Patronage Bill

[the Black Prince]

This House Notes
1/ That levels of patronisation are low
2/ That worthy Modders in particular are not being patronised
3/ That self nomination is frowned upon but not unlawful under the current Syntagma

This House Believes
1/ That more Modders are needed to make their voice heard, that the Modder class is somewhat disenfranchised
2/ That many modders do not wish to take part in the Curial Process
3/ That the process of self nomination has previously been frowned upon as it leads to and may be considered self glorification.
4/ That the CdeC does not do enough to inform candidates why they fail a citizenship vote

This House Mandates
1/ That the Convention of self nomination be hereby repealed with the insertion of the following text into the patronisation section of the Syntagma

Any Citizen holding their rank for three months without warnings can Patronise a peregrinus for Citizenship at a rate of one per month (subject to requirements, section 1). The granting of Citizenship is determined by the Consilium de Civitate. The CdeC shall not hold it against a candidate if it is known he approached the patronising member.

2/ That citizens, especially those drawn from among the modding community should actively seek out worthy candidates and offer them patronage

3/ That forum staff should further advertise what being a citizen is all about by posting pinned threads in the three principal general discussion forums (M2TW General Discussion, RTW General Discussion and Thema Devia). These threads should detail requirements of citizenship, benefits of citizenship and the names of current CdeC members who can be contacted for advice or information on the issue. It should be explicitly stated in these threads that members who wish to be patronised and think they meet the criteria should post in the thread. Potential patrons should view the thread and offer patronage by PM.

4/ That the CdeC should inform candidates of a reason or reasons why they have failed their vote. This information should be disseminated from the discussion thread, and PMed to the candidate by a spokesperson for the CdeC or the Curator.

[Lusted]

You know tBP this sort of legalese talk actually deters modders from the Curia, most don't like that aspect of the Curia. It would be mcuh easier to understand and read in normal english.

[Perikles]

I agree with this.

However some modders do not want to take part in the Curia. Just yesterday I was turned down because they feel the Curia is too bureaucratic and pointless.

[makanyane]

I'm inclined to support, I'd also wonder if we could add another provision....
In talks with unbadged modders it has also come up that some do not like
"tiered systems whereby one member is considered under another".

I'd like to suggest possible addition, keep it a requirement that one existing badged member proposes another, hence keeping a bit of the filtering process that I think people were worried about being lost last time self nomination direct to CdeC got discussed. But add provision that subject to pre-determined agreement between proposer and nominee, no permanent patronage relationship need be formed when the nominee is successfully elected, in which case the identity of the proposer would also not be publicised.

Thus those of us that think there's a bit of fun in the existing system can opt to keep having 'families', 'houses' etc. but anyone philosophically opposed to it can get put forward as an 'independent'.

Errm, not sure if that's adding too many issues to one bill though, any thoughts?

And re: the way the bills put - I suspect difficulty is we're not quite sure what 'this house' is should that be 'the curia' 'TWC' or... ?

[Erich von Manstein]

Just my two cents (and my experience in the Curia is extremely limited, so take my comments with a grain of salt), but I'm worried that opening the citizenship process up to self-proposal could result in some rather unpleasant side-effects. Namely:

(1) The politicization of the patronization process. The Curia strikes me as being the type of organization that bases members on their deserving to be citizens rather than their desire to be citizens. While this belief has kept patronization rates low, it has also done an admirable job of filtering out unworthy candidates. Indeed, it seems as if someone who is vocal in their desire to be a citizen rather than vocal in their efforts to improve TWC is unworthy of attaining said rank.

(2) Self-glorification. Forum members aspiring to citizenship could being making posts with the sole intention of "expanding their resume", so to speak, much as political candidates do. Citizenship should be an award for contributions to TWC, not a reward for doing an admirable job of selling one's image to a potential patron.

It is not my desire to come across as desiring to maintain the Curia as an elitist organization. I am all for expanding the ranks of the Curia to include a broader cross-section of the forum membership as a whole. I think the proper way to bring this about is by relaxing the limitations on proposals of citizenship, rather than increasing the size of the filter holes. I'm not inclined to support the bill in its current form.

[Shaun]

I agree with this, and am in a position to patronise people, although I am not sure what to do. Do I just PM them asking about it or what?

[the Black Prince]

Shaun, thats what i do, just PM people...

