Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

[CmdrWilkens]

Let me be blunt on abstentions:

They will remain so long as I have a say in the matter and no vote will ever be reconsidered due to "excessive" abstentions. If folks don't hold a strong enough opinion to vote for or against a measure (or they feel the need to recuse themselves) then abstention is the correct vote. Sure we could ask everyone to justify their vote but a) I'm not gonna and b) that's ridiculous.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm of the opinion that if there are too many abstains, then the vote should be retaken and forced back into a Yes/No vote. Otherwise, what's the point of the vote?

This is sarcasm, correct?

How can anyone seriously be opposed to someone abstaining from a voting measure? Voting is always ultimately a measure of personal decision, and it is always wiser for a person to recuse themselves than to make a decision on spurious grounds.

Yes, but if too many abstains, can one say there's quorum in a vote if say more than 1/3 of the voters say "Abstain"? Especially in some recent instances, like that joke of a senate nomination vote, where a good portion of the votes went to Abstain more as a protest vote? That's like voting in an election, and throwing a spoilt vote.

[Questor]

This does nothing to dispute the belief of cronyism being rife amongst the senate.

If it were cronyism, I would have never posted to this thread, and voted in favour of retaining both Innerbrat and Zaia despite their having left the community, rather than abstaining.

I'm going to have to agree with The Duchess here, JSF. This is the opposite of cronyism. This is how this type of thing is supposed to work.

The Duchess does not feel she is impartial on this issue, but she does not wish to violate her responsibility to vote in an impartial manner. By abstaining, whether she announced the reasons why or not, she is doing the right thing, and I commend her on it.

Imagine where the world would be if ALL people who could not remain impartial, or render a well-informed decision were self-honest enough to admit it. In bodies that only decide one issue (like a jury) the person would not be selected for the body, however in multi-function bodies, like our senate and many legislative bodies, a person could be the perfect person for the job on most occasions, but have conflicts of interest in one or two areas.

For example, would you think it is proper for a University Board of Regents member to vote on an issue involving their spouse, or a School Board member to vote on a discipline issue involving their child?

Fixed Spelling, changed judicial to legislative, to be more in line with my examples.

[General Zod]

I'm going to have to agree with The Duchess here, JSF. This is the opposite of cronyism. This is how this type of thing is supposed to work.

The Duchess does not feel she is impartial on this issue, but she does not wish to violate her responsibility to vote in an impartial manner. By abstaining, whether she announced the reasons why or not, she is doing the right thing, and I commend her on it.

Imagine where the world would be if ALL people who could not remain impartial, or render a well-informed decision were self-honest enough to admit it. In bodies that only decide one issue (like a jury) the person would not be selected for the body, however in multi-function bodies, like our senate and many legislative bodies, a person could be the perfect person for the job on most occasions, but have conflicts of interest in one or two areas.

For example, would you think it is proper for a University Board of Regents member to vote on an issue involving their spouse, or a School Board member to vote on a discipline issue involving their child?

Fixed Spelling, changed judicial to legislative, to be more in line with my examples.

Why would impartiality matter in this case? This isn't some sort of punitive vote, and the Senator being removed has the option of coming back hassle-free at any time as long as they start being active again. So where's the conflict?

[Coyote]

I love it.

In the same thread:

-- one person admits to voting based on personal feelings. The response is an accusation of cronyism.

-- another person admits to voting based on rational judgement, and leaving personal feelings out of it. The response is an accusation of being dishonest to one's own desires.

This shit writes itself.


I abstained for Zaia because initially I was feeling merciful and because her more-than-Senator status might have meant that the whole vote was moot. Then I saw that we had two more. And I realized, "no, the rules are clear, we need to follow through or there's no point, and we can use this to trim down the size of the Senate and allow in new blood".

Now I'm just wondering-- if we allow in new blood, do we need to ask if they vote based on personal feelings or rational judgement?

Swear to God we should write for Saturday Night Live. Some of the stuff we generate here randomly --in all seriousness, at that-- is better than some of the stuff their pros squeeze out.

[Questor]

Why would impartiality matter in this case? This isn't some sort of punitive vote, and the Senator being removed has the option of coming back hassle-free at any time as long as they start being active again. So where's the conflict?

Impartiality may not matter in this case, but I still think that this is behavior to be celebrated. If the Senate is paying attention to the rules and forms in what is a relatively unimportant, administrative vote, then I have more confidence that they will do so when it matters.

