StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In the recent senatorial nomination thread regarding the elevation of the individual known to the board as "Stark" the issue of single nominee votes was raised. Aside from the fact that it seemed to break the "NO CHATTER IN VOTE THREADS" rule laid down by the senator Dalton on the 21st of August 2007 the incident raises a more important issue with regards to board perception of senate behaviour.

All members of the board are no doubt aware of the recent board drama. Root causes of the drama stemmed primarily from the perception, real or otherwise that the senate was a "circle jerking old boys club of wankers." [Havokeff, Coffee, Et Al, Circa 2008] This concern was mirrored by the senate who felt that certain elements of the board, particulary that of Testing and it's regulars were agressive and inflamatory as well as contributing nothing of value to the board. [Zeon, Bean, Et Al, Circa 2008] The drama was further exacerbated by the perception of the board in general that the senate acted in an aloof and autocratic manner that bordered on supremely arogant. This feeling was not without origin as the only means general board memebers had to input their thoughts was at the behest of a senator. Furthermore the use of the terms "plebes" and "lumpenproletarient" by certain members of the senate on a regular basis could be constructed as insensitive and inflamatory to the situation.

In response to this Senator Hotfoot, representing a consortium of concerned board members lobbied for the creation of the so called "House of Commons" where general board members would have the means to input into board policy decisions. One motion to come out of the House of Commons was the idea of Senatorial Board Nomination being under the control of the House of Commons with existing Senate members having the final say. The first nomination for Senatorial duties as decided by the House of Commons was Stark an esteemed though contraversial board member with some 17,000 posts.

Certain factions however chose this moment to raise the issue of the ethics of single nominee votes, specifically that they did not agree with them. This was as mentioned earlier in clear violation of the "NO CHATTER IN VOTE THREADS" rule. This was however completely ignored by the senate though it did not go unoticed to outside eyes. Further there have been numerous incidences of single nominee nominations in the past. The choosing of this moment; the election of a publicly nominated Senator who certainly has a reputation of being disliked by the senate was indeed supremely tactless. Indeed in the future the Senate may do well to remember that the board in general does not hold them in well regard and they could do better to bear this in mind.



No proofreading, incoherent ranting.

No matter what you think about Stark, JSF is correct.

Hmm, people complain the Senate is flawed and imperfect, so when we accidentally start chatting in a votes thread and reveal ourselves to be Flawed and Imperfect, it means.... what?

Bear in mind that for the most part, the vote itself was pretty much done; the topic was important to many and we needed to sort out whether this was a procedural issue or an issue with Stark.

The main issue was that the citizens were clamoring for more of a say in things, demanding the Senate be opened to more participation and membership from the masses, and so on, and yet after the HoC was opened and there was much venting and drama, people had to be reminded to nominate someone, and we got... one nomination. That was the crest of the wave? Anti-climactic, to be sure.

So we discussed things in a Vote thread. We weren't exactly trying to be secret about it, were we? It was right there for all to see? I'd also remind folks that previous Senate nominations required links to posting examples backing up why a particular nominee was worthy of elevation. That did not happen with Stark; nor has it happened with Colfax. A nomination, a second, and bingo. Don't think I didn't see that!

Now, if you'll excuse us, we have widows to evict, and refugees to abandon in New Orleans.

Coyote wrote: The main issue was that the citizens were clamoring for more of a say in things, demanding the Senate be opened to more participation and membership from the masses, and so on, and yet after the HoC was opened and there was much venting and drama, people had to be reminded to nominate someone, and we got... one nomination. That was the crest of the wave? Anti-climactic, to be sure.

Some of the biggest voices against the Senate were of the mind that the Senate should be abolished, not opened to more participants.

So we discussed things in a Vote thread. We weren't exactly trying to be secret about it, were we? It was right there for all to see? I'd also remind folks that previous Senate nominations required links to posting examples backing up why a particular nominee was worthy of elevation. That did not happen with Stark; nor has it happened with Colfax. A nomination, a second, and bingo. Don't think I didn't see that!

Now, if you'll excuse us, we have widows to evict, and refugees to abandon in New Orleans.

This changes the fact that rules were broken how? It's a big shiny one right there at the top of the forum too, Dalton was kind enough to put it there. The people who nominated Stark posted their evidence in the HoC.

Doesn't change the fact that after all the thunder & bluster, and angry, red-faced manboob-thumping exhortations, we got precious little actual participation.

But I'm open to more drama, if folks feel they didn't get enough servings in the first round.

On the other hand. The Senate was supposed to vote every month on people they'd nominated. And yet if no-one prompted them, they didn't nominate anyone either.

Considering the many months, the senate didn't manage to get their act together enough to have a vote, it seems rather silly they're now whinging about it.

Coyote wrote:Doesn't change the fact that after all the thunder & bluster, and angry, red-faced manboob-thumping exhortations, we got precious little actual participation.

On the contrary, you got just the right amount of participation. Stark is good test case to see if this 'external nominations' thing is a sham or not, as in whether the senate would vote for anyone in that they wouldn't have nominated themselves anyway. Considering that he seems to be just barely winning a majority it looks like that's already almost more participation than the Senate can handle, and Stark is actually fairly sane and non-contraversial compared to some of the people already in the senate.

