Re: Who moderates the Proth?
As part of the curia in all but physical location, I presume it is entirely praefect jurisdiction. However, some clarity would be nice when it comes to the fact that the general membership can comment now - do the regular mods have jurisdiction over them, or do praefects act like normal mods at that point? It's not like a non-cit is going to be terribly concerned about a citizen's referral, and the system was certainly not designed with the open layout in mind.
Non-citizen support is meaningless in all but its ability to sway the people who can support/vote.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Thanks, Commodus. I echo the questions you raise. The Curia has never been a place where presumptions can be accepted and relied upon, hence the existence of the Constitution, which indeed requires amending to clarify exactly what the status of the Proth is as a "Curia forum".
And if, indeed, it is a "Curia forum" (one of course presumes it is), what additional rules, if any, govern it? Naturally, the "higher standards" apply to Citizens posting there, as the higher standards apply site-wide. Do they additionally apply to non-Citizens? Indeed, who is the arbiter?
It should be made clear that non-Citizen support of proposals is not to be counted towards the requirement needed for a proposal to move to vote. Or, if someone believes they should count, the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect that.
To me, it seems somewhat ridiculous that non-Citizens may have such a "front-and-centre" role in discussions in the Proth, when they themselves are not bound by the same rules as Citizens across the site, and, indeed, the proposals discussed relate to Citizens, and do not relate to non-Citizens.
It is obvious that there are members who choose not to be Citizens, whether they have refused patronage and/or renounced their Citizenship. Why does and why should the Curia be concerned with their opinions when they choose to shirk and look down upon our institution, at times even slandering the very concept of Citizenship and the Curia from within a "Curia forum"? Such members previously had a Curia Commentary Thread, which still exists in Questions & Suggestions.
I make no apology for being part of the "elitist Old Guard", and I find it abhorrent, honestly, that non-Citizens be allowed to have such privileges when they have refused the responsibility (i.e. Citizenship and its higher standards) attached to it.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
From my understanding, as the Proth used to be fully part of the Curia, moderation there is part of the duty of Praefects and Primus Praefect as fro the Curia itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution Art.II
Praefects are the full moderators of the Curia and its related fora.
7
It is also important to note thet the Consul acts as a Local Moderator in both Curia and Proth (for management purpose).
Regarding non-citizens posting their opinions about curial proposals, what's the point to have the Proth open for all if they can not express their opinions?
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Regarding non-citizens posting their opinions about curial proposals, what's the point to have the Proth open for all if they can not express their opinions
Presumably to shame them for their lack of rank :P
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lifthrasir
From my understanding, as the Proth used to be fully part of the Curia, moderation there is part of the duty of Praefects and Primus Praefect as fro the Curia itself.
It is also important to note thet the Consul acts as a Local Moderator in both Curia and Proth (for management purpose).
If both these things are as you say, then the Constitution requires amending, as the status of the Prothalamos is not clear at all in the document, currently. Only local moderation of the Curia is mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lifthrasir
Regarding non-citizens posting their opinions about curial proposals, what's the point to have the Proth open for all if they can not express their opinions?
Indeed, there would be no point. Hence, I don't believe they should be allowed to participate.
Not being able to vote, and not being able to even give binding-support (their support is non-binding as per the Constitution), the only possible reason they may post in the Proth is to receive their opinion. Why should they be able to give their opinion?: They are not Citizens. Most proposals and discussions in the Proth do not affect them at all. For the items that do affect them, or for the ones they feel a desire to comment on, they should use the CCT, or endeavour to become Citizens themselves. Having it both ways (not a Citizen but having the rights of a Citizen) seems farcical to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
Presumably to shame them for their lack of rank :P
As mentioned, most participants in the Proth who are not Citizens, are not Citizens by choice. So as far as I am concerned, the opposite is true; Citizenship being shamed, only directly now, instead of in the CCT like it used to be. If non-Citizens wish to participate in discussions which involve Citizenship and/or the privileges and responsibilities that come with the "rank", they can quite easily become Citizens like the rest of us. Let's not pretend that it's a ridiculously high bar; most members who participate without breaking the rules and/or being totally rude around the place will qualify given enough time to make enough interesting posts in the D&D, make a mod, join Staff, or contribute in all the other ways.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
I believe it's time for a proposal to move the proth back to the curia. :laughter:
In general I was always opposed to moving it, I can't remember who managed to sneak it out but I presume it was a clause added to a list of other clauses.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frunk
If both these things are as you say, then the Constitution requires amending, as the status of the Prothalamos is not clear at all in the document, currently. Only local moderation of the Curia is mentioned.
