Valuation of Citizenship

[PikeStance]

I have little to add but I always do find it pretty hilarious that Pike seemingly has nostalgia for an era of TWC in which he himself was not yet even a member.

The polar opposite really. My opinion was formed when I started doing my genealogy work. I started to read through many of the proposals along with the various arguments. I also read through many applications for citizenship. You gained a sense for original intent also a sense on the direction things were going. Generally, they decline was gradual and the decisions made far less problematic, but they added up over time. By the time I joined, the demise was pretty much set in stone. If there is analogy, it is a frog in boiling water. If you you put a frog in after the water boils, it will jump out. If gradually bring it to a boil and it will sit there in die. There is definitely no nostalgia. The time period had its benefits, but it was also a time period in which people acted extremely petty and childish as well. It was just different.

If I gave you a false impression that I was romanticizing the time period, then that is my error.

No, the problem was the CdeC itself as a structure. It started out with decent intentions but it devolved into a race to the bottom where every member had to be tougher and tougher and tougher in an attempt to get elected. I contacted the CdeC in december 2013, after I had just completed a 40+ hour project in the Scriptorium, and aside for Pasan and 2 others I was told straight up that "it's not enough" and to come back a year or two later. I applied in April 2014 immediately after the CdeC was dismantled, I was the second applicant of the new system, and I passed with a unanimous vote if my memory serves.

The fault in structure was the fact it was a revolving door of the same members. I am guessing you did not pay attention to the incessant discussions on citizenship applications. There was a remarkable consistency of standards expressed in those threads. No one 'raced" to the bottom, everyone causally walked and were in complete agreement. Most CdeC members run reelections with no problem and they were often multiple positions up for election at a time. And yes, back when both of us became citizens, they were criticism that the standards have been lowered. In fact, I had a client not to long ago, who contribution was consistent with 2004 standards who was objected to because that persons believed the standards were being lowered.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I was referring to the pre-CdeC/very early Curia era that you’re always talking about, not the situation that existed around when we joined the site

[Sir Adrian]

The fault in structure was the fact it was a revolving door of the same members. I am guessing you did not pay attention to the incessant discussions on citizenship applications. There was a remarkable consistency of standards expressed in those threads. No one 'raced" to the bottom, everyone causally walked and were in complete agreement. Most CdeC members run reelections with no problem and they were often multiple positions up for election at a time. And yes, back when both of us became citizens, they were criticism that the standards have been lowered. In fact, I had a client not to long ago, who contribution was consistent with 2004 standards who was objected to because that persons believed the standards were being lowered.

It was very hard to read something that was posted in a HIDDEN FORUM but yes there a consistency of standards. unrealistic standards that most of the CdeC would not have met. And there's the problem, it was always the same people because they're the ones who won the travel to the bottom musical chairs game. Once you push things beyond what is humanely reasonable on a gaming forum, it's hard for others to take your place by pushing even further. I distinctly remember one instance where I repped one of those guys (forgot his name, some german or american dude with katana and kanji avatar that was friends with Aikanar, hasn't been active since 2015-16 iirc) saying something along the lines of "This is not the Cambridge doctoral school admissions board, relax" during the dismantle CdeC debate and he went on a rampage up and down the Curia demanding to know who was "the coward who drags the Curia name though the mud". That was the prevailing attitude in the CdeC, except for Pasan and maybe 2 others who were fighting to lower the ridiculous pomposity of it all.

There was a revolving door of the same people because the CdeC was broken as a concept and it inevitably leads to that. Yes, people did hold the same ideas, but they were ideas. Seriously, go read the dismantle proposal thread from 2014 and see for yourself.

A couple of posts ago either you or Muizer complained about citizenship nowadays being about contribution instead of what it used to be. The CdeC made it that way.

You're just making arguments why the CdeC as a concept was bad and why bringing it back under faux latin names will only make things worse.

[z3n]

A repurposed CdeC which elects a moderator, hex or other branch of technical staff could be interesting.

[Muizer]

A couple of posts ago either you or Muizer complained about citizenship nowadays being about contribution instead of what it used to be. The CdeC made it that way.

