StarDestroyer.Net BBS

As the HoC has been nominating people for the Senate, and not the Senate itself, it has been said that dicussion is allowed in the vote thread. This, to me, seems silly because most discussion in previous vote threads has taken place in after the senators have voted. eg) Senator X says he voted A because of B, then Senator Y disputes point B.

But if they've already voted, the discussion is meaningless because even if Senator Y convinces senator X they were wrong about B, senator X still can't change his vote.

Instead of allowing discussion in the vote thread, there seems no reason why the senate can't have a discussion on the HoC nominees before voting. The nominations for the month could simply be ended a view days earlier and the intervening time be used for discussion.

Eh, this really doesn't seem like it's worth getting in a lather about. Pursuing something so minor as this could possibly result in a lot of needless drama, anyway, and I think there's already more than enough of that around here. Let the Senate chatter as they will in their vote threads, I say.

In my opinion, half of those nominated by the HoC were 'joke' nominations that should never have been entered as in the running.

Therefore, my vote was to Abstain, as there wasn't a "None of the Above".

The Senate opened up the confrontational attitude. Of course there are going to be people who make joke nominations. Besides the fact that there are several members who are attempting to actively sabotage the HoC, some people are just going to want to shake up the Senate. But the fact that half the members have abstained, despite a number of very good choices (J, Ace, bounty and thanas) you have again shown that you despise the fact that "plebes" get to choose.

Its getting old. We set this up because the old system obviously wasn't working. But this new system cannot function if the body above it is actively trying to sabotage it. You did it with Stark a month ago, now you are doing it again, despite four good choices. Its getting boring to see the people who are supposed to be the adults on the board preening over their pretend power.

Dark Hellion wrote:The Senate opened up the confrontational attitude.

So naturally, the HOC has to respond in kind, right? Can't we at least wait for the final results of the Senate's vote to come in before we starting whining about it?

Of the nominees and excluding myself, I see two nominees who have exquisite posting histories, two who may be oddball choices but who are on the board's pulse and have shown little or no behaviour that would disqualify them from being productive senators, and two that may be called 'joke nominations'. That's four serious candidates out of six, plus myself, but I won't pretend to know which category to put myself in.

Considering that one nominee is one of the board's most senior members and another even holds a mod position, I honestly don't see where the Senate has any right to complain about the quality of the nominations.

^Well, for what it's worth, I definitely consider you to be a serious candidate.

As for the joke nomination, it may be annoying to see the nomination process being used as a joke by some - and I think the senate should just drop the whole nomination process in the future - but there is an easy solution to the problem: don't vote for them.

Dark Hellion wrote:The Senate opened up the confrontational attitude. Of course there are going to be people who make joke nominations. Besides the fact that there are several members who are attempting to actively sabotage the HoC, some people are just going to want to shake up the Senate. But the fact that half the members have abstained, despite a number of very good choices (J, Ace, bounty and thanas) you have again shown that you despise the fact that "plebes" get to choose.

I wouldn't go that far. Remove the joke nominations and you'd likely get serious consideration. But put the joke nominations in and there's a very good chance you will get a "Well, fuck the lot of them!" reaction. Not entirely undeservedly either. It'll be a cold day on hell before any of the three who were nominated as joke nominations get into the Senate.

Dark Hellion wrote:Its getting old. We set this up because the old system obviously wasn't working. But this new system cannot function if the body above it is actively trying to sabotage it. You did it with Stark a month ago, now you are doing it again, despite four good choices. Its getting boring to see the people who are supposed to be the adults on the board preening over their pretend power.

What the fuck are you smoking? Last month regarding the Stark vote, there was discussion on some of the procedure and about one candidate votes. Stark was added into the Senate after he was voted in and the objections by some Senators were dealt with by others. No use getting your panties in a bunch over that, especially since it was the first time the HoC had nominated anyone. There was bound to be discussion about it.

This time around everyone knows the rules and how it's going to proceed, and if the HoC wants to make completely ludicrous bullshit nominations, go right ahead. In a situation like that, getting told to go fuck yourselves is not at all unexpected. It'd be surprising if this bullshit joke nomination stunt didn't blow up in the HoC's collective face.

