How Not to Become a Senator

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-27 03:31am

I recently received a private message from Einhander Sn0m4n suggesting two people as potential nominees to the Senate. Unfortunately, the rules* of this august assembly explicitly prohibit vicarious nomination. Therefore, I solemnly and sorrowfully submit that this Imperial Senate hereby declare Einhander Sn0m4n barred from consideration for the rank of Senator. Further, in accordance with the third paragraph, I submit for consideration Fleet Admiral JD and Soontir C'boath, the two Einhander recommended. I have no reason to believe they should be barred from future consideration, as Einhander maintains that he recommended them without their collaboration.

* relevant portion:
ii) If you get asked (be it by PM, in a thread, IM, Chat, E-mail, Phone, Letter, or in person) by someone to nominate them, you have to inform the Senate so they can be barred from joining. Obviously this relies on your honesty, so don't disappoint us.
iii) If you get asked to nominate someone else then inform the Senate and we'll make a decision on whether to bar them (we'll certainly bar the person asking).

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-07-27 05:18am

Why should it be sorrowful? I can think of a goodly number of Senators who might go on a rampage should Einy have ever been suggested for the idea. (I certainly don't think he contributes nearly enough to warrant a nomination, anyhow.) So don't feel bad: odds are his chancees of any nomination of him being unopposed would be remote.

As for his nominations. To my (limited) knowledge Einy is not known for outright lying, so I would take his word at face value that those nominations weren't collbaroated.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2006-07-27 07:47am

I'd like to recommend a ninety day ban on consideration for nomination. Even though they're not responsible for what a third party did, there's two things that come to mind: it probably wouldn't be appropriate for someone to read this and say, "You know, I do think X should be a senator," as that would be contrary to the intended rule; and more importantly, we don't want it to even look like we did that or we risk opening the floodgates to "nominee martyrs" who will submit names in the hopes of those people being nominated and/or just being attention whores.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-07-27 11:03am

Yeah, with his proclivity towards picture spam and enormous text spam, he'd easily be among the last high post-count members who would be seriously considered for Senate membership.

And yes, I tend to agree with the sentiment that anyone who is suggested for the Senate outside of the normal channels be barred from nomination for some certain amount of time. Certainly to avoid the appearance of unethical behavior at a minimum, and to avoid the risk of opening the floodgates, as has been mentioned before.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-27 11:45am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Why should it be sorrowful? I can think of a goodly number of Senators who might go on a rampage should Einy have ever been suggested for the idea. (I certainly don't think he contributes nearly enough to warrant a nomination, anyhow.) So don't feel bad: odds are his chancees of any nomination of him being unopposed would be remote.

He reasoned the same way, when he found out he was in violation of the rules. I just didn't want the tone of my post to be too terribly stringent.

As for his nominations. To my (limited) knowledge Einy is not known for outright lying, so I would take his word at face value that those nominations weren't collbaroated.

Soontir PMed me saying that he wasn't aware of anything, and I'm also inclined to take both their words for it. EDIT: Fleet Admiral JD also just PMed me, and declaimed that he didn't know of it either. Again, I believe him.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-07-27 07:37pm

I'm in general agreement with the 90 day temporary hold on consideration for either member to avoid any chance of confusion or appearence of influence. Also Einy would have been a tough sell as a nominee much as has been mentioned already so putting him on the permanent "no-go" list means we will never have to worry on the issue.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-07-27 11:41pm

It might be well at some point to put up the list of those permanently barred from nomination to the Senate, as it would be easy (given enough time) to forget just who isn't qualified on the basis of a previous rule violation. I know such a roll is probably kept by the moderators of this forum but an easy reference for cross-checking will avoid any little embarassments or wasted bandwidth.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-07-28 08:22am

I'd tend to believe the Ein didn't have their complicity when he suggested them for the Senate, so I don't think they should go on the "no-go" list.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2006-09-06 01:13am

Patrick Degan wrote:It might be well at some point to put up the list of those permanently barred from nomination to the Senate, as it would be easy (given enough time) to forget just who isn't qualified on the basis of a previous rule violation. I know such a roll is probably kept by the moderators of this forum but an easy reference for cross-checking will avoid any little embarassments or wasted bandwidth.

EEEK. I knew there was something I forgot to bloody make before I left. Bugger, I'll get it done now. Cheers for the reminder.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2006-09-06 01:17am

CmdrWilkens wrote:I'm in general agreement with the 90 day temporary hold on consideration for either member to avoid any chance of confusion or appearence of influence.

Personally I think just a senate review of that persons suitability would do the job. But then I never considered the 'Martyr' scenario that chuck came up with. I don't want a floodgate of nominee's swamping the Senators, or we'll never get past the review stage.

Very well, the 90 day temp ban will be added to the relevant section.