Because, at least in my mind, saying that something is to unimportant for ethics to matter is a mistake, no matter how small.

[General Zod]

Because, at least in my mind, saying that something is to unimportant for ethics to matter is a mistake, no matter how small.

Are you serious? How can ethics possibly matter where there are no real consequences for the decision in question? This is like saying ethics should matter if I have to decide between Chinese or Italian for dinner.

[Questor]

Are you serious? How can ethics possibly matter where there are no real consequences for the decision in question? This is like saying ethics should matter if I have to decide between Chinese or Italian for dinner.

Why do you get to decide when The Duchess's ethics matter to her? If she felt this was important enough to subject it to an ethical test, who are you to say that it isn't? How does it matter to you?

I know it doesn't affect me, and I don't have to read it, but I think that all of this bitching about the Senate being cronyistic is getting old. It amazes me how butthurt some people get over a body that ADVISES on policy on an internet message board.

I continue to applaud the Senate on its efforts to follow some kind of sane parlimentary procedure. If you are going to do something, at least do it right.

[General Zod]

Why do you get to decide when The Duchess's ethics matter to her? If she felt this was important enough to subject it to an ethical test, who are you to say that it isn't? How does it affect you.

>snip<

I'm sure if the Duchess feels offended by me asking why ethics matter for something that has no real consequences she can say as much herself, but way to dodge the point.

[Havok]

Let me be blunt on abstentions:

They will remain so long as I have a say in the matter and no vote will ever be reconsidered due to "excessive" abstentions. If folks don't hold a strong enough opinion to vote for or against a measure (or they feel the need to recuse themselves) then abstention is the correct vote. Sure we could ask everyone to justify their vote but a) I'm not gonna and b) that's ridiculous.

It's not a justification issue. If you have any reason to disagree with removal, even you just don't have a strong enough opinion on it, vote no and things remain the same. If you think the rules should be followed, vote yes.

[Questor]

Why do you get to decide when The Duchess's ethics matter to her? If she felt this was important enough to subject it to an ethical test, who are you to say that it isn't? How does it affect you.

>snip<

I'm sure if the Duchess feels offended by me asking why ethics matter for something that has no real consequences she can say as much herself, but way to dodge the point.

And what did your assertion that the vote was to unimportant to bother with questions about partiality have to do with JSF's assertions about cronyism? Anyway, I did dodge your point. Here:

I don't agree that the situations are analagous at all. I also do not accept your assertion that this is not a punitive vote. Yes, these people will be restored if they come back (although that might take another vote, I'm not sure), but they are being removed from the rolls of the Senate, which, it seems, is a much envied post around here. That is a punishment, even if it is a punishment that can be rescinded quickly and easily. When the Senate is punishing someone, why not maintain the appearences of impartiality and judicial propriety.

Your choice of what kind of food does not have even this ephemeral effect on anyone other than yourself, and the workers/owners of wherever you are ordering. It has even less effect if you are cooking for yourself. Ethics would not be a big component of that decision.

[General Zod]

And what did your assertion that the vote was to unimportant to bother with questions about partiality have to do with JSF's assertions about cronyism?

I don't care what JSF said about cronyism, that's why I quoted you and not him.

I don't agree that the situations are analagous at all. I also do not accept your assertion that this is not a punitive vote. Yes, these people will be restored if they come back (although that might take another vote, I'm not sure), but they are being removed from the rolls of the Senate, which, it seems, is a much envied post around here. That is a punishment, even if it is a punishment that can be rescinded quickly and easily. When the Senate is punishing someone, why not maintain the appearences of impartiality and judicial propriety.

So all you care about is appearances and not whether there's any real consequences involved? If someone really wanted to keep the position wouldn't they be, I dunno, active? (The Senate is less of an envious spot than you might think.)

Your choice of what kind of food does not have even this ephemeral effect on anyone other than yourself, and the workers/owners of wherever you are ordering. It has even less effect if you are cooking for yourself. Ethics would not be a big component of that decision.

The point was that the consequences of such a decision are so minimal as to be nonexistent, at which point why bother worrying about ethics?

[Havok]

I consider myself to have a conflict of interest since I consider Innerbrat and Zaia to be friends, Innerbrat a particularly close friend, so I'm recusing myself by abstaining, as I see it. I voted to remove Stravo, of course, since I don't have that conflict of interest and he's participated neither in moderation nor senatorial activities in so long, as far as I can tell, that it's ridiculous that he remains a moderator, let alone a Senator, no offense to him--he simply isn't here. The problem is that my friendship with Zaia and Innerbrat makes me want to irrationally retain them, so instead of inappropriately voting with my heart, I just abstain. This seems like a highly uncomplicated issue to me.

