[Member] Perpetual Nomination Thread

[RedImperator]

Nor did anyone even justify why do they think that they are more deserving to be a senator than Straha if they want to limit the size of the senate.

That's a fine point. I don't actually know how big the "No to everybody--we're too big" crowd actually is, but I've yet to hear one of them explain why we should limit the size of the Senate by excluding new members instead of ejecting old ones.

[ray245]

We could always create a nomination thread where everyone can nominate who do they want to be removed from the Senate with a reasonable amount of justification. Whether the senate would want to listen to us or not is another issue altogether.

[RedImperator]

We could always create a nomination thread where everyone can nominate who do they want to be removed from the Senate with a reasonable amount of justification. Whether the senate would want to listen to us or not is another issue altogether.

As lulzy as that would be, I'm not in any hurry to see that kind of drama. I'd just like one of the "no, too many" people to step up and explain why he should stay at the expense of any possible new members.

[RogueIce]

We could always create a nomination thread where everyone can nominate who do they want to be removed from the Senate with a reasonable amount of justification. Whether the senate would want to listen to us or not is another issue altogether.

As lulzy as that would be, I'm not in any hurry to see that kind of drama. I'd just like one of the "no, too many" people to step up and explain why he should stay at the expense of any possible new members.

Yeah, voting people off the island the Senate is a bad idea waiting to explode into drama.

If anything, I think we'd be better off just yanking people by some measure. Oldest Senators go first? I'm sure enough people remember who were Senators by Decree of the Mods back when it first opened that we could trim them up and go from there. Or else find some other 'objective' way to send people out on a semi-regular basis.

[Straha]

So, one day left, Straha seems perpetually behind by two votes, and still nobody besides Edi and YB have explained why they voted no. Awesome.

It's to be expected. One of the idiosyncratic things about this board (and one of the reasons I love it) is the combination of a looong memory and enforced amnesia in the "no vendetta" rule. A lot of the senate (I'd guess) has been around since 2003/4, or know of the board culture from around then and remember me as that. Back then half to three quarters of what I posted was meaningless piffle, so I can't blame them for being wary.

[CmdrWilkens]

We could always create a nomination thread where everyone can nominate who do they want to be removed from the Senate with a reasonable amount of justification. Whether the senate would want to listen to us or not is another issue altogether.

Short answer no, hell no, not while I am still Chancellor.

That said I proposed some time ago setting a cap for nominees then simply leaving everyone up for re-nomination. Since voting would still be done by the Senate it preserves one of the points I agree with, the Senate as a self-selecting body, while allowing for members to refresh the ranks periodically. That said I'm not convinced we honestly need that system but it stands ready to consider should the Senate reconsider its membership.

[Knife]

We could always create a nomination thread where everyone can nominate who do they want to be removed from the Senate with a reasonable amount of justification. Whether the senate would want to listen to us or not is another issue altogether.

As lulzy as that would be, I'm not in any hurry to see that kind of drama. I'd just like one of the "no, too many" people to step up and explain why he should stay at the expense of any possible new members.

It is definitely one of the bad side effects of the HOC nominating prospects and the Senate voting. There should be, at least, a discussion in the Senate of the prospects before voting. It would make the process longer but give a forum for Senators to oppose nominations and give reasons why.

[Mr. Coffee]

It is definitely one of the bad side effects of the HOC nominating prospects and the Senate voting. There should be, at least, a discussion in the Senate of the prospects before voting. It would make the process longer but give a forum for Senators to oppose nominations and give reasons why.

Um, why can't you discuss the HoC nominations? Is there an actual rule against it or is it more just a matter of the Senate mainly being to lazy to actually bother with discussion threads anymore? Seriously, don't blame us because you guys can't get your shit together.

[General Zod]

It is definitely one of the bad side effects of the HOC nominating prospects and the Senate voting. There should be, at least, a discussion in the Senate of the prospects before voting. It would make the process longer but give a forum for Senators to oppose nominations and give reasons why.

Um, why can't you discuss the HoC nominations? Is there an actual rule against it or is it more just a matter of the Senate mainly being to lazy to actually bother with discussion threads anymore? Seriously, don't blame us because you guys can't get your shit together.

I'm pretty sure someone's proposed that idea before. The last I remember we were basically told "STFU plebs, if you don't want someone in the Senate don't nominate them."

