A Bicameral Vision

[Erich von Manstein]

After a long discussion with Prof following yesterday's incident in the Q&S, I have come to realize that he did raise a good point, albeit flawed in presentation. The Curia, while increasing in membership, still represents only a fraction of the entire TWC community. As Prof pointed out, large numbers of important modders are being left out of any role in the decision-making process. I think the original difficulty that was encountered in the patronization of grumpyoldman was a perfect case in point. So far a few ideas have been introduced that would theoretically resolve this dilemma but they range from a complete enfranchisement of the entire community in the Curia to, well, really no change of all. Desiring to see some changes made but without a complete shift away from the elitism that has, for better or worse, made this community the place it is today, I present my vision of a bicameral solution.

While my European brethren may not have as much experience with bicameral legislatures, they are quite prevalent here in the United States. Their advantage is that they give no single group complete control, in the grand tradition of checks and balances. Their main problem is that they, well, give no single group complete control. In other words, the perfect solution if you want to give everyone a vote without completely revoking the privileges of those up at the top. In this version, I envision a lower house and an upper house (we can worry about spiffy names later). The lower house is to consist of the entire membership that is not part of the TWC citizenry. Those who have been a member of the site for a certain period of time (I'm leaning towards one month) are automatically given access to the lower house. Here they may propose, dicuss, and vote on bills of their own making. Since there will be no rank system in this lower house it will be necessary for some of the Curia's current rules to be slightly modified for them; for instance, a bill requires the named support of [insert random number here] members before moving to a vote. Any bill that acquires a 2/3 majority of "yes" votes does not become a part of the Constitution, but moves onto the upper house.

This upper house will consist of the entire citizenry of TWC, much like the current incarnation of the Curia. Indeed, it will really be an exact replica - I don't see any need to change anything. The only difference will be that any bills passed by the lower house will be sent here and a 2/3 majority of "yes" votes will be necessary to make that bill into law.

That being said, there is one important caveat. While bills must pass upwards, they are not required to pass downwards. We still want to reward Citizens for their contributions to the site. Therefore, if a bill is proposed in the upper house and receives a 2/3 majority, it becomes law, regardless of whether it has been in the lower house or not. The only bills that require bicameral support or those that are proposed in the lower house. The upper house still retains much of the control of the legislature, the primary difference from the current system being that all non-citizens now have a voice in the running of TWC.



Obviously this is a rough outline and quite a few of the particulars need to be filled in. As such, this is not a proposal...yet. I'm hoping to get people's opinions and suggestions on how to improve it or if it is even worth being crafted into a formal proposal. Let me know what you think

[deRougemont]

Support.

This is a sound concept Manstein.

1.) It eliminates issue of the total powerlessness of non-Citizens, while at the same time protecting all of the prerogatives of citizenship.

2.) It would be relatively easy to implement on a technical level, as the lower house is an adjunct to upper house, rather than extra stumbling block for the current objective of organizing the structure of the upper house (lord knows we have a lot to figure out up here).

3.) Theoretically, this concept could draw in lots of otherwise unrecognized or uninterested non-citizens to the Capitol, where they could be recognized for their solid activity there with citizenship. It would encourage them to get involved with the site in a manner that simply isn't possible with them right now. In my opinion this could be the greatest benefit of such a structure, though it may seem tertiary to the main objective.

4.) Perhaps the Symposium could find new raison d'etre by becoming the forum for a new lower house at the Capitol?

Having said that, I wonder if this will be enough to satisfy the modders who are dissatisfied with the current system. Do we have any way to gage what they think? Will they simply reject this idea as well? Some people - some groups - can't be placated. I'm really not sure exactly what they want in the first place, so this should be briefly clarified here.

[kshcshbash]

In the event of it actually counting for something, I'd support it.
How long have you had this under your belt?
In my eyes, the main strength is how it gives the non-citizenry power, without taking it away from the Citizens. Pareto Efficiency is the word (I think)

[Aristophanes]

How much of a sense do we have that non-citizens actually want this?


Steps to decision-making:

1.Identify/Know
2.Analyze:

1. Select decision criteria
2. Consider Options

3.Decide
4.Implement
5.Evaluate/Assess

I hate the idea that we'd be doing this merely to placate Prof.