So you know that you are being irrational, and can pinpoint exactly why, know exactly what should be done, but still have the complete inability to do it? Interesting.

I am inclined to violate numerous regulations if the potential risk of doing so offers a benefit to those friends greater than the potential risk. I don't see why this is problematic. If you were driving a close friend to a job interview they really needed to get and they were late, wouldn't you be inclined to speed?

You think that putting your passenger, yourself and the other drivers on the road at risk of serious injury, and possibly even death, not to mention the financial woes of accidents and tickets, is worth it because someone is running late? Wow.

[Questor]

I don't agree that the situations are analagous at all. I also do not accept your assertion that this is not a punitive vote. Yes, these people will be restored if they come back (although that might take another vote, I'm not sure), but they are being removed from the rolls of the Senate, which, it seems, is a much envied post around here. That is a punishment, even if it is a punishment that can be rescinded quickly and easily. When the Senate is punishing someone, why not maintain the appearences of impartiality and judicial propriety.

So all you care about is appearances and not whether there's any real consequences involved? If someone really wanted to keep the position wouldn't they be, I dunno, active? (The Senate is less of an envious spot than you might think.)

Of course its about appearances, for a group that holds itself in judgement of others appearences matter.

I don't think of it as an envious spot at all, they get bitched at far to much.

ETA: Also, if she had voted to remove Stravo, but not Zaia and InnerBrat, wouldn't that be the exact kind of hypocrisy that we spend so much time in N&P lambasting?

Your choice of what kind of food does not have even this ephemeral effect on anyone other than yourself, and the workers/owners of wherever you are ordering. It has even less effect if you are cooking for yourself. Ethics would not be a big component of that decision.

The point was that the consequences of such a decision are so minimal as to be nonexistent, at which point why bother worrying about ethics?

See above, I think that for a judicial body with established rules, then appearances, even in small things, matter. For others, or those in that body, outside of that context, they don't.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Gentlemen! It appears the problem is that you think humans should always be rational in life. Well, I completely disagree with that assessment, humans are irrational creatures and sometimes we need to be sentimental about things, we can't help it. We're not Vulcans, and yet you appear to demand that the Senate is made up of Vulcans. I'm sorry, but Miles is correct; I am simply recusing myself because I don't want to tell Debi or Zaia "Yeah, I kicked you out of the Senate." That we may vote to restore them to the Senate someday is all well and good; there's also no guarantee that vote will pass, so that's certainly a punishment. Now, my only concern that led to be posting in this thread was there seems to be some kind of choice to limit votes in the Senate to voting for something, and abolish abstentions, and I just want to make sure that this doesn't happen over some freakishly obsessive small group of posters. You can abstain from votes in the real world, you can abstain from votes here. I find the idea that an issue has been made out of this to approach the insane, and ask you gentlemen to consider that virtually every deliberative body or judicial body in the world allows members to abstain or recuse themselves, and the ones that don't usually have machine-guns pointed at the members to make them do what the dictator wants. Even on procedural votes that are good reasons to simply account yourself present.


You may also not understand what abstaining means in the SD.net Senate:

1. It means you support the validity of the vote.

2. It means your vote goes to making the poll in question a valid and legitimate one.

3. It means you are involving yourself in the process.

4. It means you are supporting the establishment of a quorum in the Senate.

5. It therefore means that you accept that the vote will go through and may be valid due to your action and that the result chosen by the majority of Senators not voting abstain, will be selected as the option, without your ability to alter it one way or another.

So in short abstaining isn't simply refusing to participate, it's a decision to support the results even though you don't believe it right or appropriate for you to contribute directly to the final result.


P.S. Havokeff, YES, I would do all that--and statistically speaking, so would you. What a ridiculous attempt at an argument, what hyperbole. Going 30 in a 25 zone, hitting 75 or 80 on a rural freeway instead of 70, these are all things basically 90% of people on the highway do, and the actual increase in risk is very small because most of the roads are engineered for much higher speeds than the speed limit, and it's been consistently found in studies that the average driver will drive at the speed the road was engineered around rather than at the posted speed limit, which is often very funnily more of a political decision than not. There's a couple of interstate S-curves in the Seattle area where I drop down to 55 even though the speed limit is 60; I can't understand why people would take them at 60 because they leave my car feeling much too unstable. Would I speed around those S-curves? No. I frequently feel unsafe driving the speed limit in many situations because of how many people are passing me and with such careless rapidity that I have no real control over the situation. Traffic flow considerations are by far more important. And the whole damned thing is just a pointless divergence from the original argument, anyway, since it focuses the moral condemnation of your self-righteousness on the act of speeding and ignores the fact that I was being honest enough to recuse myself and not involve myself in this vote, and people are upset at me for that (!?).