[Mr. Coffee]

Yeah, because god forbid the senate should have to do anything with the process other than vote no to our nominations without even giving a reasoning for it other then "Waaa, our clubhouse is to crowded and none of us is willing to step down".

[Knife]

It is definitely one of the bad side effects of the HOC nominating prospects and the Senate voting. There should be, at least, a discussion in the Senate of the prospects before voting. It would make the process longer but give a forum for Senators to oppose nominations and give reasons why.

Um, why can't you discuss the HoC nominations? Is there an actual rule against it or is it more just a matter of the Senate mainly being to lazy to actually bother with discussion threads anymore? Seriously, don't blame us because you guys can't get your shit together.

lol. I'm not a your, but ok.

Anyway, chalk it up to politics and drama, including your own coffee. You guys got the nominations, those that wanted to protest the nominations in the Senate got screeched at for talking in voting threads, drama, drama, drama. So, I know a lot of people just said fuck it, and instead of openly discussing things, voted. Of course, there were always those who said "fuck it" anyways, but...

But what I am saying, is that that should never have been allowed to happen. Oh well now....

[Mr. Coffee]

Anyway, chalk it up to politics and drama, including your own coffee. You guys got the nominations, those that wanted to protest the nominations in the Senate got screeched at for talking in voting threads, drama, drama, drama. So, I know a lot of people just said fuck it, and instead of openly discussing things, voted. Of course, there were always those who said "fuck it" anyways, but...

But what I am saying, is that that should never have been allowed to happen. Oh well now....

So what you're saying is that instead of actually doing something proactive and discussing the problem with an eye towards a solution you just said "fuck it, I don't wanna play anymore". Good to know we can count on the Senate for mature leadership and problem solving. The Screeching comes with the territory. Don't like the criticism? The ask they remove you from the ranks of the Senate.

[Havok]

He already did. hence...

lol. I'm not a your, but ok.

[Havok]

Anyway, chalk it up to politics and drama, including your own coffee. You guys got the nominations, those that wanted to protest the nominations in the Senate got screeched at for talking in voting threads, drama, drama, drama.

That had nothing to do with who got nominated and where, that was a rule that has been enforced in the Senate long before Hotfoot and Coyote trolled everyone.

Honestly, the only person to really protest a nomination was Ender, and aside from him being completely wrong in his protests, it was good that he did that. The reason he got yelled at for the most part was, as I said, for being completely wrong.

He also seems to have left the board because of that, at least in the general forums. So maybe Senators can't handle being yelled at.

[CmdrWilkens]

Honestly, the only person to really protest a nomination was Ender, and aside from him being completely wrong in his protests, it was good that he did that. The reason he got yelled at for the most part was, as I said, for being completely wrong.

He also seems to have left the board because of that, at least in the general forums. So maybe Senators can't handle being yelled at.

THAT is out of fucking order. Ender is away for reasons that he disclosed to myself in capacity as Chancellor as well as members of the Mess and I'd appreciate you not trying to fuck with him when the guy has serious real world shit on his plate that requires attention.


As for other items brought up:
- Nominations can be discussed in the vote thread, or anywhere for that matter (that rule was nixed by me some time ago)
- Nothing has ever, nor will it ever, require someone to state WHY they voted the way they did. Just because you don't agree with the result doesn't mean you have some right to know the thought process behind the decision making.

[RedImperator]

- Nothing has ever, nor will it ever, require someone to state WHY they voted the way they did. Just because you don't agree with the result doesn't mean you have some right to know the thought process behind the decision making.

Nobody's required, and I'm not saying anyone should be...but it sure would be nice if people stepped up and did it anyway.

And I'm still waiting for someone from the "no more, we're full" contingent to explain why that means no new members, rather than old members leaving.

[Stark]

I believe that's because last time it was discussed, people decided the Senate was more a 'hall of fame' where you were voted in for being orthodox posting 'quality', not requried to participate, had no responsibilities and could not be removed.

Of course, once people were voted in that the xyz population didn't like, that suddenly changed to 'oh we've got enough now thanks, let's vote no all the time and brag about it'. Just remember it's not an old-boys club, because we're assured that it is not by the people who don't want new members.

See? Makes sense now.

[Havok]

Honestly, the only person to really protest a nomination was Ender, and aside from him being completely wrong in his protests, it was good that he did that. The reason he got yelled at for the most part was, as I said, for being completely wrong.

He also seems to have left the board because of that, at least in the general forums. So maybe Senators can't handle being yelled at.

