Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

[Knife]

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.

Fuck that, I voted yes on all the above, but I'll fight for the 'if 50% vote none of the above' is passes. Jurry nulification of rules should hold sway. Granted, on up or down votes it adds a lot of bullshit but then it should just mean we need to discuss the issue more before the next vote.

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

I think I put up quite a stink about this to put 'none of the above' in some votes. Abstain should not be a half ass 'yes'. It should be an abstain.

[Havok]

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.)

Yeah no. It is not the same. While it may be subjective, you can like a person and not like his politics or some of his view points, even to the point where you think they would be detrimental to a group if they are included. You can also dislike someone, but completely agree with what they say and want them in a group.
Anyway. You said...

But if you REALLY need an example I have abstained in cases such as the voting for Stark because while I couldn't vote for him because I have issues with how he tends to act on here (his excessively sarcastic demeanor tends to get grating) I also did not wish to actually obstruct him from getting into the Senate by voting no, because like it or not he is still capable of contributing or even debating intelligently.

Now why, if you have issues with "how he tends to act on here", would you want him to be a part of a group that you are in and that he will now come to represent, and will reflect on you, as well as giving more credence and more "sway" to what he says (real or not) if you have a say in the matter? Most people on here are capable of debating intelligently and contributing does that mean you will not vote "abstain" for anyone you dislike out of some weird sense of do gooderness?

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.

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

It is certainly not nitpicking, nor is it out of context.
In one breath you claim that it is your decision and you vote "abstain" because you feel like it and don't give a damn what anyone thinks, then in the next breath you claim to make the decision to "abstain" based only on fairness and that you ignore your own personal feelings so as to appear righteous and fair to the masses.
So which is it? You give a damn, or don't you? Fairness or personal feelings?
As I said, try to be consistent.

[Havok]

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 (!?).

Wow. Again.
No one is upset with you. Personally, I am baffled as to why you can't apply rules to your friends. It is just... ridiculous.
Can we be friends? I'd like to play poker with you. You won't mind if I use 5 or 6 Aces will you? No, of course not.

And you can justify speeding all you want. ("Over engineered roads!") It is dangerous, it is unsafe and it gets people in trouble, hurt and killed and you know it, just as I do. But yes, it is a divergence from the original argument, that you can't apply rules, that are clearly being ignored, or not even cared about, to your friends. So I concede.

[Havok]

Why does everything around here turn into some dumbfuck drama storm?

Boredom?

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.

That's the thing though. It's not that she couldn't/can't make a fair decision. It's that she is apparently incapable of making the correct decision even though she knows exactly what it is. As you said, the rules are pretty straight forward. It's not a case of judgment with evidence and arguments to be made.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There was no correct decision. Read the rules:

Removal for cause:

1. In cases where conduct of a Senator has been called into question any member may call motion for a vote to expel. If the motion is seconded a Category A vote will be held. If the measure passes the member will be removed from the Senate and barred from re-entry.
2. In cases of inactivity of more than 1 calendar year the Whip or Chancellor may call for a vote to remove. The vote will be held according to the rules of a Category A vote. If the measure passes the member will be removed from the Senate but may return subject to nomination as a member of the general board.

The rules do NOT state that a member who has been inactive for 1 year shall be removed. It states that they MAY BE REMOVED IF THE SENATE VOTES FOR THEIR REMOVAL. Now, I favour removing these people, personally, but I'm personally a friend of two of them, so I chose to abstain.

There was no correct thing to do, so concede because your claim is groundless and directly contradicted by the rules under which the vote was held.

[Havok]

Were they inactive for more than a year? Yes.
Did the Chancellor call for a vote of removal? Yes.

It is not a vote of keeping them in the Senate. It is a vote of removal from the Senate. The correct vote is "No, dismiss". Or even under the rules, "Yes, retain". Which I have already said.
You have the right to abstain. I am not, nor have I been arguing that. My issue, is why anyone needs to abstain on these votes? The rules are quite clear as you have posted. And your "omg I don't want to hurt my friends feelings" reasoning is retarded, and as you yourself pointed out, irrational, as it is not keeping you from knowing the correct answer, as again, you yourself pointed by citing and voting "No, dismiss" in Stravo's case, you are just choosing not to make it.

Yes there is a correct thing to do. Fence sitting, and placating your elementary school sense of "hurting feelings" is not it. So, no, I don't think I will concede on this particular issue.

[Mr. Coffee]

Homie, seriously, read their voting rules, it's a goddamned joke.

I know this'll seem like a revolutionary concept to them, but if half or more the the senate saying "none of the above/abstain" then just table whatever issue it was and move on to new business. Seriously, keep shit simple and things would work a lot smoother and it might give less things for me and Hav to look at you like you're wearing your pants on your head.

