[Discussion] Two Consuls

[Flinn]

Crazy idea, let's see what the people think

The main point here is, IMO: the Censores do not have any other responsibility than that of "supporting the Consul" in their regular duties, so why not simply electing two Consuls?

Pros: you have two people committed into doing the job; one more officer to be elected (could generate more activity); you supposedly have an internal control of the actions and conduct of each Consul (as one is also supposed to keep an eye on what the other is doing); if there's any VonC running, there's another elected officer that can promptly express their opinion on the validity of the same; it can generate some drama (more activity and interest around it); others I haven't think of yet.

Cons: we might struggle to find two people who want to commit; more bureaucracy and more work regarding updating annals, etc; possible conflicts of interests; it can generate some drama (and more toxicity); others I haven't think of yet.

Let's just brainstorm this idea: we don't need to craft a proposal now; if there will be a common ground on where to build this proposal up, I can later gather the prominent points and turn this into an actual Amendment, otherwise if there'll seem to be a large opposition, we can just discard the idea and move forward.

[Sir Adrian]

This worked great for the Romans.

[Flinn]

This worked great for the Romans.

I was indeed inspired by that, although we can't really make a comparison with the Roman Republic, TBH

[PointOfViewGun]

If they have a medium they can communicate their tasks on a daily basis (non-PM medium) to avoid conflicting actions, sure, this could work great.

[Sir Adrian]

There is a whole forum for that, but I disagree. The curator is a janitor, nothing more, and the past few months of activity were an exception, one which the current curator handled very well. Moreover if we elect two they inevitably end up stepping on each other's toes and giving conflicting instructions to the censors. There is no "practical" reason to have two from my point of view.

The only reason I can see is drama and making people post in the Curia. If people really want drama we can just let Akar talk to Gigantus some more, and Pontifex hasn't been ostrakoned this year either.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is a whole forum for that, but I disagree. The curator is a janitor, nothing more, and the past few months of activity were an exception, one which the current curator handled very well. Moreover if we elect two they inevitably end up stepping on each other's toes and giving conflicting instructions to the censors. There is no "practical" reason to have two from my point of view.

The only reason I can see is drama and making people post in the Curia. If people really want drama we can just let Akar talk to Gigantus some more, and Pontifex hasn't been ostrakoned this year either.

If there is a place for it already than they can inform each other of their actions. If the curator is nothing more than a janitor then there are no toes to step on. Your objection is a non-issue per your own description.

[Sir Adrian]

There are because there are duties to perform at fixed times and instructions to give to the censors. If you don't know what the Politia is and what goes in there give the constitution a read. When you come back you'll agree with me.

[Flinn]

There is a whole forum for that, but I disagree. The curator is a janitor, nothing more, and the past few months of activity were an exception, one which the current curator handled very well. Moreover if we elect two they inevitably end up stepping on each other's toes and giving conflicting instructions to the censors. There is no "practical" reason to have two from my point of view.

Having a second Consul certainly implies that Censors aren't going to be needed anymore (at the least in their roles of Consul's assistants)

If they have a medium they can communicate their tasks on a daily basis (non-PM medium) to avoid conflicting actions, sure, this could work great.

They could actually agree on who does what, it's not different from what a Consul and his Censors would do if they really cooperate. Me and Akar agreed on that when we started on September and IMO we never had any conflict on that. Other than this, nothing really needs to be done on a "daily base": having served for 2 full terms as Censor and a 3/4 term as a Preafect (until the office was removed via amendment), I can confidently say that a reasonable time scale for actions is on a weekly base (also, some actions depend on the Hex, because of admin powers, and while I can testify that the Hex is usually quick to react, that's out of the Consul's direct control).

If I have to find a reason to be worried about the efficiency of this system, well it is more because of incompatibility of the elected Consuls than anything else: that is part of the cons as I listed them in the OP, but it's not completely a bad thing.. I mean, the electorate can expect both Consuls to behave and act in the best interest of the Curia, to the point that they are morally requested to put aside their personal grudges, ideas and whatnot when doing their duties in the office. As I said, each would "control" (bad bad word, I agree) the other.. if this could be manageable I see it as a step forward towards a better managed and less toxic Curia (as long as both acts according to what they are requested.. otherwise it will end up making it more toxic, probably ).

