(Moved to Vote)Ratification Amendment

[Fabolous]

Propser: Fabolous
Supporters: Perikles, the Black Prince, Silver Guard

Ratification

When a member has been duly appointed as a Staff Officer, and where required, ratified by his branch, the Speaker of the House shall post a poll in the Curia Votes forum. The Speaker shall state which position the member has been appointed to, and that they have been ratified by their colleagues if appropriate. The vote shall last for one week, and the member shall be ratified if they receive a simple two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes.

I think the rationale for this is simple and logical. A simple majority is nearly impossible to lose on, in the current climate. 2/3rds mean there is actually a chance if someone is doing a poor job that they might be voted out.

[Perikles]

Supportification.

[Spiff]

I don't really like the sounds of this considering the Curia only sees the 'tip of the iceberg' with regard to staff activity, it can be hard to vote with all relevant facts and therefore fairly. In that respect i don't think think the standard should be as high as 2/3, it seems unreasonably harsh since the majority of the "reasonable" staff members actions will be for the most part hidden in the moderator forum and therefore not to be used by Citizens as the basis of forming a judgement.

To me it seems like there is already a situation whereby the Curia may only be fully aware of a moderators faults when his positive effects remain hidden, i don't think tipping the balance any further against them will solve anything.

[Fabolous]

I don't really like the sounds of this considering the Curia only sees the 'tip of the iceberg' with regard to staff activity, it can be hard to vote with all relevant facts and therefore fairly. In that respect i don't think think the standard should be as high as 2/3, it seems unreasonably harsh since the majority of the "reasonable" staff members actions will be for the most part hidden in the moderator forum and therefore not to be used by Citizens as the basis of forming a judgement.

To me it seems like there is already a situation whereby the Curia may only be fully aware of a moderators faults when his positive effects remain hidden, i don't think tipping the balance any further against them will solve anything.

First, I'd refer you to tBP's post.

On a second note, I'd hardly say two-thirds is unreasonably harsh. The last set of ratifications proved that. Further, two-thirds is widely accepted by the constituion as the Curia's will. Two-thirds to become Opifex. Two-thirds to become divus. Two-thirds to pass a bill. Two-thirds to pass a decision. Why only 50+1 to become staff?

[Garbarsardar]

First, I'd refer you to tBP's post.

On a second note, I'd hardly say two-thirds is unreasonably harsh. The last set of ratifications proved that. Further, two-thirds is widely accepted by the constituion as the Curia's will. Two-thirds to become Opifex. Two-thirds to become divus. Two-thirds to pass a bill. Two-thirds to pass a decision. Why only 50+1 to become staff?

Why would we want all votes to be the same percentage? There is a reason Civitates votes have a different percent than legislation which has a different percent that Divus and Opifex. They are votes on different things!

I'm happy that you changed your mind. No more different votes on different things, right?

[Fabolous]

I'm happy that you changed your mind. No more different votes on different things, right?

Yeah, I was damn wrong. As we grow we learn.

[the Black Prince]

i think your post is misdirected, Spiff

the majority of ratifications will be for new front line moderators, so there won't be any work in the moderators den for the curia to judge on.

its rather pointless to say we can't see what a moderator is doing, if the candidate in question has never been a mod before!

i imagine the curia looks at moire character factors in assessing whether a person is able to moderate with ease and competence and without bias.

all thinks considered, i think this is a good move, and will support. promotion to all other ranks, indeed almost all curial votes are on the basis of a 2/3rds majority. I think it is fair to say that if over a third of the citizens has a problem with a person holding that rank, then that person probabl does have some issues that need addressing first


perhaps Spiff, there is also a case for making moderators actions more transparent. there was a time when the moderators handbook was openly available, and it was not overly difficult to see if a mod was being overly severe or overly lenient.

[Silver Guard]

I support, theres your three Fab

[Justinian]

I also support. There should be a single voting requirement for everything the Curia is involved in. Consistency makes everything much simpler, and considering that a 2/3 requirement is already in place for nearly every Curial action, it should also be in place for this.

[the Black Prince]

citizens vote is different though.... its a CdeC vote, not a vote of the whole curia... though i opposed the reduction from 66 to 60% in the CdeC and would be quite happy to see it bought back

[Tom Paine]

Can we just stop the *****ing, you two? I don't care whose to blame... but jesus...

Anyways. I support; 1/3 is a rather large number, and if that substantial a proportion of people disagree with someone holding a rank, especially the Council, one really needs to stop and think, in all cases. (I better check what I got, eh?)

[Garbarsardar]

I support this amendment.

[Simetrical]

I oppose. The Curia does not get to see the staff forums. It doesn't have enough basis to judge anyone, majority or supermajority. If you want to have confirmation for anyone, let it be the Council . . . people vote for executives and legislators, not police officers or contractors.

citizens vote is different though.... its a CdeC vote, not a vote of the whole curia... though i opposed the reduction from 66 to 60% in the CdeC and would be quite happy to see it bought back

It was 75%, which is higher than almost any other standard in the constitution.

[Mímirswell]

people vote for executives and legislators, not police officers or contractors.

Simetrical must be my clone...

[Garbarsardar]

If you want to have confirmation for anyone, let it be the Council . . . people vote for executives and legislators, not police officers or contractors.

Apparently they do and soon on both sides of the pond...

Anyway we are talking about a ratification of the choices of Staff. So the point of the Curia being able to see staff forum is moot since at the time of the ratification, junior moderators have not even posted there.

And mind you, very few people failed a ratification vote. I think even H&G passed one.

[Tom Paine]

But the moderation staff are confirmed before they moderate anything, on the basis of temperament and similar attributes, not on the basis of their moderation actions, Sim. The point is pretty moot.

[Spiff]

But the moderation staff are confirmed before they moderate anything, on the basis of temperament and similar attributes, not on the basis of their moderation actions, Sim. The point is pretty moot.

But similarly, many of the current staff are not first time members - you yourself left then came back within a relatively short time.

[Denny Crane!]

But similarly, many of the current staff are not first time members - you yourself left then came back within a relatively short time.

1. Popularism around moderation is a highly flawed concept as I said above, for many many reasons

2. Some are new, some came back but it doesn't invalidate the point.

[Spiff]

I was agreeing with you.. i think..

[Denny Crane!]

I was agreeing with you.. i think..