[Havok]

Ghetto Edit Because I got distracted...

That said, Simplicius reasons are just as lame.
Too lazy to click a button where there is no real thinking or research involved, the inactivity and reasoning for the removal votes are all right there in the OP, but not too lazy to read through this thread, in another forum, then write his response on how laziness is his reasoning.
If the OP wasn't even read, which has all the information you need... how do you know what you are abstaining on?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes there is a correct thing to do. Fence sitting, and placating your elementary school sense of "hurting feelings" is not it. So, no, I don't think I will concede on this particular issue.

...What the fuck? I'm not abstaining from a vote on whether or not to let Jews seek refuge from the holocaust in the Republic of Sdnet, jesus christ, get a grip, this is just a message board and the vote in question, worse, isn't even something like a permban, but just a minor procedural vote. So yes, those considerations do become an issue, and if you think that love and care and concern for your friends are "elementary school" qualities, then you have a sad life indeed. This argument is about as surrealist as watching a David Lynch movie while snorting cocaine.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My issue, is why anyone needs to abstain on these votes? The rules are quite clear as you have posted.

Yes, the rules are quite clear.... After one year, a vote may be called by the chancellor, and if a majority is in support, the member may be objected. There is thus no "correct" way to vote in the thread, and if there was, why would we need to vote? I mean, seriously, is this Stalinist Russia?

[Mr. Coffee]

In Soviet Russia vote threads abstain you?

[CmdrWilkens]

Just an observation but unless I'm mistaken every single vote we have held since the HoC was opened has resulted in some sort of awesome bitch thread (e.g. this). Its hilarious to me that complaints never come out when the Senate isn't voting and suddenly appear as if by magic when a vote opens.

[Havok]

Does the Senate ever do anything besides vote? Have there even been threads there lately that aren't you making votes or giving status updates? And you guys let this place open up. This is what I said would happen. Hey guess what? Also note that my questions weren't about the votes, just the abstain option and why people were choosing it. Especially since, based on the objections so far (hurting feelings, being to lazy to read four lines of text) the same result would have been achieved by voting "yes, retain". (You still reach a quorum, and you still lose the vote)

...What the fuck? I'm not abstaining from a vote on whether or not to let Jews seek refuge from the holocaust in the Republic of Sdnet, jesus christ, get a grip, this is just a message board and the vote in question, worse, isn't even something like a permban, but just a minor procedural vote.

Exactly. So why the over dramatic "I don't want to be the one to tell them I kicked them out of the Senate!". Vote, just like you voted for Stravo. Are your friendships that fragile that voting in a "minor procedural vote" thread is going to shatter them?

So yes, those considerations do become an issue, and if you think that love and care and concern for your friends are "elementary school" qualities, then you have a sad life indeed.

Do your friends even care? And that is absolutely not what I said or meant. Love, care and concern are one thing. Treating your friends like little children on a playground that can't handle being kicked out of the special club (which they OBVIOUSLY don't care about being in) is what I was talking about.

Yes, the rules are quite clear.... After one year, a vote may be called by the chancellor, and if a majority is in support, the member may be objected. There is thus no "correct" way to vote in the thread, and if there was, why would we need to vote? I mean, seriously, is this Stalinist Russia?

No, there is a correct course of action in the case of a year or more of inactivity and that is removal. That Wilkens gives the option to vote against removal is a testament to his character and his openness on these types of issues.

And just out of curiosity, if you REALLY didn't want to hurt your friends feelings, why didn't you vote "Yes, retain" to keep them in the Senate, instead of abstaining, which goes towards a quorum and will allow them to be removed?

[Broomstick]

Havok, switch to decaf. Seriously, no one else is getting this worked up, WTF is your problem?

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm guessing this is just yet another Attempt To Stir Up Drama(tm). Its not as if this isnt the first time crap like this comes up. Why the fuck he keeps doing it or seems to get off on it is beyond me though.

Edit: Oh and Duchess, I'd suggest just dropping the poitn and ignoring it. More than likely he's trying to bait you into blowing up again just so he has an excuse to prolong his "TEH EVUL SENATE" ranting.

[Havok]

Havok, switch to decaf. Seriously, no one else is getting this worked up, WTF is your problem?

Don't mistake being slow at work and having artists block as getting worked up. Hence the answer to your second question is I have no problem. I simply find the answers to my question highly suspect and borderline silly.

I have voted to abstain, as I'm not entirely reconciled to the current removal procedure, though its necessity is obvious. I expect that I will support any motion to reinstate any member so removed.

That is a pretty solid reason, although "Yes, retain" gets the same results.

[Broomstick]

Havok, switch to decaf. Seriously, no one else is getting this worked up, WTF is your problem?