Though perhaps we should've just nominated Mark, for Maximum Drama

Darth Fanboy wrote:Some of the biggest voices against the Senate were of the mind that the Senate should be abolished, not opened to more participants.

Yeah, I suppose the next best thing is enlarging it until everyone who isn't a complete troll is in there, which achieves pretty much the same thing even if it will take a while.

Crazedwraith wrote:On the other hand. The Senate was supposed to vote every month on people they'd nominated. And yet if no-one prompted them, they didn't nominate anyone either.

Considering the many months, the senate didn't manage to get their act together enough to have a vote, it seems rather silly they're now whinging about it.

So let me see if I understand, people wanted more Senators elected to the same body that they themselves saw as pointless, ineffective, etc.

Remember, there was some talk, off and on, that monthly nominations was going overboard. How large and unwieldly do we want the Senate to grow, if people think it is already a trouble by it's mere existence?

And again, we're back to square one: if folks feel the Senate has not properly kept up with nominations, then the HoC is the place for you'all to step up and fill the gap. Which leads us back to Square Two: after all is said and done, we've seen Stark nominated (1 guy. One. I think Stark'll actually be just fine, I don't have a problem with him. But after all the drama, we've had one nomination). Well, there's Colfax, who I admit has grown a lot but I really see him as a non-serious nomination. Votes will be had, though.

My point is, now people have a voice. And they're not really using that voice, and it seems they're trying to blame the Senate for that. Nuh-uh. We gave you a brand-new soapbox, and it's barely been stood on. Besides, WTF issue is pressing on the board right now that demands more administration and action? I mean, besides holidays being over and people going back to being bored and poking things.

Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.00.

Starglider wrote:On the contrary, you got just the right amount of participation. Stark is good test case to see if this 'external nominations' thing is a sham or not, as in whether the senate would vote for anyone in that they wouldn't have nominated themselves anyway.

See, I actually agree with this. That's why I don't see why there's suddenly drama. At least from some folks.

Coyote wrote:

Starglider wrote:On the contrary, you got just the right amount of participation. Stark is good test case to see if this 'external nominations' thing is a sham or not, as in whether the senate would vote for anyone in that they wouldn't have nominated themselves anyway.

See, I actually agree with this. That's why I don't see why there's suddenly drama. At least from some folks.

As far as I can tell the only 'drama' has resulted from the senate complaining. The HoC nominated a person for the senate. Then the senate complained that only one nomination wasn't enough and that the HoC had somehow proved themselves to be worthless. At which point people from the HoC said: Hang on, the senate has had other one person threads before and many months without a thread at all. Why grounds do they have to bitch?

As I see it, one reason for this lack of nomination may be the lack of people deemed worthy of being senators. It seems like just about everyone with demonstrated maturity and intelligence/a high postcount is already there. Now you have the dilemma of "Should the Senate lower its standards, or should it not accept that many new members"

Crazedwraith wrote:As far as I can tell the only 'drama' has resulted from the senate complaining. The HoC nominated a person for the senate. Then the senate complained that only one nomination wasn't enough and that the HoC had somehow proved themselves to be worthless. At which point people from the HoC said: Hang on, the senate has had other one person threads before and many months without a thread at all. Why grounds do they have to bitch?

For me, at least, it is not so much the issue of Stark's thread but all the huffing and puffing that went on before that. The impression was that major fixes needed to be had on the board, that there were threads running out of control, there were no standards in place or being upheld, etc, and then after all the lights and sirens, we get a single person to be nominated to the body that was being held to blame for everything in the first place.

We've gone from an attuitude that much needed to be redone, if not a reboot, to pretty much business as usual, as if nothing ever happened.

Coyote, the whole point of this thread was to point out that a very prominent procedural rule of the Senate was broken and the Senate was called out for it. This very thread exists because of someone using that soapbox you're accusing people of not using.

If you want to talk participation, well we had the big push early on where a lot of people came out in favor of more moderators and moderation, votes were held, nominations and recommendations to the staff were made, things were getting done to the best of anyone's ability. What is so urgent right now that needs to be fixed by a more active HoC?

Okay, I can see that. I'll put a band-aid on my pee-pee.

Should I post pictures?

Coyote wrote:For me, at least, it is not so much the issue of Stark's thread but all the huffing and puffing that went on before that. The impression was that major fixes needed to be had on the board, that there were threads running out of control, there were no standards in place or being upheld, etc, and then after all the lights and sirens, we get a single person to be nominated to the body that was being held to blame for everything in the first place.

We've gone from an attuitude that much needed to be redone, if not a reboot, to pretty much business as usual, as if nothing ever happened.

And whose fucking fault is that? As worthless and useless as the Senate has proven itself to be over the last several years, the HoC has even less value and authority, except as a forum for bitching and whining. Don't go bitching at the House of Commons for not fixing the board's problems.

As Darth Fanboy correctly pointed out, the suggested solution to the drama the board was experiencing was NOT the creation of a House of Commons - it was more numerous and more effective/fair moderation AND the elimination of the Senate. And then the Senate in its wisdom decided the creation of a HoC for all the plebes to bitch in was the solution... way to go guys, way to go...

