Op-Ed: Do we have too many Honoured Citizens?

---

---

Op-Ed: Do we have too many Honoured Citizens?
President who nominated two Honoured Citizens says "No"
Written by JayDee​

---

---

When Calvin Coolidge opened the discussion So, About Renaming the Forums for Honoured Citizens… in his capacity as Administrator, it gave way to the issue of possibly having too many Honoured Citizens. This discussion was brought to the limelight in the aftermath of Rand and Kazaman’s Ovation ceremonies and Vor’s Triumph which followed shortly after. In another thread, Honoured Citizen Aexnidaral joked that “at this rate you’ll just be grandfathered in to Honoured Citizenship after 6 months here.”

While made in jest, it was also meant as a jab at the string of Presidents, myself included, who had been making HC nominations. This year in particular saw several nominations confirmed, across five Presidents there were four citizens nominated and subsequently confirmed - two of those nominations being mine. Those four citizens will bring the total count of Honoured Citizens to 30 once Vor is officially Triumphed. For the sake of simplicity, I will not be counting former Honoured Citizens. With 127 current citizens both active and inactive, that means 24% of our population is made up of Honoured Citizens; nearly a quarter of our voting population is Honoured Citizens, people who could pop in after years of absence and vote for a random stranger in the next Presidential election. However, is there really that many Honoured Citizens?

At first glance you could make an argument for yes or for no. With nearly a quarter of our citizens being Honoured, that would suggest that we have too many, but across Europeia’s 17 year history that would mean that an average of less than two individuals are nominated per year. Of course, as most of us know, the Honoured Citizen was not a thing way back in 2007, Honoured Citizenship was not established until sometime in 2010. The first record we have of an individual being Ovated is Asperta who’s Ovation was confirmed by the Senate on December 5, 2010. That raises the average slightly from 1.76 to 2.31 citizens being nominated per year. However, if we count the three who’s Honoured Citizenship was stripped that would raise the average to 2.54 citizens per year across the history of its existence.

Customarily, but not super consistently, a president will wait until the end of their term to nominate a person for an ovation. That means there are typically 5 or 6 opportunities for a President to nominate someone and of those approximately half those opportunities will be used. Of course, this is not always observed, such as my own nomination of Vor which took place during Honoured Citizens Day. These are a lot of numbers with some historical merit, but what about the Honoured Citizens themselves? Yes they could simply waltz in to run and/or vote in an election, but how many are currently active? While “active” may be hard to define, of the current Honoured Citizens I would count that seventeen are truly actively engaged with Europeia with another three who pop in and out or could become active again soon. So let’s make that twenty who might vote in an election, though a few of those have openly stated that they don’t. That would bring the voting population down to 117, of which 20 are Honoured Citizens which makes up 17% or less than a fifth.

Confusing numbers aside, these statistics don’t really account for fluctuations in the number of individuals Honoured in a given year nor do they provide any data for whether or not the number has been increasing as of late. Perhaps we’re well on our way to having too many or perhaps we just have a lot of catching up to do with citizens who are arguably worthy of an Ovation. However, at present, I would argue that we really don’t have that many Honoured Citizens and I doubt that there will be a concerning trend developing anytime in the near future. My main concern is whether or not we've Honoured individuals who were not deserving, and again I would argue that we haven't. So no, there aren't too many Honoured Citizens in Europeia.

A/N: No there will be no more Ovations or Triumphs during this term or a possible third term.

 

[Olde Delaware]

No, because I'm not ovated yet

 

[PhDre]

The politics of nominating and confirming Honored Citizenship has changed over time.

At the beginning of the program, we can imagine a backlog of players who "deserve" the role, and we cleared this backlog at some pace (the pace of nominations historically and more recently would have been a useful inclusion in this article). More recent nominations are arguably less likely to fall within the "backlog" role and are nominated once whoever is President finds themselves willing to nominate and perceived a candidate to have crossed the threshold.

Is this threshold lower for more recent nominees that historically? I would argue yes because nominees from the backlog were often continuing to contribute to the region while "waiting" for a President to decide it was appropriate to submit another nomination.

Are more recent nominees resulting in "too many" Honored Citizens? I think this is a few questions wrapped into one:

• Do recent nominees deserve to be Honored Citizens? Compared to who?
• Do non active players who are not HC deserve to be Honored Citizens?
• What is the long term consequence of our pace of nominations? Are players being nominated as soon as they hit the threshold? What is the threshold?
• Is our HC reward of being able to be a citizen in perpetuity appropriate? Does the answer to this question change depending on our perspective on the previous questions?

