StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm not entirely sure I get this whole conflict over the Senate and the Senators, if it's just Dark Hellion's shtick, or not, and why there seems to be all sorts of stuff going about every week or so.

I'm thinking that the Senate doesn't need really new nominations every month. Does a real Senate of real government nominate new members every month? No, they get a set number of Senators elected. Some senators may be voted out, resign, or may be inactive, and there may be other new senators who take their place or something.

The way SDN's Senate's being run, it seems as though there's no set cap for the group. It'll just keep on getting bigger and bigger until... it gets really big. For a thing that's designed to ease bureaucratic woes by efficiently conveying the proletariat's woes up into the hierarchy, this ever-expansion is rather inefficient since eventually it'll be prone to bloating up and clogging down.

I'm not saying that nominations should be stopped, not at all. I'm just wondering. Will the Senate keep on nominating new members until the end of time? When will there be enough Senators for the nominations to cease? Will the nominations never cease until everyone's a Senator?

Is it possible for a determined number/amount of Senators to be "active" at a particular span of time, say a couple of months, while the other extra Senators are "benched" until those active Senators have served their time, and a rotation takes place and the benched Senator shift takes their place in active duty? It's an idle idea that might be too troublesome to implement, since it's better to keep it simple (stupid), but it might give the Senators additional ceremonies and stuff to do.

One of the added benefits this rotational shift-scheme will have is that it lets some Senators have a cool off time to do other things, where they DON'T have to do anything Senate-related for a couple of months or weeks or something, and some new fresh faces in the Senate get to take over for a while and the goddamn plebes will probably be relieved to see a new batch of dudes going active and issuing proclamations and edicts and stuff.

Seems like a cool idea. Go stab some holes in it and deflate it, gents.

I've been speaking to the Moderators for nearly a year now, saying that we need a cap on Senators.

Or at least organize them into shifts?

It'll be kind of like those burly steel mill workers. Once the horn blows, they go off into their lockers to wash the oil off their muscular chests, take off their uniforms, switch to civie clothes, and head off to get their paychecks and spend it on booze and hookers while the next shift comes in to toil and hammer pieces of coal and stuff.

Arguably, with all these inexplicable 'controversies' plaguing the Senators every once in a while, shifting 'em around so that every few weeks/months different groups of people will be in charge of the Senate's limited decision making powers might be beneficial to plebe perception and to Senate workingness.

Some of you guys need to take some time to relax, anyway.

Originally, I think Rob did talk about there being a cap. Not sure where the discussion on that is squirreled away though.

Problem being, people taking the very word 'senate' too seriously instead of a throw back of the Imperial Senate has on a Stardestroyer board. Yes, yes, we vote and all that, but it was meant as an advisory panel and not some sort of direct representation method. This Senate v board (testing, or what have your) really seems to be people bent out of shape for having 'elite' members as opposed to having their ego salved by everyone being elite, logical, badass SDNetters.

This issue has been discussed and talked about for a long time, it hasn't been acted on because nobody has come up with a solution. IMO, no solution is to be had because some want to assume the Senate is just that, a congressional body. Others see it different, whatever image the name produces.

If you keep adding to the senate, eventually you get to the point where everyone is part of the senate, which ever model you subscribe to, that kind of negates the purpose. Though the concerns of some that their voice now didn't count on the board, though frankly I think now most of those voices were just pissed they weren't 'elite', lead to the formation of the HoC.

So here we are full circle again, the HoC is having an identity crisis, wanting to be a congressional body, mad at the Senate cuz they're not 'elite enough (see current 'crisis' in senate, chatter thead).

I have been now for six months now a cap on Senators, in fact I think the Senator should be less than half the size it is now.

I've been working on-again off again on a purposal to that effect, stand by Senate.

Just to chime in, I actually support Mr. Bean's proposed Senate composition change. I do know that the Senate is meant to be a sort of joke-like reference to the Imperial Senate of the Galactic Empire, but it also now means more to the board population.

Is there some other way to reward people with good posting history than to nominate them for the Senate membership? That might also halt Senate's growth in the future. And maybe Darth Wong's original desire to see active members as Senators be enforced: for example, if a Senator has not officially made known that he or she is going to be absent in Senate threads and thus inactive for a while, there could be a vote or even an outright decision to remove the said Senator after some period of time. This could very well also cut down the CURRENT Senate membership. I don't have anything against the Senate, mind you, these are just suggestions and wild ideas.

C'mon guys. Simple problem with a simple solution.

Rob Wilson wrote:A. Procedure for Nominating -

I. Each Member of the Senate has the right to nominate one person per month. If someone has nominated the person you wanted already, then you can second that nomination. If two people have nominated the person you want then wait for the vote. A second does not count as a nomination thus a Member may both nominate one candidate and second any additional candidates they deem worthy of consideration.

II. When making your nomination, add a link to the persons profile (this allows other to search through all their posts of they wish and ensures they know just who it is you're talking about - not confusing RogueIce with Rogue 9 for instance). You should also provide a link(s) to thread(s) that showcase their abilities/contributions. You can link to individual posts by copying the url from the little page symbol in the section of their posts which contains their avatar and user info, if you so wish.

III. In the case of someone with a spotty record the evidence in their favour must be stronger than that required for a normal nomination. Don't be suprised if no one votes for them though.

IV. All Members are granted the right to nominate and vote for entry into the Senate excepting the Chancellor (not excepting those cases where the Chancellor must cast a deciding vote)

V. All nominations shall be considered. That said nominations of persons in bad standing with the Chancellor shall be considered for removal from the nomination process at the Chancellor's discretion. This may only occur upon notice to the nominating Senator and with the concurrence of at least four governors. (Except those barred from nomination due to requests to join the Senate as discussed below)

Where IN ANY OF THAT does it say that there HAS to be a nomination every month. There doesn't. It is not anyone's fault in the Senate that idiots on the board can't read rules and announcements (Shocking that that is still a problem, I know) and then bitch that no one is getting nominated. You guys need to stop kowtowing to the retard whiners on the board. It is fucking ridiculous.

As far as restructuring the Senate... why? Is less going to get more done? Or is this going to be just like every other drama induced change and it will cause activity for two weeks and then it will go back to the status quo? Just leave it as is, or just ask all the Senators if they actually want to be Senators. If anyone wants to leave, they can, if not, then leave it the way it is.

It is fucking amazing that all the complaining about the Senate comes from the board members, but not once has there been a complaint, AFAIK, from the one person it was created to help out.

Destructionator XIII wrote:There shouldn't be a cap on the size of the Senate. If everyone on the board is Senate material, then awesome, it means we have a good populace going.

The main thing I'd change is removing the requirements for every senator to vote. If they want to vote, cool, and if not, whatever.

They don't have to vote, right now simply picking up the PM you get sent when voting begin coutns as "voting" in my record book.

Put a time limit on votes and when the time is up, you have a decision, even if only one person voted in it.

That way the size doesn't matter.

We already have that its called 7 days per vote and quorum must be met (which isnt' all that stringent either 40% or 50% of the Senate). We can dispute the principal behind having a quorum but the basic idea is that you should have at least a minimum amount of input on any vote and the current bar is set pretty low.

Adding someone once a month isn't a big deal. It'll take four years to double the size of the senate at that rate, and if it grows to the point of including everyone who isn't an outright troll or moron, all the better. You can hardly claim that the place is likely to 'clog up' or 'bog down' when only a few senators bother to post in most of the discussion threads.

It might be more worthwhile to go through who hasn't participated recently and do a warning PM followed by a quiet shift to "Emeritus" status after a set period of time.