Of the four candidates who could be considered serious and who are good candidates, I was in favor of two and voted for one of them. The other two could be handled in later votes and get added that way in time. Though I was really, really tempted to go with the "Fuck you!" vote.

So, because some douchebags made some bad nominations you would say fuck it to the whole system? Do you understand how fucking childish that sounds? That is analogous to saying you would refuse to vote for anyone in an election because a libertarian candidate runs.

As I recall it used to be the custom, if not actual policy, that nominations should come with links showing why someone should be in the Senate. None of the joke nominations had those. Actually, only J had any links provided at all, although Bounty and Thanas had general "look in such-and-such forum for evidence" nods. Frankly, if it was held to a standard of "nominations shall have links to posts providing evidence why someone should be a Senator" none of the 'joke nominations' would have gone through. Although I suppose in that case they'd just throw in some random links, but no system is perfect.

Still, I'm with Dark Hellion in that just because a few bozos felt like abusing the system, why does that suddenly make it all that horrible and/or why punish those genuinely put forward just because they were unlucky enough to be nominated on a month where people felt like acting stupid? That just seems petty to me.

RogueIce wrote:As I recall it used to be the custom, if not actual policy, that nominations should come with links showing why someone should be in the Senate. None of the joke nominations had those. Actually, only J had any links provided at all, although Bounty and Thanas had general "look in such-and-such forum for evidence" nods. Frankly, if it was held to a standard of "nominations shall have links to posts providing evidence why someone should be a Senator" none of the 'joke nominations' would have gone through. Although I suppose in that case they'd just throw in some random links, but no system is perfect.

Still, I'm with Dark Hellion in that just because a few bozos felt like abusing the system, why does that suddenly make it all that horrible and/or why punish those genuinely put forward just because they were unlucky enough to be nominated on a month where people felt like acting stupid? That just seems petty to me.

This makes sense to me - have all nominations include references of notable work. That seems the best way of keeping this nominations from the HoC process going, while still getting (semi-)serious candidates.

I don't think it would be too hard for the HoC nomination threads to be forced to include such evidence.

Or if the Senate wants greater participation back we could hand the vetting process to them. The HoC would generate a list which would then go to the Senate for the senators to gather information.

Really, the territorial spats between the HoC and the Senate are getting boring. Both sides get their panties in a twist and it becomes some petty Us vs. Them bullshit.

I say we spread out the nomination process. i.e., people nominated in the HOC in December will be presented in a thread in the Senate for their nominations to be debated and voted upon in January. Also, nominees should be supported by at least two pieces of evidence showing why they should be in the Senate. It'll be the responsibility of the Chancellor to start the debate and vote threads in the Senate in a timely fashion to prevent the Senate from sitting on nominations.

How does that sound?

If that will make Senators actually vote instead of ignoring four reasonable candidates without giving any reason, go for it.

Those who have been paying attention might notice I have repeatedly stated of late that 52 Senators are more than enough for this board. I stand firm by the idea that we do not need more, and thus will not vote in more unless I am utterly convinced that it is in the best interests of the Board.

J is a nice lady. However, I don't think she's Senate Material, and there is a niggling feeling shes' in there just because of popularity with Testing. Same with Ace Pace and Thanas.

Bounty is the only one out of them I feel has any potential as a Senator.

Whomever put Cully in there needs to be slapped upside the head for wasting my time.

I fully agree with Tev that we don't need any new senators. In fact, I think that it might be a good idea to reduce the size of the Senate to make it more fluid.

LadyTevar wrote:Those who have been paying attention might notice I have repeatedly stated of late that 52 Senators are more than enough for this board. I stand firm by the idea that we do not need more, and thus will not vote in more unless I am utterly convinced that it is in the best interests of the Board.

On the same issue, having the same senators permanently, barring conduct unbecoming of a senator, brings the issues such as the board faces now, where there's conflict between the Senate and groups of plebes.

Anyone, I decline my nomination. I am hardly responsible enough to be making rules and judgment for this board. Yup, my nomination is definitely a joke nomination.

ray245 wrote:Anyone, I decline my nomination. I am hardly responsible enough to be making rules and judgment for this board. Yup, my nomination is definitely a joke nomination.