I'm mobile only ATM so I won't expand too much on my questions but my sense is that it is incredibly difficult for the Senate not to confirm an HC, and that the gatekeeper is the Presidential nomination. I also believe that there is some cost associated with nominations that aren't perceived to be high quality which makes non active members very hard to nominate even though there are inactive members who "deserve" the honor if we are thinking from a resume perspective.

Finally I would take the (probably unpopular) side that yes we probably do have too many HC. I don't think 4 players "crossed the threshold" in 2023 and I don't expect 2.5-4 players to "cross the threshold" in 2024. But as previously stated, it is hard politically and Not Fun for the Senate to shoot down nominees so I expect the gatekeeper to continue to be whether the President decides to nominate or not.

Some idle thoughts.

Edit: another q is whether it even makes sense to have this process if it is going to be entirely rewarding "crossing the threshold" because so much time and attention will be spend debating or thinking about what the threshold is instead of just doing stuff for the region. Perhaps another unpopular opinion but this process was "better" when it was clearing the backlog and serves a different purpose in the modern era than it did when introduced.

 

[Sincluda]

Not Fun for the Senate to shoot down nominees

anonymous voting on hc(/cabinet?) votes

 

[PhDre]

Not Fun for the Senate to shoot down nominees

anonymous voting on hc(/cabinet?) votes

That could be interesting - my initial reaction to cabinet anonymous voting is that understanding who is opposed and why is pretty important for the citizenry and helps them understand political actions (even though it's infrequent for candidates to be rejected). Also voting can be an opportunity for senators to score political points or argue for certain positions. I'd be worried that moving to an anonymous voting system for Cabinet votes would obscure a lot for not much benefit if any.

The downside of the vote being anonymous for the HC is the entire event becomes a political spectacle even more than it is now ("who voted against and why").

 

[Sopo]

I have less issues with the total number of honored citizens than when we get too many nominees in rapid succession. It makes the celebrations less meaningful when you're third in line in a manner of months, and it makes people less likely to participate in any meaningful way. Imo, more than two per year is too many.

The only time I recall meaningful pushback on a nomination was hyanygo's first nomination, which did ultimately fail. I have raised questions in the past about whether the bar was too low, or whether things like admin work count - I argued pretty vigorously against Darcness's nomination on the grounds that admin work shouldn't. But ultimately trying to deny someone the region's highest honor when it's already been announced is generally a dick move, so, as PhDre said, we basically rely on the president to appropriately vet people.

 

[Ervald]

I have less issues with the total number of honored citizens than when we get too many nominees in rapid succession. It makes the celebrations less meaningful when you're third in line in a manner of months, and it makes people less likely to participate in any meaningful way. Imo, more than two per year is too many.

The only time I recall meaningful pushback on a nomination was hyanygo's first nomination, which did ultimately fail. I have raised questions in the past about whether the bar was too low, or whether things like admin work count - I argued pretty vigorously against Darcness's nomination on the grounds that admin work shouldn't. But ultimately trying to deny someone the region's highest honor when it's already been announced is generally a dick move, so, as PhDre said, we basically rely on the president to appropriately vet people.

I am wondering if maybe part of the issue is that it is always announced in a speech, usually in the end of the term address? You give this grand speech to nominate someone for an Ovation and it makes it look really bad if you want to deny them the Ovation. Maybe it would be more appropriate for presidents to just simply nominate someone for an Ovation to the Senate in the Swakistek Conference Hall giving X and Y reason why and if that nominee is confirmed, the president can give a nice speech in honor of them at the actual Ovation.

 

[PhDre]

I have less issues with the total number of honored citizens than when we get too many nominees in rapid succession. It makes the celebrations less meaningful when you're third in line in a manner of months, and it makes people less likely to participate in any meaningful way. Imo, more than two per year is too many.

The only time I recall meaningful pushback on a nomination was hyanygo's first nomination, which did ultimately fail. I have raised questions in the past about whether the bar was too low, or whether things like admin work count - I argued pretty vigorously against Darcness's nomination on the grounds that admin work shouldn't. But ultimately trying to deny someone the region's highest honor when it's already been announced is generally a dick move, so, as PhDre said, we basically rely on the president to appropriately vet people.

I am wondering if maybe part of the issue is that it is always announced in a speech, usually in the end of the term address? You give this grand speech to nominate someone for an Ovation and it makes it look really bad if you want to deny them the Ovation. Maybe it would be more appropriate for presidents to just simply nominate someone for an Ovation to the Senate in the Swakistek Conference Hall giving X and Y reason why and if that nominee is confirmed, the president can give a nice speech in honor of them at the actual Ovation.

