StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, so some of the nominations weren't to the liking of the Senators. But there is quite a few qualified candidates that were nominated and there are still 16 Abstaining voters. Bounty, J, and Thanas are no exactly joke nominations.

So unless the only nominees are Ray245, a taco, and a cigarette butt (or at least all confirmed joke nominees) then I don't think Senators should be bitching. This isn't personal, but even if after all the candidates are scurtinized there is still a "no" option.

If it really is that much of a point of contention where people will start getting severe diarrhea over it, then just set a limit where if someone isn't elected after getting nominated six or seven times then they can't be a Senator EVER.

At this time i'm also going to add an item to this movement granting my state $400 million for a "tunnel to the center of the earth"

So what is they abstain. They aren't even required to nominate someone. The abstain option just means they are aware of the vote and not ignoring it and aren't inactive, or as a few Senators have said, they have no issue with the nominees themselves, just the adding of new Senators at all.

Next candidate: TACO

Soft-shell, cuz that hard-shell bullshit won't fly on my watch. Pain in the ass...


Abstain doesn't mean shit, Wilkens recently stated that abstains aren't counted when determining a winner, whoever has the most votes wins, even if 99% of votes went to abstain and one vote went to one candidate, that guy wins.

Which is why we need a "none of the above" option in these votes.

Proposal: Nominations made by the HoC must be seconded by a Senator. This would make it less likely that a joke nomination makes it to the vote, and if one does, it's because someone with the power to vote felt the nomination was worthy of consideration, and therefore, in fact, not a joke nomination.

If only the senate showed some initive and jsut didnt include ray in the vote. BUT NO THAT WOULD VIOLATE PROCEDURE.

LadyTevar wrote:Which is why we need a "none of the above" option in these votes.

You know, if you're so dead-set in the notion that no one else should ever be a Senator regardless of qualification because there are already enough, why keep beating around the bush? Propose an amendment to the Senate rules barring further nominations and be done with it.

Rogue 9 wrote:

LadyTevar wrote:Which is why we need a "none of the above" option in these votes.

You know, if you're so dead-set in the notion that no one else should ever be a Senator regardless of qualification because there are already enough, why keep beating around the bush? Propose an amendment to the Senate rules barring further nominations and be done with it.

Well we are actively considering that right now.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:If only the senate showed some initive and jsut didnt include ray in the vote. BUT NO THAT WOULD VIOLATE PROCEDURE.

Sure, but what about the next time when the Senate doesn't include some joke nomination you happen to like? Good fucking god look out for the whine.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:If only the senate showed some initive and jsut didnt include ray in the vote. BUT NO THAT WOULD VIOLATE PROCEDURE.

Then people would bitch that they were breaking rules, and rightfully so. The solution would be that every nomination must include at least 2 examples showing the nominees worth as a poster. That would curb 'joke' nominations.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:

LadyTevar wrote:Which is why we need a "none of the above" option in these votes.

You know, if you're so dead-set in the notion that no one else should ever be a Senator regardless of qualification because there are already enough, why keep beating around the bush? Propose an amendment to the Senate rules barring further nominations and be done with it.

Well we are actively considering that right now.

I'd have no problem with a cap as long as it meant that every single senator who was "grandfathered in" got the boot and only those elected were allowed to remain with new elections to fill any vacant seats.

Flagg wrote: I'd have no problem with a cap as long as it meant that every single senator who was "grandfathered in" got the boot and only those elected were allowed to remain with new elections to fill any vacant seats.

PROTIP: It wouldn't

JointStrikeFighter wrote:If only the senate showed some initive and jsut didnt include ray in the vote. BUT NO THAT WOULD VIOLATE PROCEDURE.

Mmm, yes.... someone is nominated, and we ignore him. That won't add one iota of commentary about 'old boy club elitism', no sir.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:If only the senate showed some initive and jsut didnt include ray in the vote. BUT NO THAT WOULD VIOLATE PROCEDURE.

Others have made some good points in this but I'd rather address the underlying distaste that seems evident in your post. The idea that the rules are there just to be rules.

The reason why the rules exist in their current form is an attempt, largely on my part, to create an open and clear standard by which the Senate membership will be apportioned. We went through a long period of consistent complaints that the Senate was an "elitist" or "old boys club" sort of forum that didn't listen to the baord as whole or do its job. The rules as proposed and voted on (though the "rules" thread itself has not been updated) was designed to, as best as possible, address those concerns by providing for the board atlarge to nominate those members they felt would be good Senators. Sure you consider some of those nominations a joke but the problem is "joke nomination" is a completely undefined quantity, that is there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD TO CLASSIFY a "JOKE" NOMINATION.

Lets take Shroom as an example. He tends to be erratic at best but one can look at his postivie contributions in STGOD and think that he could certainly be a worthwhile Senator. I like Shroom but I disagree, the problme is that his nomination is not automatically a "joke" just because there is a pereption by folks that this is the case. One person's "joke" nomination is another persons compeltely serious nomination.

Now the old rules (currently still in he rules thread) allowed for the Chancellor to remove any nomnation from consideration at his/her discretion. I eliminated that rule because the first time I did so people would start bitching that I had no reason to do so.

What I challenge you to do is come up with an objective standard for declaring someone a "joke" nomination and if nobody can well I'm pretty tempted to just bring back the "Chancellor's discretion" rule.

hey now I spent months nominating Mike's dog which never got seconded back in the old days. In an homage to Caligula's nomination of a horse. So in the tradition I have now nominated Edi's new Bengal Kitteh

Sometimes Colin...I just wonder why.

Locking.