[Discussion] Bi-Annual Nominations for Senate

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-06-29 02:56am

In the thread started by CmdrWilken it is suggested that Governors be allowed to nominate Senators; it does not address the timetable for nominations. I'd like to table the motion that nominations for new Senators be held bi-annually.

My own suggesstion is on the official 'first day' of summer and the 'first day' of winter (ie, the solstices). However, my primary interest in the motion is to limit nominations to bi-annual events, not tie them to specific dates. Solstices are natural events not tied to any particular culture like certain government or religious holidays, hence my personal preference, but that aspect can be open for negotiation.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-06-29 08:06am

The questions I would ask are, first, does the size of the Senate matter, and if no, why not just have it "whenever we have a suitable candidate in mind".

If you don't want to just keep proposing nominations until everyone's a Senator, you could change the structure of the Senate so that there were a limited number of seats, giving the Senate a standing number of participants and allowing for the voting of new members only as seats are relinquished due to RL demands or board vacancies, or as the Senate votes to add more seats (which would then be followed by a flurry of nominations, presumably).

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-06-29 11:54am

The thing is now there is a sort of unofficial pressure to nominate monthly which doesn't really seem to be working out properly. Going to a bi-annual (or quartlery, or whatever) timetable reduces that pressure and, hopefully, makes the nomination process more involved as we have more time to consider who would be a worthwhile addition to the Senate. That said I'd favor quarterly over bi-annual.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-06-29 12:07pm

I would agree with the idea that we can't simply pluck out a candidate every month for the rest of the board's lifetime. It would mean irrational, desperate decisions if abided by, or a lack of candidacy for some months. So maybe it's for the best that we move to making the promotion to the Senate an occasion that isn't so common as to undermine the competency of the Senate populace.

At least it gives more time to analyse new potential recruits and keep the Senate trimmed of fat (we must have an upper limit sometime, or maybe a term cycle to allow others in when someone wants out or is away).

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-06-29 12:11pm

Lagmonster wrote:If you don't want to just keep proposing nominations until everyone's a Senator, you could change the structure of the Senate so that there were a limited number of seats, giving the Senate a standing number of participants and allowing for the voting of new members only as seats are relinquished due to RL demands or board vacancies, or as the Senate votes to add more seats (which would then be followed by a flurry of nominations, presumably).

I quite like this idea.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-29 12:19pm

Lagmonster's idea does raise the question about what to do with retired Senators: if, for example, they leave for an extended period of time, will they only be able to return to the Senate with a new nomination and election, or are they out forever? Will they still be able to post in the Senate, or at least retain editing privileges?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-06-29 12:24pm

Surlethe wrote:Lagmonster's idea does raise the question about what to do with retired Senators: if, for example, they leave for an extended period of time, will they only be able to return to the Senate with a new nomination and election, or are they out forever? Will they still be able to post in the Senate, or at least retain editing privileges?

Generally, when you quit your job, you do so with the understanding that you can't just waltz back if the mood takes you. However, I'd imagine that anyone who does so has the good of the board in mind. It's not like mods cling jealously to their jobs if RL demands that they can't perform their duties. It's not like you'd lose your posting privileges on the board, ability to talk policy ideas over with Senators on your own, or have any less chance of getting voted back in if another vacancy occurs or the Senate votes to add a seat for you later on.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-29 03:40pm

Lagmonster wrote:Generally, when you quit your job, you do so with the understanding that you can't just waltz back if the mood takes you. However, I'd imagine that anyone who does so has the good of the board in mind. It's not like mods cling jealously to their jobs if RL demands that they can't perform their duties. It's not like you'd lose your posting privileges on the board, ability to talk policy ideas over with Senators on your own, or have any less chance of getting voted back in if another vacancy occurs or the Senate votes to add a seat for you later on.

Thank you. That answers my questions, as well as putting to rest several misconceptions I had held.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-06-30 11:00pm

Lagmonster wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Lagmonster's idea does raise the question about what to do with retired Senators: if, for example, they leave for an extended period of time, will they only be able to return to the Senate with a new nomination and election, or are they out forever? Will they still be able to post in the Senate, or at least retain editing privileges?
Generally, when you quit your job, you do so with the understanding that you can't just waltz back if the mood takes you. However, I'd imagine that anyone who does so has the good of the board in mind. It's not like mods cling jealously to their jobs if RL demands that they can't perform their duties. It's not like you'd lose your posting privileges on the board, ability to talk policy ideas over with Senators on your own, or have any less chance of getting voted back in if another vacancy occurs or the Senate votes to add a seat for you later on.

Yes, but consider people like me or Publis - we will periodically be absent due to deployments. I would presume that we would get our jobs back when we return ala Mr Bean, but is that the case or would we need to be nominated again?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-07-01 04:36am

I don't think the "limited seating" idea adds much to the situation. When we are nominating someone, are we not in essence voting to "expand the seats"? Voting to add the seats THEN nominating seems needlessly complex. Moreover, I'm inclined to recall one of the reasons the Senate evolved to begin with: to differentiate the truly effective, intelligent, and talented invididuals who contribute to this board in a meaningfully way as opposed to "the proles", as it were. As mentioned before, just because there is a possibility to "Add" someone to the Senate each month does not mean that someone HAS to be added. Senators have the option to NOT add a person, right?

Post by **Edi** » 2006-07-01 05:53am

Ender wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Lagmonster's idea does raise the question about what to do with retired Senators: if, for example, they leave for an extended period of time, will they only be able to return to the Senate with a new nomination and election, or are they out forever? Will they still be able to post in the Senate, or at least retain editing privileges?
Generally, when you quit your job, you do so with the understanding that you can't just waltz back if the mood takes you. However, I'd imagine that anyone who does so has the good of the board in mind. It's not like mods cling jealously to their jobs if RL demands that they can't perform their duties. It's not like you'd lose your posting privileges on the board, ability to talk policy ideas over with Senators on your own, or have any less chance of getting voted back in if another vacancy occurs or the Senate votes to add a seat for you later on.
Yes, but consider people like me or Publis - we will periodically be absent due to deployments. I would presume that we would get our jobs back when we return ala Mr Bean, but is that the case or would we need to be nominated again?

You're not going to be booted anywhere, since deployments are something that are out of your control and you're not giving up on the board as a whole like some members have done for various reasons.

Edi

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-07-01 10:53am

I agree that there should not be a limited number of senators - the senate is based on contribution to the board and its ethos, rather than forming any kind of elected leadership. For that reason, I see it as a reward for the worthy, and as such, it is best done purely when a candidate appears to be so.