Wasn't me (I think)! I'm not per se against a measure of contribution. It's pretty much unavoidable where evaluating Artifex is concerned. Perhaps the evaluation of civitates got dragged along in its wake. I was on one of the very first CdeC's and things weren't very strict at all.

[PikeStance]

It was very hard to read something that was posted in a HIDDEN FORUM but yes there a consistency of standards. unrealistic standards that most of the CdeC would not have met. And there's the problem, it was always the same people because they're the ones who won the travel to the bottom musical chairs game. Once you push things beyond what is humanely reasonable on a gaming forum, it's hard for others to take your place by pushing even further. I distinctly remember one instance where I repped one of those guys (forgot his name, some german or american dude with katana and kanji avatar that was friends with Aikanar, hasn't been active since 2015-16 iirc) saying something along the lines of "This is not the Cambridge doctoral school admissions board, relax" during the dismantle CdeC debate and he went on a rampage up and down the Curia demanding to know who was "the coward who drags the Curia name though the mud". That was the prevailing attitude in the CdeC, except for Pasan and maybe 2 others who were fighting to lower the ridiculous pomposity of it all.

There was a revolving door of the same people because the CdeC was broken as a concept and it inevitably leads to that. Yes, people did hold the same ideas, but they were ideas. Seriously, go read the dismantle proposal thread from 2014 and see for yourself.

A couple of posts ago either you or Muizer complained about citizenship nowadays being about contribution instead of what it used to be. The CdeC made it that way.

You're just making arguments why the CdeC as a concept was bad and why bringing it back under faux latin names will only make things worse.

The attitude you allude to was not restricted to the CdeC. The revolving door you speak of was the same people. Most of the outliers had nothing to do with the elections of the CdeC or any of the discussions.

Here are some sampls of the types of discussions

CdeC-debate-thread
CdeC-vote-declarations-and-the-like-Discuss-the-things-that-you-would-like-to-see-changed-within-the-CdeC
Discussion-Is-Citizenship-more-than-a-reward
Most telling post of this thread.....

I think I see citizenship differently to some extent than most. A lot of people would say that just good posting and being helpful to other members here and there isn't enough for example. But I've always disagreed with that. Citizenship does provide a badge where members who set a good example to other members can be highlighted. So for me more specific contributions like modding/writing or anything else is just a nice bonus for me, and is a secondary concern compared with setting an example to other members. It's a more traditional and old school viewpoint on citizenship, but I think it's the right one. For me, being a regular poster and friendly member is enough. I had less than 150 posts ish when I became a citizen, and what many would say are a must in terms of contributions were simply not there. I wouldn't have a chance at passing for citizenship if my application as it was over seven years ago now, came forward today.

To-all-of-you-who-s-citizenship-applications-were-denied


Just to end if there were any criticism of the CdeC is the "lack of homework" or "effort" that some members put into their responsibilities. The fact that they feel they need to be an "expert" or have personal knowledge of contribution is telling enough.
Omnis post hits at the heart of the issue.

[Flinn]

A repurposed CdeC which elects a moderator, hex or other branch of technical staff could be interesting.

Let me just say this: there's no way the Curia will be allowed to have any power over the Hex or any other branch of Staff, unless GED comes back and decides differently, which is very unlikely. If I know something well is that he does not trust the Curia (and he said so various times, I can recall for instance when discussing the CMS blogs) to be able to keep up with its standards.
The reason why I posted that "idea" (which, again, is not mine) is because I know that that path would be more likely to happen than the other way around.. anyways, afaik the Hex does not have the will to interfere with the Curia in such a manner and once again, unless GED comes back and decides otherwise, this is not likely going to happen.

[PikeStance]

A repurposed CdeC which elects a moderator, hex or other branch of technical staff could be interesting.

Let me just say this: there's no way the Curia will be allowed to have any power over the Hex or any other branch of Staff, unless GED comes back and decides differently, which is very unlikely. If I know something well is that he does not trust the Curia (and he said so various times, I can recall for instance when discussing the CMS blogs) to be able to keep up with its standards.
The reason why I posted that "idea" (which, again, is not mine) is because I know that that path would be more likely to happen than the other way around.. anyways, afaik the Hex does not have the will to interfere with the Curia in such a manner and once again, unless GED comes back and decides otherwise, this is not likely going to happen.