The pressure the Senate feels (imo) will not change based on whether the fancy speech occurs before or after the vote to ovate. Rather the arguments that must be made against ovating are inherently uncomfortable and can result in ugliness. This is a problem that was less apparent when we were clearing the "backlog" of candidates for nomination and more apparent as we (in theory) are ovating candidates soon after they cross the "threshold" of who is deserving. Again though, our nomination process / the concept of HC also biases us necessarily towards active players and makes it so that candidates who are inactive don't have the title (even if their resumes deserve it).

As I've previously stated I consider myself not super motivated by validation through awards so maybe my perspective on HC is colored by this. I also wonder if perpetual citizenship is an appropriate reward but that opens a can of worms that might not be enjoyable, in the same way that rejecting a HC isn't enjoyable.

 

[PhDre]

I have less issues with the total number of honored citizens than when we get too many nominees in rapid succession. It makes the celebrations less meaningful when you're third in line in a manner of months, and it makes people less likely to participate in any meaningful way. Imo, more than two per year is too many.

With JayDee's two nominations in two terms, that's a rate of 5.2 ovations/year. If JayDee were to serve another term and not make another nomination his rate would be 3.45 ovations/year, which is IMO still quite high.

Concern about rate is ultimately both the responsibility of Presidents to not go trigger happy just because they can nominate, and the responsibility of the Senate to reject nominations if it decides the pace is too fast. I don't think the Senate is likely to do that but it is possible.

 

[Rand]

Imo, more than two per year is too many.

Time for a bureaucratic solution. On December 1st, we convene a council of all Presidents who served at least 35 days that year. They may then recommend up to two Ovation/Triumph nominations for that year, subject to Senate confirmation.

Before you roll your eyes at the complexity: How else would we restrict the supply of nominations without causing it to become a first-come, first-served clustermess?

 

[JayDee]

Imo, more than two per year is too many.

Time for a bureaucratic solution. On December 1st, we convene a council of all Presidents who served at least 35 days that year. They may then recommend up to two Ovation/Triumph nominations for that year, subject to Senate confirmation.

Before you roll your eyes at the complexity: How else would we restrict the supply of nominations without causing it to be a first-come, first-served clustermess?

Does this "Council" get a second chance if the Senate denies one of the nominees or is it a one chance sort of thing?

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

Imo, more than two per year is too many.

Time for a bureaucratic solution. On December 1st, we convene a council of all Presidents who served at least 35 days that year. They may then recommend up to two Ovation/Triumph nominations for that year, subject to Senate confirmation.

Before you roll your eyes at the complexity: How else would we restrict the supply of nominations without causing it to become a first-come, first-served clustermess?

I actually think this idea is pretty good! I'd support it.

 

[Cordova I]

Ignore this post. My quoting didn't work properly.

 

[Cordova I]

Imo, more than two per year is too many.

Time for a bureaucratic solution. On December 1st, we convene a council of all Presidents who served at least 35 days that year. They may then recommend up to two Ovation/Triumph nominations for that year, subject to Senate confirmation.

Before you roll your eyes at the complexity: How else would we restrict the supply of nominations without causing it to become a first-come, first-served clustermess?

I like this idea a lot.

 

[Lloenflys]

I also would support diversifying the HC nominations to a panel (the "presidents who served at least 35 days" option seems a good one but I could also see alternative options - but I have no objection to a presidential panel for this purpose).

 

[Sopo]

Imo, more than two per year is too many.

Time for a bureaucratic solution. On December 1st, we convene a council of all Presidents who served at least 35 days that year. They may then recommend up to two Ovation/Triumph nominations for that year, subject to Senate confirmation.

Before you roll your eyes at the complexity: How else would we restrict the supply of nominations without causing it to become a first-come, first-served clustermess?

Honestly not terrible? I wasn't necessarily angling for a solution, more just expressing my opinion, but if folks agree with limiting the number per year, this would make sense.

 

[Elio]

I think Rand's idea is a great one

 

[Aexnidaral]

I don't think we necessarily have *too many* but it does *feel* like lots have been awarded over the past year or so compared to what I was previously used to, which makes it *feel* like we've had too many recently.

Doing it via panel is an interesting solution. Obviously we should allow current Honored Citizens to vote on their inductees (/s)

 

[Lime]

Honestly a Presidential panel to nominate HCs sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[JayDee]

I'd be open to such an idea as well, but I don't think they should be at the same time. We can do it once every 180 days instead but only one person can be nominated instead.