I mean, seriously, this thread is not the work of sane minds. It is, as Arik laughed, literally deranged, hilariously so, pointing in two different directions and screaming in both at once. I'm a highly emotional person, and so I chose to recuse myself, while fully accepting that Debi and Zaia will be kicked out anyway and supporting the end result. I just can't involvement myself in the specific act of saying goodbye to them, that's all.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The point was that the consequences of such a decision are so minimal as to be nonexistent, at which point why bother worrying about ethics?

Habituate yourself in ethics, boy, and you won't end up like those Wallstreet execs and power traders. Seriously, this statement right here is one of the most bankrupt things I've ever read in my life. If you ignore ethics over small things, you will not be habituated in using ethics in all situations, and then sooner or later you will fuck up. Perhaps it's just that I'm going into a profession with very high ethical standards, but regardless, this statement is the perfect summation of everything wrong with this thread.

[General Zod]

The point was that the consequences of such a decision are so minimal as to be nonexistent, at which point why bother worrying about ethics?

Habituate yourself in ethics, boy, and you won't end up like those Wallstreet execs and power traders. Seriously, this statement right here is one of the most bankrupt things I've ever read in my life. If you ignore ethics over small things, you will not be habituated in using ethics in all situations, and then sooner or later you will fuck up. Perhaps it's just that I'm going into a profession with very high ethical standards, but regardless, this statement is the perfect summation of everything wrong with this thread.

I simply didn't see a point in applying ethics to situations where an ethical conflict just isn't apparent (ie - harm is caused), is the thing. In this case I was having trouble seeing why ethics would be a concern at all as a result.

[Questor]

The point was that the consequences of such a decision are so minimal as to be nonexistent, at which point why bother worrying about ethics?

Habituate yourself in ethics, boy, and you won't end up like those Wallstreet execs and power traders. Seriously, this statement right here is one of the most bankrupt things I've ever read in my life. If you ignore ethics over small things, you will not be habituated in using ethics in all situations, and then sooner or later you will fuck up. Perhaps it's just that I'm going into a profession with very high ethical standards, but regardless, this statement is the perfect summation of everything wrong with this thread.

It really bothers me that everyone seems to be better at stating what I want than I do. Back when I wrote my first post I was trying to tie it in with AIG, Dodd and the Congresswoman from LA, but I couldn't make my words say what I wanted to. Then of course, someone comes in and makes the point I was trying to make and I feel like a moron.

[CmdrWilkens]

The point was that the consequences of such a decision are so minimal as to be nonexistent, at which point why bother worrying about ethics?

Habituate yourself in ethics, boy, and you won't end up like those Wallstreet execs and power traders. Seriously, this statement right here is one of the most bankrupt things I've ever read in my life. If you ignore ethics over small things, you will not be habituated in using ethics in all situations, and then sooner or later you will fuck up. Perhaps it's just that I'm going into a profession with very high ethical standards, but regardless, this statement is the perfect summation of everything wrong with this thread.

I simply didn't see a point in applying ethics to situations where an ethical conflict just isn't apparent (ie - harm is caused), is the thing. In this case I was having trouble seeing why ethics would be a concern at all as a result.

There can be an ethical conflict because a person being removed from the Seante alters the makeup of the body. While this is largely, but not entirely, a procedural vote the choice to remove or not remove someone does have consequences. Any action with consequences shoudl be subject to ethical considerations. That being said the consequences involved here are VERY small but applying consideration to them is both perfectly valid and commendable in that it applies an ethical standard to items of even small consequence.

In the scheme of things the rules I wrote and got passed for the Senate are an incredibly minor point of consequence but I specifically engineered them to avoid granting too much power to either the Whip or Chancellor mostly because I knew that I was holding one and likely would at some point hold the other role. So yes a bunch of folks have pointed out that I'm probably to the point of paranoia about being fair and impartial but that is because despite the very low level of social importance attached to the roles I still feel they should be subject to ethical restraints.

