen who is involved in modding may request to additionally carry the Artifex badge. This confers no special rights but is simply to make it more obvious to all members of the site who the modders are. The Citizens’ Council votes on every application and can also vote to remove the badge.


Special Ranks

The following ranks can be bestowed as an honour by the Curia:

Opifex
Any Citizen who has contributed above and beyond the call of duty to the modding community can be nominated for the Opifex rank in the appropriate thread in the Curia. Promotion and demotion of candidates is carried out by a majority vote of all Artifexes & Opifexs.

Divus
Any citizen who has provided a supreme contribution to the site can be nominated to the Divus rank the appropriate thread in the Curia. This is the highest rank that can be bestowed on any citizen of the site and is a great honour. Promotion and demotion of candidates is carried out by a majority vote of all citizens.

Elections
When an election is required (ie. Opifex, Divus or Curator) a thread will be posted in the Curia Vote and will remain open for one week. All citizens may vote and it is decided on a simple majority.

Consilium de Civitate (CdeC)
The CdeC comprises 16 elected patricians who are voted into place by the citizens of the site and is chaired by the Curator who holds the casting vote in the case of a tie. It is responsible for the promotion and demotion of Citizens, Patricians and Artifexes, all by majority vote. The Curator has veto powers over any CdeC decision and may fire any elected member of the CdeC for non-attendance.

For either promotions or (more likely) demotions, the Council can choose to simply hold a vote, or can set up and run a consultation exercise involving all citizens before it makes a vote (eg. for a demotion it can hold a trial and call witnesses, either in public or privately).

When a new member is required for the Council then the Curator will post a thread in the Curia asking for candidates. These will then be voted on by all Citizens with the candidate having the majority being appointed.

Any member of the site may report any other member of the site to the Council for poor behaviour. The Council then has total flexibility in how they wish to proceed with the complaint.

Legislation
Any Citizen is able to post a Bill in the Lobby for discussion, which does not require named support. If a version of the bill becomes supported by a minimum of two other Patricians/Opifex/Divus, the proposer can request that the Curator move the supported version of a bill to a vote three days after it was first posted.

Should it be judged that after the minimum of three days more time is needed for debate on the subject, or that the debate is active, and moving the Bill would be premature, the progression to voting of the Bill may be delayed at the discretion of the Curator. If the Curator decides to delay the vote on a Bill beyond one month, then this decision is subject to senior staff ratification.

Once moved to vote, all bills shall be voted on over a one-week period. All Bills will be required to run for the full duration so that all Citizens may be able to vote if they so wish. In addition, responses (including indirect methods such as signatures) in the Curia Vote sub-forum will be limited to notification of having voted. A Bill shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority in favour. Abstentions are not considered when determining whether a Bill has achieved the required proportion of voters. If any Bill fails a vote, no revote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted for twenty-eight days.

To the extent made possible by the forum software, no member will be able to view the results of a poll in the Curia until he has voted in the poll or it has closed.

If the forum software cannot reasonably be modified to prohibit viewing of poll results by any given member, that member, is hereby obliged on their honour as a Patricians not to view the results of any poll in the Curia he has not voted in unless necessary for the execution of any duties he may have to the site.

[Tom Paine]

I fail to see how this adresses either issue raised by you; whereas I feel Spiff's does, as it deals with the remit of the Curia. Bureucacy is not a problem, navel gazing is, and this promotes nothing more than further navelgazing.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I fail to see how this adresses either issue raised by you; whereas I feel Spiff's does, as it deals with the remit of the Curia. Bureucacy is not a problem, navel gazing is, and this promotes nothing more than further navelgazing.

1. it'd be nice if you actually read it before commenting.......
2. Spiff has withdrawn his post until things get sorted out (his words not mine)
3. This isn't concerned with the remit for one simple reason - the remit is everything on the site except staff.

Or to put another way - you've missed the basic point of the whole thing. We don;t need more bloody legislation, we need less. Instead of endless versions of bills which lay out the Curia's powers (which are meaningless as the Curia has no power if imb changes his mind) this version sets out the framework in which we can operate.

In brief, we don;t need yet more boundries being written into legislation, we need the opposit.

