Elections - what is the excuse now?

**Fabolous** · March 17, 2007, 10:36 AM

I find this issue springing to mind. Self proclaimed curialist who run this site orginally said once the Curia shows itself useful without elections, we can have them. I believe as one who said those things, that we have seem a Curia that is not obsessed with elections, as we in hex once feared, therefore, should we of the Curia not elect moderators now? By the administrations own words the Curia should. Therefore, I say the Curia will have full election of moderators.

The amendment writing can come later, but who supports the issue? I cannot think of an arguement against elections now that the Curia has shown itself to be not obsessed with elections. The Curia has shown itself in the past more than capable of electing effective moderators.

(Also, I would not remove appointments, they are needed from the hex perspective. But continue to ratify all appointments. Ratification should probably be raised to 2/3rds, anything less is a bit of a joke, but that is another thread.)

**Perikles** · March 17, 2007, 10:40 AM

I am one of the most curial people out there, I don't think we are ready for elections yet. 1 month proves nothing. Definitely before the summer though.

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · March 17, 2007, 10:42 AM

I used to be hugely in favour of them but I now believe we have a lot more power with ratification.

**Fabolous** · March 17, 2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Tacticalwithdrawal

I used to be hugely in favour of them but I now believe we have a lot more power with ratification.

At a simple majority passing rate? No one could fail that, unless they are completely absent from the site, and perhaps even then. There is no power in a simple majority pass rate.

**Perikles** · March 17, 2007, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Fabolous

At a simple majority passing rate? No one could fail that, unless they are completely absent from the site, and perhaps even then. There is no power in a simple majority pass rate.

I'd support a 2/3 ratification amendment.

**Fabolous** · March 17, 2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Perikles

I am one of the most curial people out there, I don't think we are ready for elections yet. 1 month proves nothing. Definitely before the summer though.

Hex said (and I know, I was the leader of it) that we thought the Curia was too obsessed with elections. That was the only arguement presented against them. The Curia has been steaming along just fine, most not even mentioning elections, no? Therefore, it is clearly not obsessed.

Originally Posted by Perikles

I'd support a 2/3 ratification amendment.

Interesting - time for a new thread!

**Wild Bill Kelso** · March 17, 2007, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Fabolous

Hex said (and I know, I was the leader of it) that we thought the Curia was too obsessed with elections. That was the only arguement presented against them. The Curia has been steaming along just fine, most not even mentioning elections, no? Therefore, it is clearly not obsessed.

But couldn't that be a product of Hex explicitily stating that it wouldn't go for staff elections? I think that as said earlier, something along the lines of 2/3rds (or something similiar) would be an acceptable ratification percent. Either way, a poor showing in a ratification vote should send the message that the person in question should resign or take drastic actions to recover the confidence of the citizens.

**the Black Prince** · March 17, 2007, 11:24 AM

i am not in favour of them. ever. it caused nothing but problems for the curia and the staff-curia relationship, and i do not see any benefit accrued from it that is not gained by the current method also.

no true elections would ever be able to take place here, the staff would not permit it, any election would merely be the hollow sham and empty elections we had under ON, and i see no point to that charade. In allowing staff to keep powers of appointment we would further devalue the elective process, which is additionally a process by its nature to time-wieldly to allow for rapid replacement of staff.

ratification allows for a fast system of replacing staff by appointments, but still allows the curia to weed out any unsuitable or unworthy candidates

**Fabolous** · March 17, 2007, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

i am not in favour of them. ever. it caused nothing but problems for the curia and the staff-curia relationship, and i do not see any benefit accrued from it that is not gained by the current method also.

They only have caused problems when staff resents them, which I doubt staff would currently.

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

no true elections would ever be able to take place here, the staff would not permit it, any election would merely be the hollow sham and empty elections we had under ON, and i see no point to that charade.

Surely the Curia supportive staff we have now would allow true elections?

**the Black Prince** · March 17, 2007, 11:37 AM

no sane staff would ever allow truely free elections, they'd lose all say and control over who joined the staff ranks, except by virtue of their own votes

**Fabolous** · March 17, 2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

no sane staff would ever allow truely free elections, they'd lose all say and control over who joined the staff ranks, except by virtue of their own votes

Isn't that kind of the idea behind elections? The people decide who gets the "power" as opposed to be people in "power" deciding who gets the "power"?

Why would they not allow that? Unless their own "power" is all they concern themselves with, but that cannot be true. In this new Curia of importance to how the site is run must have some sort of freedom to give "power" to who it sees fit.

**Silver Guard** · March 17, 2007, 11:46 AM

Exactly, in the present situation I see no reason to limit Curial influence over the forums. If the staff don't like it, tough, this is no longer the dictatorship of Archer, they can vote the way they like it.

**Shaun** · March 17, 2007, 12:24 PM

Well, has the Curia ever elected a useless moderator before?

**the Black Prince** · March 17, 2007, 12:37 PM

if you wish to take line of argument, the curia ratified Honor&Glory.

but it helps that the curia never properly elected anyone in a free election. candidates were always vetoed or shortlisted by staff so that only staff approved people got in. previous evidence is hardly supportive here

**Silver Guard** · March 17, 2007, 12:47 PM

Ratified is the important word there tBP. Maybe its time we produced our own evidence then? Give it a go, we can hardly destroy the forum with a vote.

**Perikles** · March 17, 2007, 12:52 PM

The question is not whether the Curia can elect, it is whether the Curia can elect the best candidates sometimes. This is not the only reason, but one of many.

If we were going to have an election system i would run it like this:

1)Moderating Chief opens nomination thread in the Curia.
2)Candidates must be nominated/supported by one exisiting moderating staff member and 2 Citizens (or patricians) to qualify for the elections
3)After a week the candidates with enough support go through to the vote.

This way the staff and Patricians get a say over things and the candidate must be seen as suitable by both.

**Justinian** · March 17, 2007, 01:04 PM

As one of the very few people who was actually elected to moderator position in a REAL election, here's my view. To get noticed, nominated, seconded and elected requires a certain amount of unavoidable electioneering because you are running against other people. There are some who think the only way to win is to tell people why they should not vote for one of their opponents. It's not all about you, it's about how you are a superior candidate than the others, so you, not them, should be elected.

Now, it's completely different in a ratification. You're not running against anyone else; it's a simple yes/no vote. You have to justify your position by your actions, not by anyone else's. You need to be capable of doing a good job, which staff can see more than Curia, to be chosen by the staff. Then, to be ratified by the Curia, you need to be visibly doing a good job.

That is why the ratification system is infinitely better than election. Election is a measurement of how you think someone WILL do; ratification is a measurement of how they HAVE done and how they will. And electioneering is useless in a ratification.

**Kagemusha** · March 17, 2007, 03:32 PM

I agree with Justinian.Ratification is a better way to proceed then having Elections for each Moderator and by that completely hamper the staffs ability to create their moderation team. We have to remember that the best or most popular invidual is not always the best team player and can in worst case wreck the team completely.