[Broomstick]

I simply didn't see a point in applying ethics to situations where an ethical conflict just isn't apparent (ie - harm is caused), is the thing. In this case I was having trouble seeing why ethics would be a concern at all as a result.

The point isn't whether or not YOU see a need for an ethical test here, it's that the DUCHESS feels a need to hold it to her ethical standards. YOU may feel it is unnecessary, but I would rather have, so to speak, an excess of ethics than not enough.

Look, it's pretty damn simple - she doesn't want to be put into a position of making this sort of decision about a personal friend. Since (as far as I know) no one else has a personal, non-virtual world friendship with the two people concerned no, it wouldn't be a question for anyone else. Seriously, you have a problem with that? She'd rather not make this decision for those two people due to her relationship with them. Most people would view that as avoiding even the appearance of a conflict, which is action usually applauded. Get a grip, seriously.

[Broomstick]

Yes, but if too many abstains, can one say there's quorum in a vote if say more than 1/3 of the voters say "Abstain"?

Yes, you can. An "abstain" is still a vote. It's a vote to abide by the will of the non-abstaining majority.

Especially in some recent instances, like that joke of a senate nomination vote, where a good portion of the votes went to Abstain more as a protest vote? That's like voting in an election, and throwing a spoilt vote.

And "spoil" votes are allowed in elections, even "joke" votes, even in the most serious elections (at least in my country). For that matter, one can choose NOT to vote.

You're trying to force a yes or no where there may be legitimate reasons for a "neither". Whether it's a perceived conflict of interest or someone like Ender or myself having real-life worries that have absolute first priority or some other reason "abstain" is a needed an necessary choice. That's why we have it. You don't have to agree with an abstain, any more than you have to agree with a yes or no, but you do have to live with them. Democracy sucks that way sometimes, even if it's only an advisory democracy.

[RedImperator]

Why does everything around here turn into some dumbfuck drama storm? Marina thought she couldn't make a fair decision in the case of Zaia and Innerbrat, so she abstained. Whoop-di-do. Life goes on.

Anyway, as far as my votes went, I voted "Out" on all three. The rules are pretty straightforward. The fact Stravo and Zaia are moderators didn't enter into it, since I've come around to the idea that being a mod shouldn't be an automatic ticket into the Senate anyway (mostly a moot point, since all future mods are likely to be drawn from the Senate).

[Connor MacLeod]

You didn't say you disliked him. You said you disliked the way he contributes, which is what I said, and since that is what matters on a discussion board, you should have voted "No".

Stop the semantical nitpicking. It's one in the same regardless of how I phrase it. Saying "I dont like what he contributes" is purely as subjective as "I don't like him", save that I'm giving the reasons that I dislike him. If it were a fact instead of an opinion, I would be giving proof to back it up (IE burden of proof.)

And who the fuck said life had to be or was fair? AND who gives a fuck if the Senate gets bitched at. It is your collective fault you listen to the idiots and bitches that do that. That has always been my position. Ask Coyote and Hotfoot.

Well apparently there are a buncha people who whinge about everything the Senate does and how evil the Senate is and blah blah blah, otherwise this wouldn't be such a recurring point of idiot drama. Pretty much like how this thread has become really (big shocker there)

Oh yeah and...

I use abstain because I feel like it. If people don't like that I don't give a damn.

Try to be consistent.

[/quote]

More pointless nitpicking. Try constructing a reply without out-of-context snipping of selective bits.

[Simplicius]

I abstained for all three removal votes, and my reason was laziness. I come back to the board after two long, busy weeks and after a day of examining a real clusterfuck of a house, I've got four votes in front of me, and you know what? I just don't feel like thinking an awful lot about removing idle Senators, especially with the Stuart-Balrog-Tiriol-None choice ahead of me - but I approve of the vote being carried out just the same. That's my prerogative as a voting Senator, and nuts to anyone who doesn't like it - and the same to all those other "Too many abstain"-ers in this thread.

If it's that big of a goddamned deal, get yourself on the April nomination list on the "I will never, ever abstain from a vote" platform and see where you end up. Participate to your utmost if you think the issue of abstentions is so frigging important. It's not like you're an actual constituent or anything; just complaining won't get you anywhere.

[Mr. Coffee]

Why does everything around here turn into some dumbfuck drama storm? Marina thought she couldn't make a fair decision in the case of Zaia and Innerbrat, so she abstained. Whoop-di-do. Life goes on.

Hey, HoC is serious business, man...