[Tom Paine]

1. it'd be nice if you actually read it before commenting.......
2. Spiff has withdrawn his post until things get sorted out (his words not mine)
3. This isn't concerned with the remit for one simple reason - the remit is everything on the site except staff.

On the list, 1) I did read it before commenting.
2) This I did not know, but it does not affect my preference for his proposal.
3) In which case the remit is what, exactly? What is "staff"? Moderation?

Or to put another way - you've missed the basic point of the whole thing. We don;t need more bloody legislation, we need less. Instead of endless versions of bills which lay out the Curia's powers (which are meaningless as the Curia has no power if imb changes his mind) this version sets out the framework in which we can operate.

In brief, we don;t need yet more boundries being written into legislation, we need the opposit.

In order to do anything we would need legislation as to how to do it. We'd need legislation about the inability to deal with staff, and as we decide what the boundary as we need legislation there. Anything we do is legislation, in fact!

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

In order to do anything we would need legislation as to how to do it. We'd need legislation about the inability to deal with staff, and as we decide what the boundary as we need legislation there. Anything we do is legislation, in fact!

why? whats the fascination with legislation?

We need a structure that says

• who citizens are and how they get to be citizens
• What officer(s) and Council(s) we need to run the Curia
• How any legislation is proposed and passed

Other than that, what else do we really need? We aren't a parliament (whatever some may think), we just need a mechanism by which people with ideas of things to do can get them supported.

In this version its easy - you propose an idea to the Curia via the Curator, no voting, no legislation unless absolutely neccessary - simple and clean

[Spiff]

Spiff has withdrawn his post until things get sorted out (his words not mine)

I'm not sure where i said that, but both of my current bills still stand - i believe the 'jurisdiction' and 'decisions' bills are definitely the way the Curia should proceed.

[Fabolous]

Intial thoughts upon read through, if we accept your intial ideas. (Which I don't, but I'm not going to debate presently)



You are elevating a Curia member above the rest. I don't like that. The Curia is a body of equals, and you are placing control in the hands of one. I am strongly against that.

Does patrician actually serve any purpose?

Why is Opifex voted on only be artfixes and opifexes while divus is voted on by all citizens?

You also place content manager as something the Curia can elect, but make no mention of it elsewhere.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Intial thoughts upon read through, if we accept your intial ideas. (Which I don't, but I'm not going to debate presently)

Just look at what has happened recently -

Total revolution on the site resulting in new owner (with completely different views on how to run the site) and yet what is the Curia discussing?

• Electing moderators
• An amendment to current legislation relating to Divus
• An amendment to current legislation relating to Civitates
• An amendment to current legislation relating to how many times a person can patronise
• An amendment to current legislation relating to who can vote on what

I mean for crying out loud, WE HAVE A NEW OWNER - we could propose all sorts of exciting stuff and yet only WBK really has (and his ideas are so wide-reaching that only imb can legislate on them).

And still epople claim the Curia doesn't navel-gaze or is overly interested in its own legislation/bearocracy. No wonder the vast majority of the modders don;t bother.

You are elevating a Curia member above the rest. I don't like that. The Curia is a body of equals, and you are placing control in the hands of one. I am strongly against that.

No real difference to what the Curator does already, other than the ability to make a decision

Does patrician actually serve any purpose?

yes - only Patricians can be in CdeC and only Patricians can sponsor bills

Why is Opifex voted on only be artfixes and opifexes while divus is voted on by all citizens?

Its just an idea - allows modders to vote for Opifex as it is a modding honour whereas Divus is a site-wide honour.

You also place content manager as something the Curia can elect, but make no mention of it elsewhere.

opps, left it in,

[Tom Paine]

So we are just an empty discussion forum which may as well be subsumed into the Suggestus at that point, really. Oh, I forgot, with a shiny-badge mechanism. Legislation, in the UK at any rate, covers nigh everything from the running of the Treasury to the speed limits on a specific road.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

So we are just an empty discussion forum which may as well be subsumed into the Suggestus at that point, really. Oh, I forgot, with a shiny-badge mechanism. Legislation, in the UK at any rate, covers nigh everything from the running of the Treasury to the speed limits on a specific road.