[Scorch]

If you draft a proposal to the like of this idea I would support it 100%

I think it strikes the perfect balance between letting the plebs have their say and reserving the higher power for Citizens.

P.S. OMGWTFBBQ?!?!?! DeRougemont and I agree? That only happens "when the moons are full, the rain falls, the seas run red, and it's M'aiq's birthday."

[Erich von Manstein]

I'm glad this has generated so much feedback already...keep it coming!

Just as a note, this isn't a formal proposal. I was hoping to generate some discussion on the idea to see if it was worthy of a formal proposal. This is still in the discussion stage, which is why seeing all of these comments is great - it's what I'm looking for.

I hate the idea that we'd be doing this merely to placate Prof.

I assure you, this idea was sparked by a conversation I had with Prof but I didn't write it out with him in mind. Hell, I just spoke to him now and he's against the idea for the same reasons Garb is. Which brings me to the big question: where'd the last incarnation of this go wrong? Were the problems faced by the last system of the type that would persist despite modifications? Or were they flaws that, if removed, would not get in the way of a workable system? I suppose that's my biggest issue at the moment - figuring out whether the problems faced by the last system could be resolved or not if this was given another shot.

[Garbarsardar]

where'd the last incarnation of this go wrong?

I think it failed for two reasons apart from the numbers issue that Tac already mentioned.

The first is that the Upper house has an inherent membership problem; it is frankly antiquated. A lifeline as the one you propose will yield only short term results...

The second is a more important reason of a more subtle and psychological nature. No one likes to play in the minor leagues when there is a major league around.

Now if participation in the minor league would be a criterion for ascendence to the "majors" then we bump again in the discrepancy between citizenship and Civitateship namely the one between a club and a participatory decision making process.

If we demand participation in the lower house to be criterion for admittance to the upper one, then we have to split the ranks...for obvious reasons.

[Plutarch]

I was tossing this idea around in the other thread, but i called it a General Assembly.(see post 49 under the "Open Curia to all" thread.) I support this measure Manstein

[Arakorn]

Me too, although I only mentioned it in threads such as auto promotion.

I like it, and support, but I think that rather than making the limit 1 month, it should be more like 3 or 6 months.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I like it - it makes a lot of sense.

Having said that, I wonder if this will be enough to satisfy the modders who are dissatisfied with the current system. Do we have any way to gage what they think? Will they simply reject this idea as well? Some people - some groups - can't be placated. I'm really not sure exactly what they want in the first place, so this should be briefly clarified here

I wouldn't worry so much about the modders as a specific group, we have a much bigger problem which is that only about 16% of active citizens actually vote. This would give us a route by which we can attract and identify people who want to become active in the curia and running the site.

[Garbarsardar]

Well, there was a bicameral system (Patricians/Civitates) and it was a bloody failure. That is why Civitates were permitted again in the Curia.

What we need is to re-define the whole game.

Make a separate rank for people who contribute by posting or modding and another for the people who want to contribute in the governance of the forum.

Nothing is stopping anyone from having both ranks, but the criteria should be separate.

Exactly as Curia is separate from the Symposium.

[Perikles]

Well, there was a bicameral system (Patricians/Civitates) and it was a bloody failure. That is why Civitates were permitted again in the Curia.

Agreed, however much I can try and like this idea and can't see it working. A system as proposed in the other thread is more realistic. In a perfect world and in real life this system works, but to use the oft used phrase 'this is just an internet forum' and any form of complexification such as this may look good on paper, but in practice is doomed to fail.

[Shaun]

What we need is to re-define the whole game.

Make a separate rank for people who contribute by posting or modding and another for the people who want to contribute in the governance of the forum.

What, like Artifex and Civitate?

[Aristocrat]

The problem with the last Bicameral system was that the numbers simply were not there to sustain two 'houses', at least that is how I perceive it.

Your idea has merit though Garb, as it does what myself, and I believe Tac and Prof, have been shooting for, it opens up the oppurtunity for all to freely participate in the curia, without any of the (to be blunt) elitist ******** that becomes quite tedious when anyone brings any thought of change.