No, not only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution Art.II
Praefects are the full moderators of the Curia and its related fora.7
A simple addition to the footnote saying the the Proth is part of it would be good enough to make things crystal clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frunk
Indeed, there would be no point. Hence, I don't believe they should be allowed to participate.
Not being able to vote, and not being able to even give binding-support (their support is non-binding as per the Constitution), the only possible reason they may post in the Proth is to receive their opinion. Why should they be able to give their opinion?: They are not Citizens. Most proposals and discussions in the Proth do not affect them at all. For the items that do affect them, or for the ones they feel a desire to comment on, they should use the CCT, or endeavour to become Citizens themselves. Having it both ways (not a Citizen but having the rights of a Citizen) seems farcical to me.
The part I've boldered is actually the main issue with the Curia nowadays and already for a while imo. Since I'm a citizen, except for some awards creation, I haven't seen a single proposal for the betterment of the site, which is basically the original purpose of the Curia. Nowadays, the Cutria is just an office giving recognitions and awards. Nothing else. This thread is actually another example illustrating my point. We are here again discussing about who should and who shouldn't be involved in curial stuff. I'm not surprised to see that the potential candidates for citizenry aren't interested to get it.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frunk
Currently there are several members of different roles listed at the bottom of that forum; I assume at least in part due to the current changeover of Consul & Censors.
What role, if any, do the Praefects (Primus or otherwise) have in the Proth?
To echo Lifth here - The proth is very much a part of the Curia, and as such the Praefects are full moderators of it, as per the constitution. The currently listed moderators of the Proth bar Hex are all praefects, bar myself and my soon-to-be-added censors.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Specifically, a local moderator like the censors or curator doesn't (and cannot) enforce the ToS but a full moderator can enforce the ToS. Hence why praefects/the primus praefect needed moderation experience or understanding of the ToS.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
^^ That's only requiered for the Primus Praefect ;)
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
It may be a lot of reading, but that makes it the long answer to your questions I think Frunk. See this amendment and relevant discussion.
If that's too much, or doesn't answer it...let me know and I'll shortform answer here :P
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
z3n
I believe it's time for a proposal to move the proth back to the curia. :laughter:
If such proposal passed then the old Rostra subforum needs to be revived, otherwise Hader Curial Overhaul proposal wouldn't be operational.
Besides, any amendment to the constitution could be posted in the Curial Changes subforum, but is currently inactive due for being read-only.
So, open up the Curial Changes subforum could be beneficial for the Curia when any citizen wants to propose an amendment to the constitution and I think it is time to separate curia related discussions/proposals inside the Curia and not using the Prothamalos.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Clean up and reboot of that section might not be a bad idea given potential discussion may include more than just the word of constitution or specific this and that.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hader
It may be a lot of reading, but that makes it the long answer to your questions I think Frunk. See
this amendment and relevant discussion.
If that's too much, or doesn't answer it...let me know and I'll shortform answer here :P
I skimmed but lack the context to understand what, exactly, triggered the Amendment, and why it was all lumped into one Amendment rather than several.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frunk
If both these things are as you say, then the Constitution requires amending, as the status of the Prothalamos is not clear at all in the document, currently. Only local moderation of the Curia is mentioned.
No. I believe the constitution need a major revision, because a lot of amendments have been added there since 2007. And I wonder, has a revision ever occur since then.
I haven't been active in the Curia for more than 1-2 years, but there are others who are still citizens and fairly active might know.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
I magnanimously put up my hand to be Hex of the Proth.
Re: Who moderates the Proth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frunk
I skimmed but lack the context to understand what, exactly, triggered the Amendment, and why it was all lumped into one Amendment rather than several.
Well you might have to do more than skimming to really get it all unfortunately, I recommend getting some hot cocoa and sitting down for that read. :P
But for something a little more brief: I broached the idea in hex of coming together to come up with something more substantial, and from hex, to help the curia. The hope was to have enough worthwhile changes as well as having the backing of all of hex (or at least all the most active hex at the time) to give it substance and weight. The point of doing it all together instead of separate amendments was simply the idea that all components of it needed to happen and work together for the overall intent of the bill to have any potential of being realized. The only component not kept in the final version was one I didn't get to flesh out enough, and about the only one that could work without the rest of the bill. Aside from that though, it would have been of little use to pass half the components on their own separately, and have others fail, liking opening the proth for instance.
