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.
 
You could leave it to the chancellery to nominate. The OSC will naturally be very conservative with such nominations, and rightfully so.

Or maybe the vote is done by the OSC. Nominated by the president, voted by OSC.

OSC is non-political and can approach it in good faith without regard to popular opinion.
 
You could leave it to the chancellery to nominate. The OSC will naturally be very conservative with such nominations, and rightfully so.

Or maybe the vote is done by the OSC. Nominated by the president, voted by OSC.

OSC is non-political and can approach it in good faith without regard to popular opinion.
And (for better or worse) is virtually immune to political reprisal for an unpopular decision. But we're getting disturbingly close to an OOC decision rather than an IC one (as it is something that is difficult to have IC penalties for screwing up).
 
The last time we seriously talked about this issue, we course-corrected as a community and simply gave them out more sparingly. Not sure we need any special committee or council or anything.

That being said, a Commission of Former Presidents (or whatever you call it) is not a bad idea at all. I'm not averse to the idea of the OSC handling this too, but it may be more interesting to explore ideas like a combined commission. Maybe we can steal the old system used for seat-selection: the electoral panel. It was the sitting Speaker; the current Supreme Chancellor; and the President if I recall correctly.
 
I didn't think "we need more commissions" is something I'd be seeing this election cycle, but I must say this has truly been full of surprises.
 
I don't think we need the OSC's involvement tbh. Just less nominations - if that occurs via some end of year huddle among Presidents, sure that works.
 
I don't think we need the OSC's involvement tbh. Just less nominations - if that occurs via some end of year huddle among Presidents, sure that works.
Or we can do what we did last time and just give them out more sparingly haha. It wasn't as if it was difficult to course-correct in 2015/2016.
 
Maybe the Senate should draft a non-binding resolution regarding the framework for who should be considered for an ovation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: upc
Maybe the Senate should draft a non-binding resolution regarding the framework for who should be considered for an ovation.
An interesting use of an NBR, but I worry that would either wind up too vague or too narrow/specific
 
Maybe the Senate should draft a non-binding resolution regarding the framework for who should be considered for an ovation.
An interesting use of an NBR, but I worry that would either wind up too vague or too narrow/specific
I think GraV was being sarcastic. :p
I think so too, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea. The Senate can basically say “here’s what we would like to see in an ovation nominee before we confirm them”.
 
Maybe the Senate should draft a non-binding resolution regarding the framework for who should be considered for an ovation.
An interesting use of an NBR, but I worry that would either wind up too vague or too narrow/specific
I think GraV was being sarcastic. :p
As the standard bearer for using NBRs l was not in fact being sarcastic. I think there has been a distinct downward shift in the on paper qualifications of many of our more recent nominees compared to the top recipients prior and I think it would actually be helpful to put some sort of pen to paper as to the level of contribution to the region you should reach to receive our highest award.
 
Maybe the Senate should draft a non-binding resolution regarding the framework for who should be considered for an ovation.
An interesting use of an NBR, but I worry that would either wind up too vague or too narrow/specific
I think GraV was being sarcastic. :p
As the standard bearer for using NBRs l was not in fact being sarcastic. I think there has been a distinct downward shift in the on paper qualifications of many of our more recent nominees compared to the top recipients prior and I think it would actually be helpful to put some sort of pen to paper as to the level of contribution to the region you should reach to receive our highest award.
Oh, I see -- it read like sarcasm to me, probably because it sounded overly bureaucratic. :LOL:
 
Maybe the Senate should draft a non-binding resolution regarding the framework for who should be considered for an ovation.
An interesting use of an NBR, but I worry that would either wind up too vague or too narrow/specific
I think GraV was being sarcastic. :p
As the standard bearer for using NBRs l was not in fact being sarcastic. I think there has been a distinct downward shift in the on paper qualifications of many of our more recent nominees compared to the top recipients prior and I think it would actually be helpful to put some sort of pen to paper as to the level of contribution to the region you should reach to receive our highest award.
The issue I see with this is that Ovations are relatively rare but Senates turn over frequently. What one Senate considers the "bar" will not be for other Senates. Additionally, do we think setting some bar in an NBR will discourage nominations? Maybe... But I also think finding a consensus on the bar itself is the most challenging bit.

Edit: and of course the qualifications are different between the "top recipients" ever and players who in theory are crossing a subjective threshold.

This entire debate gets really weedy quickly.
 
Back
Top