Yes, I do not think "elections" is a viable vetting process. The idea of it has a first step was intriguing, but not has a final step. However it is far better to have citizenship become a "status" once again, where the focus is about making good post and being exemplary in behavior and attitude. GED did comment that some citizens made comments that he would not want to see "pop" on the front page.

I actually like the idea of the process being
Member > Citizen > Staff
-------------------- > Continuing contribution
I do not mind Staff and former staff being part of a committee that promotes citizenship as I suggested above.

[Narf]

Irony is something that we should always keep in high esteem, here in the Curia.

Honestly to me it seems that we are way too much concerned about the political side of the Curia and very little about its "promoting a positive culture" thing, sadly.

Go out there and roam the site, look for people at need of help, and help them or give them directions to where they can find it; or be ready to partake in any activity which is promoting the site, its content and its activities (Staff, Committees, Modding teams, etc); or be kind and educated (or at the least do not be harsh or confrontational, if possible); or be of good example, and constantly put your mouth where your money is; or any mix of those and any other activity which is effectively promoting a welcoming and proactive culture in the Curia and in the site at large.

The Curia is not about ourselves, we should not be egoistic and pretend that it's a tool we are being given to promote our own agenda or philosophy or whatever; it is really all about those positive activities I mentioned above, and no rule can force you to create, join or improve any of them. And yes, it will be a thankless job for the most... so to put it easy, Citizenship is about serving, the rest is just decorative stuff.

THIS, The thing you say up there is the very essence of what TWC is; it's very succinct. See some folks doing a cool something? Do you have a skill or piece of knowledge that could make that more incredible, or have something that could help? OFFER IT.
For example, I was raised to become a species of a person on the now discontinued Play by Post forum; I dreaded its departure, fearing it'd be forever gone. I bemoan this; In swoops Ishan and help me Back-Up the entire subforum. Both the raising people(Giving knowledge, teaching a skill or pushing folks to learn) and the quick help Ishan displayed great willingness to offer. That right there, that's TWC. This definition might be vague, and it might be possible to poke holes into it. But why? It's pure in what it is. Warts and all.

To Answer OP:

1. Why are you a citizen?
   
   • Helped some folks, Made some Art, Wrote some Articles, don't remember it all. It's cool to be part of the Citizenry, is like a treehouse club. Stuff can happen in life, but being a citizen here is like an invisible members club badge on the shoulder.
   
   
2. How has the forum benefited from your citizenship?
   
   • I really hope it has, I've sporadically tried to do stuff to give back here, never been super consistent sadly.
   
   
3. If you value your citizenship, why have you not "pass on" your status to another member?
   
   • I have! The unparalleled Inkie is my forum kid.
   
   
4. If you did, why have patronized a member of the site? Would you do it again?
   
   • If a good candidate coincides with me having a bunch of energy I could see me taking on another, no doubt.
   
   
5. Again, if we do not value citizenship, then why keep it? Is it the badge that we value? If so, why is the badge that important to you?
   
   • Of course, it's not the badge that holds the value, the value is in what lead to its bestowment, and a signifier of what good stuff might in future be seen from such a person, the badge is an identifier like a Staff Badge. When I was new and saw a citizen, I knew I could go ask about certain things, there being a good chance they knew stuff.

[Muizer]

I actually like the idea of the process being
Member > Citizen > Staff
-------------------- > Continuing contribution

Your graph is incomplete.



Member -- contribution --> Citizen -- contribution --> Staff

|
|
chores
|
v

[z3n]

Let me just say this: there's no way the Curia will be allowed to have any power over the Hex or any other branch of Staff, unless GED comes back and decides differently, which is very unlikely. If I know something well is that he does not trust the Curia (and he said so various times, I can recall for instance when discussing the CMS blogs) to be able to keep up with its standards.
The reason why I posted that "idea" (which, again, is not mine) is because I know that that path would be more likely to happen than the other way around.. anyways, afaik the Hex does not have the will to interfere with the Curia in such a manner and once again, unless GED comes back and decides otherwise, this is not likely going to happen.