Well, if you feel that you need the security blanket of legislation to allow/enable you to do something then I feel a tad sorry for you.

For me, the membership of this site is more than intelligent and creative enough to drive this site forward without needing endless and detailed legislative discussion/

I fear that, for a lot of people, the purpose of the Curia is as a place to role-play government via the medium of endless minutiae of legislation (the latest bit of legislation in here, for example, has effectively spent 2 pages discussing one word).

That is not what the Curia is for, it is supposed to be the engine-room of the site, a place of new ideas and directions not dry legislation.

Don;t get me wrong, some rules/guidlines are necessary, but only as a very monor part of what the Curia should be doig, not (as it currently often is) the be all and end all of the place.

I'm not sure where i said that, but both of my current bills still stand - i believe the 'jurisdiction' and 'decisions' bills are definitely the way the Curia should proceed.

Sorry, may have been wrong - I'm sure I saw you post that in one of the bills.

I agree with the intent of both, but cannot for the life of me see why we need to set up boundaries on what we can do by legislating both of them. I'd far rather imb/Hex told us what is expressely outwith the Curia's remit and left us to get on with everything else.

Again though, why on earth do we need legislation for something which should be common sense?

[Tom Paine]

Well, if you feel that you need the security blanket of legislation to allow/enable you to do something then I feel a tad sorry for you.

For me, the membership of this site is more than intelligent and creative enough to drive this site forward without needing endless and detailed legislative discussion/

I fear that, for a lot of people, the purpose of the Curia is as a place to role-play government via the medium of endless minutiae of legislation (the latest bit of legislation in here, for example, has effectively spent 2 pages discussing one word).

That is not what the Curia is for, it is supposed to be the engine-room of the site, a place of new ideas and directions not dry legislation.

Don;t get me wrong, some rules/guidlines are necessary, but only as a very monor part of what the Curia should be doig, not (as it currently often is) the be all and end all of the place.

I don't think you get what I mean. I'm waying that whatever we do, will be legislation. Whatever the Curia decides, so long as its not vetoed, is legislation. Any decision put into practice no matter where that occurs is legislation. I therefore question your own use of legislation as meaningless; the ToS is legislation, albeit not Curial (yet?).

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I don't think you get what I mean. I'm waying that whatever we do, will be legislation. Whatever the Curia decides, so long as its not vetoed, is legislation. Any decision put into practice no matter where that occurs is legislation. I therefore question your own use of legislation as meaningless; the ToS is legislation, albeit not Curial (yet?).

oh, right see what you mean. That's ok but we still massively over-legislate for such a simple place.

A good example of simple legislation is Gig's Curia Officers bill. It keeps everything high level and puts in place a framework within which the curia can work, without setting up any boundaries.

That is the sort of thing we need, simple frameworks which allow the Curia to get on with its job (which is not legislation).

Edit - oh and for the person who gave me rep (postive at that?) - I have never pushed anyone around, thats far too simplistic approach and no fun

[Professor420]

Except for electing a Curator, what does this bill change.

Sorry, I haven't read much of the discussion about your proposed Syntagma. I want to return the favour, you know, as obviously you have not read much of the discussions about the actual Syntagma. Or, for that matter, WBK's proposal.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Actually I have read and discussed in depth WBK's proposals with several people, just not on the boards.

and yes, I have read the endless discussions on the Syntagma - that is kinda the point I am making. What is the Curia for? To a new observer it is a place where people endlessly discuss and refine the Syntagma, not exactly what it was intended to be.

So this version is a cu down, heavily simplified and clean version which gives us all scope to move and develop the Curia into what it should be - the place which drives the site forward.......

[Tom Paine]

The Curia's job is legislation, its just a different form of legislation; legislation that allows people to get on with their jobs, or aids them in so doing (a freedom of the press bill would be nice, for instance). Legislation but not bureaucracy is I think what both you and I actually want, since to me legislation means anything the Curia decides and puts into practice...

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

In that definition then we agree, the problem is that the Curia over the last few months has concentrated on the narrower definition of legislation and that is what I am desparate for us to get away from.

Start embracing the broader vision and driving the site rather than arguing over the syntagma, that's all I want - which is why I was proposing a very simple syntagma