[Discussion]Single Nominee Votes

[Hotfoot]

For the record, our single-nominee votes from the past:

Ted C
Spin Echo
Noble Ire

Three votes, three senators. Not ONE objection between them. Now, they all share something in common, they were all defeated nominees from previous months. Hell, Noble Ire was my opponent for entry, and I barely beat him by a measly two votes.

So then, what's the big fuss now with Stark's nomination? It can't be a lack of competition, because all three of these Senators were brought into the fold after FAILING to win a vote against another individual, and were thus given the ability to join without any competition whatsoever. Hell, there was even discussion about admitting both Noble Ire and myself in the same pass.

Is it that he didn't go up against someone else? I mean, shit, most of the people I've seen nominated have ended up in the Senate eventually, with a very few exceptions. It makes a mockery of the current nomination and voting system, really, because once someone is nominated, they tend to get in.

So what's the point of the contest? Shouldn't all Senate seats be single nominee votes? Shouldn't someone get into the Senate if they have the merit for it, rather than some needlessly arcane system? If we decided someone should be a Senator, they should be, end of story, at least that's my take on it.

[CmdrWilkens]

Two thoughts:

One is imported from the Votes thread.

As far as the HoC nominations, I would like to point out that we are under no obligation to actually ACT on anything from the House of Commons unless one of us feels that it is useful to do so. Ergo, the ultimate responsibility still falls on us to bring matters before the Senate, and if you really have your knickers in a twist over something that was brought to the Senate from the House of Commons, you might want to take it up with the Senator who thought it was a bright idea to bring it over in the first place.

On the matter of nominations this is incorrect. Currently the HoC is the ONLY source of nominations to the Senate. The updated rules place responsibility for nomination with the HoC and voting with the Senate. This does not preclude Senators from participating but it does require that the Senate act per the HoCs direction.


As to the larger issue I think, and Knife can obviously make his own points as well, that the intention was not to disqualify Stark. Whether one thinks him worthy or not he garnered a clear plurality (hell he garnered a majority even if you count abstentions) thus he qualifies and I have no objection to his ascension. Rather the issue was brought up more as a quesiton in the sense of if the point of turning nominations over to the HoC was to remove the purported taint of "old boys club" then the HoC certainly faild in its first test if it could only come up with a single name. I don't see it as an indictment of the HoC as a whole but rather a question mark in that if the House was created in response to the idea of an inflexible and rigid Senate then why did they not provide anything more than what we have done in the past.

[Hotfoot]

There's a logical disconnect here though. One name does not equate to old boy's club. An "Old Boy's Club" means that you only let in people who are like you, and who you nominate, not that there are a lack of overall inclusions.

For example, back in the day, and even today to a degree, golf courses are old boys clubs. You only get in if you've got money and connections. Poor? Get out. Black? Get out. The moment even one member from the excluded class gets in, it loses a lot of the "Old Boy's Club" stigma. It's not gone entirely, perhaps, until there are several more added in, but still, the point is not in the number, but the type.

As far as the adjustment to the rules, I'll admit I must have overlooked that part, and frankly I think it's silly, since it was never my intention for the HoC to actually mandate anything to the Senate in the first place. So, I move we get rid of that part, on the basis that it's unnecessary. If a Senator sees something they like from the House of Commons, they can bring it up themselves. I'm tired of this hiding behind rules and regulations thing. If we have the balls we're supposed to have, we should be able to post what we're thinking and not have wussy rules-lawyering nonsense.

I'm not here to pull punches, it's clear to me that Knife was trying to go for disqualification, and so was Bean. Bean at least had the guts to say he didn't like Stark in his vote, even though it was a shoddily constructed argument (appeal to popularity, appeal to emotion). Bottom line, last I checked, admission into the Senate had more to do with intelligence, logic, and the willingness to speak your mind, not popularity of one's opinions. In the effort of being blunt, if popularity of opinions by the board at large were the metric for admission into the Senate, Duchess would be on her ass faster than you could blink.

So when Bean and Knife come in with objections they've never raised before, when one of them at the very least has revealed their outright bias against the subject, yes, I'm going to call them on it, because it's conduct unbecoming a Senator and they need their knuckles rapped. We're not here to be mewling babes that behave badly. We're here to be an example, and if we feel a certain way, we should still be able to articulate it well, not falling back on emotional arguments or trying to find loopholes around what caused something you don't like.

Case in point. Coffee suggestion Colefax for the Senate. I object because the kid is not capable of forming coherent arguments, he does not have the guts to say what he needs to say, just the lack of wit to stop talking when he should, and so on. If not for Testing's auto-delete, I could come up with numerous examples of the kid trying and failing, and his contributions to the board outside of testing are minimal at best.

