Ministers validate(or grant) ascensions
-
Outlined below are two potential changes to how rank ascensions are handled.
Rank ascensions are handled by the Ministry.
Noble seeking rank up submits application to the Ministry.
The Minister of Lore reviews realm lore and provides an approval or denial of the petition.
The Minister of Infrastructure review realm builds and provides an approval or denial of the petition.
If both Ministers approve, petition is accepted and rank up is granted, otherwise, the petition is declined and rank up is not granted.If granted, there will be a time period for any noble to call a veto vote wherein the community can revoke the approval.
The main change here is that the ministries are mandated to validate requirements and then grant ascension or not and the community at large need only get involved if they believe the ministry has errantly granted approval.
Rank ascensions are reviewed by the Ministry.
Noble seeking rank up submits motion as current.
The Minister of Lore reviews realm lore and either recommends approval or denial of motion.
The Minister of Infrastructure review realm builds and either recommends approval or denial of motion.
Community votes on motion as current.The main change here is that the ministries are mandated to validate requirements.
-
im in favor of the first proposal
-
I am also in favor of the first proposal
-
I am in favor of the second more than the first
-
I am in favor of the first proposal.
-
I like the first, but it also feels dangerous to let two people decide an entire ascension. I'd like to also add the ability, if the people are willing, to veto a NO vote, and to allow an individual to ascend.
I think it would also be beneficial to have an initial petition, where the ministers can review, and if they have any critiques--- allow the person petitioning a grace period to make corrections and improvements before being denied or accepted.
I believe the minister in office should also set their standards--- perhaps influenced through some sort of community vote or discussion. To avoid too high or too low of standards, as we all build in different ways, at different levels of ability.
-
I'm fine with having a few people from the ministry do the checking and provide a recommendation. That is something aron and I did for mouths application and can help for people who don't have time to visit or read all the lore themselves.
But I am STRONGLY against taking away the popular vote. Having a few people control ascensions was a problem on hermertia, and it seems extremely dumb to make it possible to become a problem here.
-
@Alric The biggest different here compared to the other server is that there we had no recourse. Here we still have the popular vote as backup if the ministers are not acting in good faith.
-
If the goal of this bill is to address apathy in the voting pool, removing their responsibilities to check things will make it LESS likely to catch bad ascensions. This applies to actually noticing in time for the vote, and for bad faith issues.
If this is NOT about addressing apathy, and we expect every member to pay attention and veto bad ascensions or vote people out of office, then its consolidating power for the sake of consolidating power. I don't think this is a good idea.
-
I prefer the second
-
@Alric The issue is that there isnt a way to address apathy - its a cultural thing and is largely influenced by people's IRL activities. By putting the responsibility on two ministers as a part of their job it, at the very minimum, means eyes on are the builds and the lore. The veto is just to have a fail safe in case, but to have the system revolve around hoping that everyone looks at the builds has gotten us into trouble more than once.
This proposal is more so to address that fact that basically no eyes are ever on anyones ascension stuff - apathy is a whole other issue that is related to this but not the point of this specific motion.
-
@LawnBoy072 That is just not true. I know for a fact that I visit other places and check them out, and I know of several others that do as well, or at least say they do.
-
Ive visited every place before a vote. I don't see why we can't just have ministers do a recommendation while keeping the current vote system.
-
@bryson3842 I am glad that you and several others with an abundance of free time can visit realms when they seek ascension (seriously I am glad some people are able to do it), but we need to in some way guarantee we have eyes on the builds which we dont have right now. Either one of these proposals do that - I just happen to like the one where the Ministers decide first, is all.
-
@LawnBoy072 I don't really have an abundance of free time rn, but if someone is going for a rank up, I make the time to come look around. I sacrifice my own build time for it. I would and likely will vote no on only ministers doing this.