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I believe the obsoletion or otherwise any needed change to censors should probably come with this proposal. Personally, if this goes through, I'd nix the censor limit and make it a thing appointed by dual Consul discretion, leaving limits or even the requirement of having them undefined.

I don't think it is unreasonable for the two to discuss details and avoid stepping on each other's toes, especially with the rarity of the timed functions and fairly standard nature of the 'everyday' functions such as proposals if communication is good. If anything the only real trouble there is having two consuls that are contentious to each other, resulting in a communication breakdown or it being less functional than it should.

Strictly in the sense of need I don't see it and the disadvantages can come up just as easily as mentioned perks, but as far as an interesting idea and something just to try in the Board's old age and with the disadvantages not strictly trashing the appealing bits, I'd toss in a support.

[Akar]

I'm not sure this is entirely needed, to be honest.

If the Curia does go forward with this, I agree that we would no longer need Censors at that point.

[Flinn]

I'm not sure this is entirely needed, to be honest.

If the Curia does go forward with this, I agree that we would no longer need Censors at that point.

I agree, it's not really needed, but nothing actually is when we talk of the Curia, depending of course from where one is looking at the whole thing

Anyways, I think we can agree on one point by now: a second Consul means no more Censores. *takes notice*

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I personally don't see a need to change it and think that having two people doing the exact same job/being on the same level in the hierarchy could cause confusion or other problems. I don't see an issue with the Consul being a solo job with the ability to delegate to assistants when necessary (although we're not very busy here anymore compared to a few years ago anyway), but I don't feel very strongly either way

[Gaius Baltar]

A division of labor would have one Consul concentrating on elections and thread maintenance in the Curia and Prothalamus. The other would be assigned moderation duties in the Curia and the Prothalamus.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

Wouldn’t that just instead constitute breaking up the consul position into two entirely different jobs then? At that point they’re fundamentally not the same job

[Flinn]

A division of labor would have one Consul concentrating on elections and thread maintenance in the Curia and Prothalamus. The other would be assigned moderation duties in the Curia and the Prothalamus.

Yes, that's a possibility.

Wouldn’t that just instead constitute breaking up the consul position into two entirely different jobs then? At that point they’re fundamentally not the same job

Yes and no. As of today, as I said in the OP, when the Consul and the Censores cooperates, they normally split the work to be carried out in advance, but at the same time they cover each other in case someone has to go MIA for any reason. Having two Consuls doing the exact same job would not make sense at all, they necessarily have to split the job in some way.
I'm not particularly fond of the idea of having that fixed (I mean, Consul A always does this and that, Consul B that and this), but I'd rather prefer to see them having the opportunity to decide freely and cooperate.

Let's drop down some more points, as discussed so far:

- Two Consuls means no more Censores
- Instead of having one elected Officer and two appointed assistants, there will be two elected Officers
- The main difference here is: Censores do not hold any real personal responsibility, they can leave at any moment for instance, and the Consul is the sole responsible for their actions (Curia-wise). Instead, each Consul will be responsible only for themselves.
- Splitting duties is based on mutual agreement*

*I'd like to rise some point about Moderating the Curia, but I will do that in a separate thread in the future

[AnthoniusII]

This worked great for the Romans.

No it didn't ! Remember Canes and Hannibal against the 2 Conculs. If the TWC Consuls will end up with a conflict of prospective in serius matter we will all end up taking one's side or an the other's.
Rome reached its glory with August (one to rule them all).

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I believe it's called sarcasm, Anthonius

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Rome reached its glory with August (one to rule them all).

My Grandgrandfather ruled Roma? Cool.

Why not give it a try?

It can perhaps decrease the split in this forum, if two consuls from different groups are forced to cooperate.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I think a better solution would be them fighting to the death and the winner assimilates the other's followers

[Flinn]

We should not always assume the worst of people, come on

Look at me and Akar, we are very much different dudes, we had various hard moments (plenty of them), but we always find a way to cooperate.
The point is having a common goal, and the will to carry out a duty no matter what, the rest comes second IMO.