THAT is out of fucking order. Ender is away for reasons that he disclosed to myself in capacity as Chancellor as well as members of the Mess and I'd appreciate you not trying to fuck with him when the guy has serious real world shit on his plate that requires attention.

Newsflash, I don't keep track of every member of the boards personal life and even if I knew what you just said, and gee that is pretty hard considering he didn't tell me and only told a private forum that I'm not a member of, I don't really care because I think the guy is a douche. In short, cry me a river.

[Lonestar]

Newsflash, I don't keep track of every member of the boards personal life and even if I knew what you just said, and gee that is pretty hard considering he didn't tell me and only told a private forum that I'm not a member of, I don't really care because I think the guy is a douche. In short, cry me a river.

You sure are good at going "who me? How am I suppose to know?" after already coming to a conclusion that suits your ego.

[Mr. Coffee]

Hav's got a valid point, Lonestar. How the fuck is he supposed to know what Ender told someone else in a PM or a private forum? Instead fo saying "Hey, that's not the case, Ender's got soem IRL issues to take care of, blah blah blah", Wilkin's blows a testicle and jumps homboy's ass. Like I said, glad to know I can count on the mature and rational leadership of the SDN Senate...

[Havok]

Newsflash, I don't keep track of every member of the boards personal life and even if I knew what you just said, and gee that is pretty hard considering he didn't tell me and only told a private forum that I'm not a member of, I don't really care because I think the guy is a douche. In short, cry me a river.

You sure are good at going "who me? How am I suppose to know?" after already coming to a conclusion that suits your ego.

Uh, not quite. "How and I supposed to know?" yeah, "who me?", not even a little bit. What I said in short is "I don't give a fuck", and apparently you don't quite know what the definition of 'seems' and 'maybe' are. I didn't come to any 'conclusion'.

[Big Phil]

This board already has a Shep and an anti-Shep (Elfdart)... perhaps it needs a Senate and an anti-Senate. Those of us who find the Senate ridiculous and full of shit could belong to the anti-Senate, pass meaningless decrees, and tell each other that we're all really, really smart, popular, and good looking (unlike the Senate). Since the House of Commons isn't adequately fulfilling the anti-Senate role, let's form a separate group of special, cool, popular kids.

I propose the name "We're Better Looking and Get More Pussy Than The Senate" (WBLGMPTTS or "Wobblygamepits"). Alternatively, we could go by "We're Smarter and More Serious Than The Senate" (WSMSTTS or "Washmists") or "Mike's Least Dissfavored Bunch of Assholes, Cocks, and Pussies" (MLDBACP or "Mildbackpains")

[General Zod]

This board already has a Shep and an anti-Shep (Elfdart)... perhaps it needs a Senate and an anti-Senate. Those of us who find the Senate ridiculous and full of shit could belong to the anti-Senate, pass meaningless decrees, and tell each other that we're all really, really smart, popular, and good looking (unlike the Senate). Since the House of Commons isn't adequately fulfilling the anti-Senate role, let's form a separate group of special, cool, popular kids.

I propose the name "We're Better Looking and Get More Pussy Than The Senate" (WBLGMPTTS or "Wobblygamepits"). Alternatively, we could go by "We're Smarter and More Serious Than The Senate" (WSMSTTS or "Washmists") or "Mike's Least Dissfavored Bunch of Assholes, Cocks, and Pussies" (MLDBACP or "Mildbackpains")

But we already have Testing.

[Big Phil]

This board already has a Shep and an anti-Shep (Elfdart)... perhaps it needs a Senate and an anti-Senate. Those of us who find the Senate ridiculous and full of shit could belong to the anti-Senate, pass meaningless decrees, and tell each other that we're all really, really smart, popular, and good looking (unlike the Senate). Since the House of Commons isn't adequately fulfilling the anti-Senate role, let's form a separate group of special, cool, popular kids.

I propose the name "We're Better Looking and Get More Pussy Than The Senate" (WBLGMPTTS or "Wobblygamepits"). Alternatively, we could go by "We're Smarter and More Serious Than The Senate" (WSMSTTS or "Washmists") or "Mike's Least Dissfavored Bunch of Assholes, Cocks, and Pussies" (MLDBACP or "Mildbackpains")

But we already have Testing.

but you can't exclude people from Testing. The first rule of any elite organization is keeping undesirables out.

[Formless]

but you can't exclude people from Testing. The first rule of any elite organization is keeping undesirables out.

Oh, they do, its just not official.