You know if you had done that say about 2 weeks ago when the nomination was made I could have excluded you

Just a point to consider for all of you:

Senators are people considered mature and responsible enough to be involved in the making of board policy and commenting on board issues. Why do they have to? I'd actually like to see the requirements that Senators participate in debates and votes dropped, the quorum rules sharply reduced, and we just let the Senators who want to discuss those issues, discuss them. Essentially the Senate becomes less of a legislative body and more of "the group of people Mike and the Admins can go to for input from the board population", a list of Reliable Posters essentially. That means the list can get much larger without making things awkward, since only a small fraction will involve themselves, and people can be rewarded with Senator status (like Mayabird, who deserves it but doesn't want the responsibility anyway) and then don't have to feel obligated to do anything with it, and we can continue indefinitely to add members who meet the criteria of sufficient responsibility, without kicking anyone out except for a sustained pattern of irresponsible behaviour.

Dark Hellion wrote:The Senate opened up the confrontational attitude.

Exactly how?

Dark Hellion wrote:So, because some douchebags made some bad nominations you would say fuck it to the whole system? Do you understand how fucking childish that sounds? That is analogous to saying you would refuse to vote for anyone in an election because a libertarian candidate runs.

Er...as of this post 27 out of 51 Senators have voted. How is that saying 'fuck the system'? Or is it your mad that they are not voting what you want them to vote? You keep saying the Senate is fucking with the system, but they keep putting up the nominee's to vote and they're getting voted on.

Thanas wrote:^Well, for what it's worth, I definitely consider you to be a serious candidate.

I nominated him [Bounty] for serious consideration. Frankly the joke nominations are something that disturbs me, but I don't see a solution short of removing the nominating procedure from the HoC, which is something that I'd rather not see happen.

And of 27 votes there are 13 abstains. Now maybe I am naively optimistic, but I thought that members of this board understood that democratic organizations only operate correctly through participation. I don't call 1/4 of the Senate simply deciding not to engage in dialogue to be anything but a slap in the fact to the HoC for having the nerve to steal one of your little perks.

Now maybe I am just being paranoid, but you can understand how the perception can arise. At least four of the nominees are posters with long board histories that are in good regard. Yet, no one has given a reason for their abstinence except Tevar. And her reason is bullshit, because if she felt that was an issue, she could have and should have raised it in the senate before we got to this point in the process. Fgalkin had his BS complaint that he was called out on and has yet to respond to (although this could be a time issue... I withhold judgment) and Seanrobertson has also called out the senators who abstained, yet at least 2 abstains came afterward; without explanation or answering his challenge.

It looks like you are being pissy, little ingrate children, abstaining from the vote because you don't have complete control of the system. It is sad and pathetic. The HoC has gotten to nominate for two months now and you have gone out of your way to guarantee that such things don't go smoothly. So, explain how Broomstick with a history of histrionics, or Duchess with all her melodramatics are so much more deserving that bounty, who has been a competent poster for years that he cannot even get consideration? Or J, who may be a bit self-indulgent about aspects of the economic crisis, but no more so than AV is about his pet doomsdays. Because Tevar, you opened this with your discussion of worth. What makes one Senate material? I mean we can go through the list and discover that many senators have at some point in the past received active censure by Mike.

You guys lost the nomination because people like Edi were actively disturbed by younger members being afraid of the Senate. So you cannot complain behind the rest of the boards back because it was your mess. You are supposed to be the paragons of the board but you cannot even manage your own fucking housekeeping.

Because fuck this Senator vs Plebes bullshit. There are two groups on the board. Us and Mike. We exist on the board at his pleasure. Beside the mods and the admins all the rest is High School cliques, and I doubt most of the board needs to be reminded of how pathetic the people who thought they meant something because of their social status in High School seem now.

Despite my better judgment, I read through all those words. And I'm still not seeing a point here other than Dark Hellion is upset that people aren't voting the way he wants them too. This is apparently the Senate being confrontational, which he claimed earlier - responding honestly to what where clearly attempts to stick the collective thumb of the board in the eye of the Senate for some random reason.

Though a half page rant about how the Senate is the bad guys capped with saying factionalism is bad is rather amusing. But I suspect watching "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" would have been a better use of my laughter time.