The curia technically already has that power and even used it to create the modding staff for example, however hex has the power to veto any curial resolution they don't like as per the curia's constitution. Friendly and positive atmospheres sound great, and I believe the curia even managed to have those standards behind closed doors when they had them. It's unfortunate comments were publicly made like that, but here's a thought experiment. If Hex + GED had come together and presented a proposal to the curia about standards (if those standards are really such a big problem) I'm sure said proposal would have sailed through with the vast majority of votes, or all of them, being yes.

[Flinn]

The curia technically already has that power and even used it to create the modding staff for example, however hex has the power to veto any curial resolution they don't like as per the curia's constitution. Friendly and positive atmospheres sound great, and I believe the curia even managed to have those standards behind closed doors when they had them. It's unfortunate comments were publicly made like that, but here's a thought experiment. If Hex + GED had come together and presented a proposal to the curia about standards (if those standards are really such a big problem) I'm sure said proposal would have sailed through with the vast majority of votes, or all of them, being yes.

Well, yes and no The Curia has the power that the Hex allow it to have, just that. Technically the Hex can decide tomorrow to close the Curia, remove this part of the site and bla bla.. I'm pretty sure this not going to happen, anyways (if GED did want something like that to happen he could have acted long ago).
Also, there's a substantial difference between proposing the idea of creating a Modding Staff (proposal/suggestion) and what you talked about previously, ie electing Hex and other staffers via the Curia (which would be an actual control ofc).

However, apart from the technicalities, the point in question here is: if the Curia "cannot be repurposed to be another Staff department" as someone has put it, the same is true as well for "it cannot be repurposed to have admin powers".. for the good and for the bad that's the role of the Hex, as desired and clarified by GED.

[PikeStance]

The Curia can never be "repurpose." It has always been a status. Warped into something else and became exclusive rather than inclusive. The removal of the Prothalomos is an example. Another example is people refusing citizenship. Based on the original intent, there isn't a reason to refuse it. However, given what it became, there are ample reasons to reject it.

For Muizer (The pathway)


Path via staff and a path via continued contribution.


A Flow chart on the reorganization


The current irony is that the highest award you can obtain through any type of work in the Curia are two medium awards, Curia Service award and the Judges Gavel.
This isn't necessarily the problem. it is the perception of elitism (lack of inclusion) and the emphasis on behavior and attitude as the primary reasons to "promote" someone to the status of Citizenship and, more importantly, accountability of citizens behavior and attitude. Having the process go through content (admin) would be a good step to ensure that both primary standards stay that way. As I link above, the Curia (CdeC) was overly concern about lack of expertise in certain areas of the forum when their primary concern should have been on behavior and attitude.

[Muizer]

@pike,

I appreciate dedicating a separate flow for those who contribute on, and those who contribute on behalf of the site.

What I do not understand is why you would put staff and former staff in charge of nominating and evaluating candidates for citizenship and the Centurionate.

Firstly, because it seems to me that compared to the present situation this is going to disenfranchise a lot of potential participants (prospective citizens as well as patrons).

Secondly, because while staff is in a position to evaluate a candidate's moderation record, there is no reason to think they're best placed or naturally inclined to award people who unlike themselves do not seek to serve TWC as a member of staff.

I do not see the benefits that would offset these drawbacks tbh.

[z3n]

Well, yes and no The Curia has the power that the Hex allow it to have, just that. Technically the Hex can decide tomorrow to close the Curia, remove this part of the site and bla bla.. I'm pretty sure this not going to happen, anyways (if GED did want something like that to happen he could have acted long ago).
Also, there's a substantial difference between proposing the idea of creating a Modding Staff (proposal/suggestion) and what you talked about previously, ie electing Hex and other staffers via the Curia (which would be an actual control ofc).

However, apart from the technicalities, the point in question here is: if the Curia "cannot be repurposed to be another Staff department" as someone has put it, the same is true as well for "it cannot be repurposed to have admin powers".. for the good and for the bad that's the role of the Hex, as desired and clarified by GED.