Lusted, that is plain english, with the exception of one word thats fallen out of common usage... hereby. But i tend to use old words as a matter of course. I find it regrettable that such words are seldom considered part of a modern vocabulary.

If it was in legalese, it would have clauses and sub clauses, wouldn't have any form of sentence structure, and probably include at least one latin phrase.

[Lusted]

Im talking about all the references to "This House notes" etc. Is it necessary? It switches my brain off when im reaidng bills. It could be written much simpler, easier to understand and read.

[Halie Satanus]

I agree with Lusted, what maybe a very worthy bill is detracted from by your multiple personality complex, Who's house, what house 'our house in the middle of our street', is Brooklyn in the house??.

Ok joking aside, it implies you speak for more than one person, unless you do in which case you should state who.

I like most of this bill but you can't write a law which will make people go and actively search the modding forums for clients.

[the Black Prince]

@makanyane
the idea of that kind of relationship has long since lost whatever limited meaning it used to have. So members do indeed like to proclaim their membership of particular houses based on who patronised them, but once we started founding houses with no basis in patronage the whole system collapsed.

its certainlt never een the case that patronised members are in anyway tied to the proposer, and have always been free to do and say what they like.

and certainly no one is ever voted on based on what house they are going into. we look at the candidate, not the person.

multiple personality complex,

excuse me???
i'm me, i'm always me.
i'm not writing as my bill, i'm writing for what the Curia says once this bill will be passed. It'd be incredibly weird for the Curia to enact something that would say "the Black Prince shall have inserted into his constitution ... etc"

This House is the body so enacting.


Manstein, i'm not suggesting candidates put themselves up for a vote, merely that they put themselves up for patronage, seek out a patron.
there is still two checks to be made here.
first the glorifyer must find a patron, there has to be someone else of citizen rank who thinks the guy is worthy.
then, it has to go before the CdeC... and the 16 of us have to look into the candidate.
i'm quite happy to see more votes and more rejections if the number of people accepted goes up too.

candidates if so interested could well be doing what you describe now to make themselves more attractive to people looking for new citizens.

plus, the CdeC reserves the right to ostrakon people who are failing as citizens or bringing the rank into disrepute etc...

[Belisarius]

I never knew tBP was a house, I wonder if he is a pink house?

That said any member of the curia can use whatever style he wants, Lusted.

That said its an idea I would like to put some thought into first. hmm.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

tBP, I like the concept by why does it have to be a bill, that's what is confusing me?

Or is it that we need a bill to allow a thread to be opened touting for patronage?

Sorry, had a crap day and not following things too well...

[Belisarius]

Tac, generally its been frowned upon to actually ask to be patronised, it was always a case of "Dont find us, we'll find you".

[the Black Prince]

not every bill has to amend the syntagma

this bill has 4 elements - in v. brief summary

1/ insert a line into the syntagma that allows self nomination
2/ orders citizens to actively seek out clients
3/ orders forum staff to advertise citizenship
4/ orders CdeC to inform candidates why they fail

we get so caught up amending the wording of certain parts of the syntagma we forget it would seem, that the Curia has and has always had wider abilities. Lusteds bill, if goes to vote, would mandate staff to create a Mod community forum, my bill mandates the Curator to change the syntagma etc...

[makanyane]

@makanyane
the idea of that kind of relationship has long since lost whatever limited meaning it used to have. So members do indeed like to proclaim their membership of particular houses based on who patronised them, but once we started founding houses with no basis in patronage the whole system collapsed.

its certainlt never een the case that patronised members are in anyway tied to the proposer, and have always been free to do and say what they like.

and certainly no one is ever voted on based on what house they are going into. we look at the candidate, not the person.

If that is the case already is there any harm in formalising the position in the syntagma, that an ongoing patronage relationship doesn't have to be established, just to clarify it for any who are confused?

And umm, there still does seem to be a bit of confusion between what can be stipulated in a bill as a requirement for ranks / staff to follow and what is really just encouragement. Not sure you can 'order' something, without an 'or-else' which doesn't seem appropriate here! Err, 'requests' perhaps?

[Spartan]

Manstein16 is on the money here as far as I'm concerned. With that said I support the intent of this action.

Another suggestion would be to offer some additional benefits of joining a house other then an obligatory signature text element.