By the way, how many new moderators in the active forums (N&P, for example) do we have today?

You don't have to post here; you don't even have to read here if you don't want to. No one is getting charged by the electron. I have a sneaky suspicion that quite a number of our thousands of posters show up daily, post, read, do as they will in the various forums, and never pay attention or bother with the things going on here, and their days are probably the better for it.

Let's face it, so far we've gotten one serious and one not-so-serious board nomination ouit of this. So now the Senate will go back to doing what it's done-- blathering about things that don't really matter to the general population, and occassionally reviewing and banning obvious miscreants.

Film at eleven.

Coyote wrote:You don't have to post here; you don't even have to read here if you don't want to. No one is getting charged by the electron. I have a sneaky suspicion that quite a number of our thousands of posters show up daily, post, read, do as they will in the various forums, and never pay attention or bother with the things going on here, and their days are probably the better for it.

Let's face it, so far we've gotten one serious and one not-so-serious board nomination ouit of this. So now the Senate will go back to doing what it's done-- blathering about things that don't really matter to the general population, and occassionally reviewing and banning obvious miscreants.

Film at eleven.

Unfortunately you're probably right - Newton's First Law would probably be most applicable here.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:As Darth Fanboy correctly pointed out, the suggested solution to the drama the board was experiencing was NOT the creation of a House of Commons - it was more numerous and more effective/fair moderation AND the elimination of the Senate. And then the Senate in its wisdom decided the creation of a HoC for all the plebes to bitch in was the solution... way to go guys, way to go...

By the way, how many new moderators in the active forums (N&P, for example) do we have today?

Funny thing, the SENATE had been calling for more moderation almost from its existence. However here's the funny thing, who can promote new moderators? That's right NOT the Seante. Bitching that the Seante ins't solving the moderation problem is like bitching that Cable Company won't fix your crappy cell phone reception.

Oh sure we could pass a rule that the Senate (or the HoC) nominates new moderators and votes on them but what next? Why we would have just as many new mods since the Seante doesn't have the power to make a person voted by that method a mod any moreso than the HoC does.

You can bitch that we are ineffective, you can bitch that we are and exclusive club that is throwing its weight around the board but when both criticisms are levelled at the Seante at the same time then at least one of them has no grounding.

CmdrWilkens wrote:<snip>
Funny thing, the SENATE had been calling for more moderation almost from its existence. However here's the funny thing, who can promote new moderators? That's right NOT the Seante. Bitching that the Seante ins't solving the moderation problem is like bitching that Cable Company won't fix your crappy cell phone reception.

<snip>

I don't know. My cable company is also my internet and cell phone provider. So yes, I can bitch to the cable company about my cell phone reception.

Coyote wrote:So we discussed things in a Vote thread. We weren't exactly trying to be secret about it, were we? It was right there for all to see? I'd also remind folks that previous Senate nominations required links to posting examples backing up why a particular nominee was worthy of elevation. That did not happen with Stark; nor has it happened with Colfax. A nomination, a second, and bingo. Don't think I didn't see that!

Not to detract from what I consider hilarious whining from some Senators, but this is false. People provided links to stuff just fine in the HoC nom thread. While it's outrageous that 'elite' SDNers would cry over someone being rude and abrasive (and almost against the rules, even), this statement that the nom wasn't supported appears false to me.

Wilkins, what's the system for organising board changes like moderation? I get the sense there's a lot of support among the Old Wives Club and the board at large for new moderators, but what's the practicality behind it? Who needs to know/be present to do it?

Oh, let's face it-- vacations are over; there's a sudden upswing in nitpickery and drama. Coincidence? People are just looking for something to do.

Fuck, ever since workplaces wised up and blocked access to Facebook and their time-wasting games...

They did that in the US? Man, AU would probably grind to a halt if they did that. People in my company convinced management it was 'useful' for 'corporate' 'networking' with 'clients' and not a massive waste of every eleventh minute of everyone's day. Idiots.

Meh, there is no Senate discussion thread any more with regards to nominations. So I did it with the vote thread. If Rob wants to come slap my pee pee fine, however the old rule of no chatter in a vote thread was predicated on the notion of you should do it in the discussion thread. So, you want to slap me with the letter of the law, I can present the spirit of the law in my defense.

And to make it clear, I have no dog in the fight in regards to Stark as a Senator. I repeatedly stated as such in various threads now. Rather you peoples very disappointing showing after all the drama. In fact, if the HoC should make nominations, they should have some sort of minimum vote threshold before the senate should have to act on it if the best they can do is under 20 poster participation and one nomination. I voted for this shithole, as sure as shit will be interested in how it turns out.

To be clear,

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=112480

quoth the rob wrote:If you must discuss a vote, please do so in the discussion thread for that vote. There is to be no chatting or discussion in vote threads.

What Senate discussion thread was this?

You coukd have, ohhhh, started one? It isn't hard.

Darth Fanboy wrote:You coukd have, ohhhh, started one? It isn't hard.

Yeah, I probably could have.