I thought it's pretty clear that any curial proposal, election or otherwise, is still a proposal as per the constitution. I mean, GED even "somewhat" recently, proposed an idea here in the curia -> https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15784790, but nobody really followed through properly on it, unfortunately. I mean technically Hex could just decide to create that award for GED instead of it having to go thru a proposal process, but that didn't seem to happen from what I remember. I think it'd be nice for the site owner if some of those things were acted on whenever GED suggested it though. That's just me and I didn't have access to such high level discussions or interactions.

[Akar]

That is the award that would become the Legio 501st and Modding Service Award, if I recall correctly, z3n.

[z3n]

According to GED the tools award was supposed to be separate.

As an aside those 2 were the awards I originally proposed, (see OP of that thread). With the horrible text specifications.

Awarded by the Curia for one or more of the following: creating a detailed and original tutorial containing relevant media (screenshots, video, code snippets), releasing a minor mod involving at minimum a single modding section (units, scripting, mapping, animations, sounds, media) of work estimated to have taken more than 5 hours or a remarkable act that benefits TWC modding community.

To qualify for a higher level of the award, the nominee must have participated within a workshop section with distinction over the span of 6 months or released a hosted modification.

[Sir Adrian]

A Flow chart on the reorganization

The Tiger I's steering and clutch system was less complicated than this. I appreciate the effort and thought but mate, this is a bad idea that will improve nothing. You want to create two extra bodies but there's only 20 of us. If we wanted to start a football team, we couldn't because we lack the minimum 25 players.

[Akar]

The current irony is that the highest award you can obtain through any type of work in the Curia are two medium awards,

One could definitely receive a Phalera for contributions to the Curia, provided they rose to a sufficient level of distinction.

[PikeStance]

@pike,
I appreciate dedicating a separate flow for those who contribute on, and those who contribute on behalf of the site.
What I do not understand is why you would put staff and former staff in charge of nominating and evaluating candidates for citizenship and the Centurionate.
Firstly, because it seems to me that compared to the present situation this is going to disenfranchise a lot of potential participants (prospective citizens as well as patrons).
Secondly, because while staff is in a position to evaluate a candidate's moderation record, there is no reason to think they're best placed or naturally inclined to award people who unlike themselves do not seek to serve TWC as a member of staff.
I do not see the benefits that would offset these drawbacks tbh.

TBH, what I put forward was an amalgamation of what Flinn (as proxy) offered and yourself. I did make some functional changes, but I kept the essence of each idea.
I would not remove patronage at all. Even in the case of a nominated candidate the nominator would be the patron. I don't think anyone would be disenfranchised given they can still patronize and still propose/ suggest improvements. Moreover, staff nominating candidates should increase the number of "applicants" thus potential either increasing the pool of potential staff members or those who will continue to contribute in the manner that got them recognized in the first place.

I do not think staff is limited to judging "moderation record" but also attitude (and aptitude) for good posting. Moreover, since the staff is primarily focus on that, they won't fall prey to arbitrarily increasing the standard for citizenship. Staff involvement is probably the best option to safeguard against this tendency.

The Tiger I's steering and clutch system was less complicated than this. I appreciate the effort and thought but mate, this is a bad idea that will improve nothing. You want to create two extra bodies but there's only 20 of us. If we wanted to start a football team, we couldn't because we lack the minimum 25 players.

Your cynicism has no end. This is perfect for you


To address your post, we do not need active members now for the system to work. There are already staff members who are citizens, they will naturally fit as senators. Staff have an interest to identify both members who can potentially be staff and those who will continue to promote the site through their contribution. I do not see an issue there.

As for the second group. I would hope that they would be some members who already contibute outside of the Curia and staff. If not, this may encourage them to do so.

Field of Dreams

If you build it, he (they) will come

One could definitely receive a Phalera for contributions to the Curia, provided they rose to a sufficient level of distinction.

I am incline to agree. It has yet be done, but it is not impossible or inconceivable. The Curia is definitely a non-TW contribution.