(Amendment) Article 3 Citizenship Proposal

[Erich von Manstein]

(Amendment) Article 3 Citizenship Proposal

Proposer: Manstein16

Supporters: Shaun

The following change is proposed, with additions in blue:

"Article 3 - Patronisation

Any Citizen holding their rank for three one months can patronise a Peregrinus for citizenship subject to the requirements in Article 1 above."


My reasons for this proposal are threefold. First, I see the current three month probationary period as being a detriment to increased patronization and enfranchisement. Forcing citizens to wait three months after their enfranchisement slows the entire enfranchisement process down for obvious reasons. Many citizens are not continuously on this site either, as real life has a way of interfering with our access to the internet. Three months is the minimum; freqeuently a citizen will move on to other ventures before the probationary period is over, resulting in an even greater time span passing before they begin enfranchising other, deserving plebs.

Second, I see no benefit coming from this extended probationary period that is not already covered by other checks and balances. The CdC still serves as the primary filter, the main hurdle that must be cleared if one wishes to become a citizen. Surely any nominations by unworthy patrons will be evaluated and, if need be, blocked by the CdC?

Last, I believe that shortening the probationary period will provide encouragement to those wishing to become actively contributing members of these hallowed virtual halls. Knowing that one can jump right into the process (or at least relatively quickly), rather than spending a lengthy period of time as a second-class citizen, will hopefully encourage more members to become citizens, boosting their participation and contributions to this site as a result.

[makanyane]

I'm relatively neutral on the time limit being moved but would encourage you and anyone else supporting this proposal (and hence with an interest in allowing Citizens to patronise) to keep an eye on the current discussion regarding changing the Patrician class:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...t=87183&page=3
where some of the latter proposals are now suggesting reverting to only allowing Patricians to patronise Peregrinus, and removing the ability from Citizens entirely.

[Ragabash]

I disagree with the proposal, this would make it even easier to patronize when we need to set more limitations instead.

[Erich von Manstein]

I disagree with the proposal, this would make it even easier to patronize when we need to set more limitations instead.

That's the primary purpose of this proposal, to aid in the wider enfranchisement of members of this site and increase its representation in the Curia. Of course, if you disagree that this site needs a wider enfranchisement, I'm not one to say that you are wrong.

[Ragabash]

Manstein16.

Remember that being citizen means more then just Curial rights to vote, debate site matters, etc.

It should represent elite of the site, best debaters, best posters, etc. something for members to look upon and to strive for rather then rank that is directly and only associated with Curial participation.

I'm more afraid of the course we are going then single amendment, if we continue going this path, soon citizenship will mean little more then just being able to vote yes or no once in a while.

[makanyane]

Remember that being citizen means more then just Curial rights to vote, debate site matters, etc.

It should represent elite of the site, best debaters, best posters, etc. something for members to look upon and to strive for rather then rank that is directly and only associated with Curial participation.

I'm more afraid of the course we are going then single amendment, if we continue going this path, soon citizenship will mean little more then just being able to vote yes or no once in a while.

If we really need an elite why not use the Patrician rank, or some new invented rank for that - they can stun us all with their wisdom in the Symposium, or similar (I say they assuming I'd be sacked by then).

This site has pretensions towards democracy and keeping the rights to vote and debate further away from the normal membership is just likely to alienate them, and discourage involvement. I think well behaved and consistently contributing members of the site should be allowed access to debate and voting if they wish it.

[Shaun]

I support this proposal.
However, I think the main problem with new civs, and me, not patronising is that they are often not aware of the fact that they can even do it. Even then, they dont know what to do.

[Shaun]

Manstein, I am afraid that you are going to have to remove my support, not because I dont support it - I do - its because I am not a patrician, and, as it stands, only patricians may support proposals.

[Erich von Manstein]

Manstein, I am afraid that you are going to have to remove my support, not because I dont support it - I do - its because I am not a patrician, and, as it stands, only patricians may support proposals.

From what I've seen on other proposals, non-patricians may have their names listed as supporters, they just aren't counted towards the three required patrician names. If you still would like it removed, however, just let me know.

Remember that being citizen means more then just Curial rights to vote, debate site matters, etc.