Don't mistake being slow at work and having artists block as getting worked up. Hence the answer to your second question is I have no problem. I simply find the answers to my question highly suspect and borderline silly.

Bullshit. You're taking a point that is a most minor and blowing it up into drama. For what? Like I said, it's bullshit. I don't give a fuck if you like the way I vote or not, or the way anyone else does. Voting means the voter chooses, not that you get to review other peoples' choice. Don't like it? Too bad. If it gets intolerable go elsewhere. You're stirring the pot to no purpose other than you own amusement. I'm finding of late that my tolerance for such antics, here or elsewhere, is rapidly diminishing. STFU unless you have something of merit to say. Bored? There's plenty of other topics to pick at.

To avoid contributing further to this, I'm ending my contribution here.

[Havok]

I'm guessing this is just yet another Attempt To Stir Up Drama(tm). Its not as if this isnt the first time crap like this comes up. Why the fuck he keeps doing it or seems to get off on it is beyond me though.

Edit: Oh and Duchess, I'd suggest just dropping the poitn and ignoring it. More than likely he's trying to bait you into blowing up again just so he has an excuse to prolong his "TEH EVUL SENATE" ranting.

You are a retard. If knew anything about what you were talking about, you would know that I was vehemently against the HoC being created. For this very reason. I also have been the loudest person AGAINST board drama. Not to mention a Senate "supporter" the way it was, before you collectively kowtowed to public bitching and whining.

[Havok]

Havok, switch to decaf. Seriously, no one else is getting this worked up, WTF is your problem?

Don't mistake being slow at work and having artists block as getting worked up. Hence the answer to your second question is I have no problem. I simply find the answers to my question highly suspect and borderline silly.

Bullshit.

Ah, so I am a liar now.

You're taking a point that is a most minor and blowing it up into drama. For what?

Drama? Who is making the drama? Take a look. Oh that's right, the Senators that are getting all indignant because some "pleb" dare question how they are voting. They vote how they damn well please and if we don't like it they don't give a damn, as long as it doesn't hurt my friends feelings or they aren't feeling lazy. Sorry that you don't like that I don't like the answers. Tough. If you didn't want me to be able to voice my thoughts and opinions on subjects of this mater, well... do I really have to say it again?

Like I said, it's bullshit. I don't give a fuck if you like the way I vote or not, or the way anyone else does. Voting means the voter chooses, not that you get to review other peoples' choice.

Who is it that's getting worked up?

Don't like it? Too bad. If it gets intolerable go elsewhere. You're stirring the pot to no purpose other than you own amusement.

Everything that happens on this board is for my amusement. That's why I come here. That said, I'm not stirring any pot. I asked a question, some of the answers are childish and lame. I responded to those.

I'm finding of late that my tolerance for such antics, here or elsewhere, is rapidly diminishing. STFU unless you have something of merit to say. Bored? There's plenty of other topics to pick at.

News flash: I can do this AND talk about other topics, and as I have said since the beginning not only of this discusion and all discussions like it, but the creation of the HoC, it is your collective faults (but I blame Coyote and Hotfoot mostly) that a discussion like this can even happen. I guess I did have to say it again.

And since you seem to be the one to find things intolerable, feel free to follow your own advice.

To avoid contributing further to this, I'm ending my contribution here.

Good.

[Starglider]

If knew anything about what you were talking about, you would know that I was vehemently against the HoC being created.

That leaves three possible explanations;
a) You are an idiot and an arrogant prick, both to fail to realise you'd get this thread and continuing it once it turned into a bitchfest.
b) You have an irrational dislike of this forum are childishly trying to sabotage it.
c) You have a personal grudge against Zeon and are being a passive-aggressive chickenshit about it.

Although it's probably a combination of those.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh great, it's another wanker dragging out the tired ass "oh, you must have a VENDETTA" horseshit again...

[Ghost Rider]

It's an old rule. It's there. Does everyone like it? Probably not. Does it change the end vote? Not really. Was it worth 3 fucking pages that will not change said rule? No.

But hey what could've been answered simply and succiently needed this overbearing monstrocity.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, he probably is trying to bait me, and hell, four months ago I might have taken the bait, but I'm not quite so frenetic anymore.

I will, of course, continue to do as I please in the Senate, and the function of abstain has been well-explained. Havokeff's argument in this thread has, through its sheer hilarity, only shown the pointlessness and inapplicability (of his argument). A self-goal with reductio ad absurdum, we may say.

As for the issue of vendettas, I privately suspect there's at least a dozen people on the board who have them against me and regularly attack me, but it's subtle enough that they'll never get caught for it. Curiously, however, Havokeff isn't one of them.

[Coyote]

Can we be done here? Or do we say---




'Cause if we're done, I'm about ready to lock.

[Havok]

As long as you admit this is all your fault, I'm done.