I'm not saying all opposed are guilty of this, some are, some aren't, and some who are also have points...it is the ones who are opposed simply because they have the rank is what rankles people.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

there was also another much more fundamental reason why the last version was a failure - it wasn't ever really expected to work as described, it was supposed to save the Curia from destruction.

The only reason it was implemented was as a sop to ON, to stop them closing the curia totally (which they were about to do).

This time we have a real chance of making it work

[Cymera]

My point exactly Shaun. Is that not the difference between Civitates and Artifexs? There are those, like deRougemont who participate in both modding and discussion, however, most Artifexs seem to spend more time modding then haggling over policies in the Curia.

Forgive me if this sounds completely ignorant, but is everyone here certain that there is even a problem? Does the rest of TWC really want part of this political wrangling?

If more experienced and senior members can say for certain that there IS a problem. Then we can put all of our efforts into discovering a solution.

[Erich von Manstein]

Forgive me if this sounds completely ignorant, but is everyone here certain that there is even a problem? Does the rest of TWC really want part of this political wrangling?

I don't think that there will ever be a real problem, as in the masses rising up in revolt or anything like that. There is a problem, however, in what we're missing out on. Look at members like grumpyoldman. Despite having a few dozen posts he managed to singlehandedly make perhaps the greatest contribution to the M2TW community that we've seen yet. We had people nominating him for Opifex...and yet he didn't even qualify for Artifex under the Constitution. As Prof wisely pointed out, the modding community is the lifeblood of TWC. Without it, TWC would be what it was at the time of its creation: a small group of friends discussing various issues. Modders aren't known for having high post counts (unless they're like Lusted and are actively involved in the CC and the site administration as well). Many modders don't qualify for citizenship under the Constitution despite doing more for the game (and the site) than quite a few of us who are citizens (myself included, as I've never touched this game's code). If we want this site to continue growing then we need to give these modders a say in how the site is run. Having Publis and Halie Satanus as admins has given them represenation in the Hex, but it is only proper that they have representation in the legislative aspect of the site as well.

[Cymera]

True sir, however who is to say they give a damn? I am close to two very active modders. Dimebagho and Rammstein. I know for a fact, that they do not give a crap (To put it so bluntly) about what happens to this site, as long as they have their little corner of the forums.

I believe whole-heartedly that they deserve recognition. But, should they not be consulted if they are at all interested in the politics and governing of this site?

They should be allowed to have a say, and they are, those interested, typically have a higher post count, more participation in the discussions that go around here (see deRougemont {Apologies sir, you seem to be my example for the day })

Those who do not participate elsewhere in the site, logically do not have that much of an interest in how it is run. Bear in mind that I am only playing the devil's advocate. I believe that your proposal has merit, but it may be unnecessary.

*sigh* I can recall a time when I was enthusiastic about the Curia, now it is more of a responsibility, then a joy.

[Perikles]

*sigh* I can recall a time when I was enthusiastic about the Curia, now it is more of a responsibility, then a joy.

Terminal Curial boredom setting in already? That is meant to happen for months yet...

Why would Plebs even bother to debate that is the thing, I wouldn't bother if I was them, knowing the Civitates will do t for me. Or even if they do they will get promoted to the Curia, rendering the 'Lower House' useless.. Personally I'd just bring them into the Curia, a lot simpler, less bureaucratic too.

[Hotspur]

The only problem I have with a bicameral setup is that it would lead to a "brain drain" in the lower house. If a member is active in the lower house, they are going to get patronized right quick and move to the Curia. As the active members move to the Curia, the lower house will lose importance to the point of being useless. That's why I support allowing everybody into the Curia, but in graduated steps:

Peregrinus - Registered member

Plebeian - Automatically awarded after 3 months & 300 posts (brevity is the soul of wit) or a mod team member with at least one mod. Allowed to discuss all topics and vote on decisions and amendments.

Citizen - patronized Plebeian. Allowed to vote on appointments.

Patrician - remains as is.

I would also make two seats on the CdeC and one seat on the Tribunal available to civitates as a sort of trainee system.