I think Ragabash has his finger on the point of the opposition to this bill. What we realy need are higher standards of Civitate, and a way to achieve this is to have more experienced curial members patronising, and thus those more likely to make good informed decisions, rather then less.

I understand your concerns. From conversations I have had with non-citizens, however, I have detected an undercurrent of opinion that citizenship is more of a "good ol' boys" club and that there isn't much of a reason to strive for citizenship since (according to the opinion) it is handed out rather haphazardly. I'm not saying that I agree with this. I'm not comfortable with the fact that citizenship, particularly the patrician class, is viewed in such a light, however. We should be encouraging people to strive for citizenship rather than inadvertantly supporting the notion that citizenship is handed down from the gods on high when said deities feel so inclined. The CdC is still there to ensure that only deserving applicants are granted citizenship. If it does its job properly, we shouldn't see an increase in bad apples. In my experience, increasing the size of the pool of applicants while maintaining (or even shrinking) the filter can only result in a higher standard of successful applicants.

[Silver Guard]

I think Ragabash has his finger on the point of the opposition to this bill. What we realy need are higher standards of Civitate, and a way to achieve this is to have more experienced curial members patronising, and thus those more likely to make good informed decisions, rather then less.

[imb39]

I am a firm proponent of the idea of self promotion. Ragabash, getting the CDC examining more candidates is no bad thing providing that the CDC votes appropriately. You are confusing the act of patronising with the idea of 'lowering standards.' It matters little how many are proposed. What matters is the quality of those who are accepted.

[Ragabash]

imb39.

Remember what made Curia last time lower the requirements, thus standard, it was large amount of rejected candinates.

It's the direction we are taking that worries me more then single amendment.

[Erich von Manstein]

imb39.

Remember what made Curia last time lower the requirements, thus standard, it was large amount of rejected candinates.

It's the direction we are taking that worries me more then single amendment.

Couldn't a higher rejection rate be considered a good thing in this case? It shows that there is a standard that must be attained while not discouraging people from attempting to attain that standard by keeping the pool of applicants relatively small. As it stands, the community at large tends to view the current system as being arbitrary and ambiguous. By increasing the size of the pool of applicants we would show them that it isn't arbitrary, but by maintaining the standard required for citizenship we would be giving them something to try and attain, hopefully increasing the quality of the posts and contributions on this site as a whole.

[Rolanbek]

Perhaps more could be done by informing citizens of their current rights rather than seeking to expand ones which are little used.

On self proposal, well its just not cricket is it?

R

[imb39]

imb39.

Remember what made Curia last time lower the requirements, thus standard, it was large amount of rejected candinates.

It's the direction we are taking that worries me more then single amendment.

Err... Applying does not mean automatic acceptance. If a candidate applies who does not match the requirements, they will be politely rejected, surely? I think this notion of a 'lowering of standards' is false - standards are not the province of the applicant but of those who actually have the power to decide - the CDC.

Rolanbek,

Perhaps not cricket. Football, maybe?

[Ragabash]

imb39.

Yes, the CdeC has a final decision, but now that requirement percent have been lowered from 75% to 60% it's much easier to obtain the rank.

Above mentioned decision I can somehow understand, but what started the process to lower requirements was a large amount of failed candinates, I'm worried this might happen again.

As I said before, I'm more worried about the general direction we have been taking in this then a single amendment.

[Virgil]

I am against because this is simply the wrong time for it. The discussion over the patrician class needs to be reolved before any amendments concerning patronization are to be implemented.

[the Black Prince]

i dislike the principle... patronisation should be the realm of responsible mature citizens who have the rank long enough to know precisely its nature responsibilities and duties and therefore be able to deduce who might undertake such a task

[imb39]

I am against because this is simply the wrong time for it. The discussion over the patrician class needs to be reolved before any amendments concerning patronization are to be implemented.

I think opening up the patronisation process is fully intline with the overall thrust of the recent changes. The point is to decentralise as much as is feasible.

i dislike the principle... patronisation should be the realm of responsible mature citizens who have the rank long enough to know precisely its nature responsibilities and duties and therefore be able to deduce who might undertake such a task

How many patrons actually take an active role in trying to develop/push their clients?

[Shaun]

Well, please define exactly how long someone must have the rank before they are classed as 'mature' enough.