For those reasons, I would vote no if Colefax were actually brought to a Senate vote. And that's how it should be done. Look at the evidence (threads) brought before you, and make judgments based on that.

[Hotfoot]

From the other thread:

To get off my high horse, I'd have to be on one and you've seem to cornered the market on them.

Nobody here has their panties in a twist, sir. Rather I think I've brought up a fair point in objecting. You, of course, can disagree but I don't see any reason for the vem and vitriol you've stuck in there.

Most of this is directed at Bean, really, but you happen to be caught in the splash because you moved to object when in the last three votes of this kind you've never had a problem with voting for a singular candidate. When someone makes an objection to the status quo they've never made before, there is almost always another reason behind it. Maybe you object to the HoC supplying our nominees, maybe you object to the nominee and the fact that he won. Resorting to attacking the structure of something you've up until now been happy with is the sort of move I expect from actual politicians who are trying to snake around with doublespeak to get what they want. So speak plainly and there's no problem, but I'm getting real tired of implied statements and rules-lawyering.

So, why is it that after three votes where you simply felt it was natural to rubber-stamp in a single nominee you now feel it's wrong to have a vote with just one person? What's the X-factor here?

[Mr Bean]

I put it simply, being a Senator is supposed to be an honor, a way of recognizing a member who's contributed to the board and is a reasonable thinking individual who is for lack of a better term "more adult" than the average poster. People who are simply held to higher standards.

Or as in most cases were grandfathered in. People such as myself.
I simply put, have a time issue, I give what time I have strictly to responding to PM's, clearing up the board of doubleposts, and responding to user requests for moderator attention. Fit that in with watching N&P and your talking about a good hour and a half a day on the forum doing nothing more than my responsibilities as a Super-Moderator. Add in the Coliseum duties and I've set my set up for a solid two hours a day on daily tasks. Some days less some days more. I don't have time to write up a two thousand word post with references to past threads on Stark and his behavior patterns. I can say bluntly I don't think the poster know as Stark and say he has no business being in the Senate.

More to the second point, why do we need more Senators? We've said this a dozen times a dozen ways the more we add the slower the votes get. And by accepting HoC nominations we end up in our current kerfuffle.

Can anyone give me a thread, just one where Stark(Our future college) made a post requesting a change to existing board policy? Or perhaps setting out a new one?

[Hotfoot]

So the excuse for not coming up with a coherent argument that is not filled with logical fallacies is time? Are you using the excuse that you were grandfathered in as justification for it? Why bring it up at all? The original Senate was selected from prominant users who were considered to be upstanding members of the community, or at least "cool" by the selector standards. If you'd like, we could do away with the core group of Senators and put them up for a re-vote, to see if they're still worthwhile additions to the Senate, but I think that is perhaps a bit extreme.

The idea that a senator to be has to make a post WRT board policy is asinine. I wasn't selected for making any suggestions for board policy, and in fact very few, if any of the Senators that have been elected have been selected on that basis.

You don't like Stark because he's abrasive and unapologetic, but in the same post you argue that he is intelligent, follows board rules, and constructs posts well. We don't disqualify people for the former two points, but we DO select them for the latter three. At least, that's how it's supposed to be.

Going back to time, shit man, I've got time constraints too. The only reason I'm posting so much now is that I'm on vacation for the next few days. Hell, the reason I didn't go over Wilken's rule amendments was because I was strapped for time. You know what though? I owned to it. I know I fucked up, and now I'm trying to make it right, the right way. Making an argument based on emotions is doomed to failure.

Let me ask you this: Why aren't you arguing the point that Stark's nomination was without worthwhile supporting threads? The burden of proof is supposed to be on the part of the nomination committee, not the voters. You were presented, in the House of Commons, with numerous threads supporting Stark's worth as a senator.

To whit:

when he is serious he tends to be fairly insightful.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4&t=129901

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4&t=129514

Here are examples of Stark preventing the GNC forum from being entirely useless and un-entertaining.

So there you are. You can look at those threads and decide for yourself. If you don't have the time or the effort to put in a solid vote or argument, don't. If you feel strongly enough, do. Don't go off half-cocked because Stark pissed in your cheerios, and don't move the goalposts either. Senators are selected based on intelligence, voicing their opinions, and doing so well. Not for popularity.

[Mr Bean]

So the excuse for not coming up with a coherent argument that is not filled with logical fallacies is time?

Argument? This is not a debate on X vs Y, this is a popularity contest. Democratic elections are not quite logic free but not the same thing as a general argument. There is for example no "evidence" I can present to have someone "proven" to be totally unable to be a Senator at best I can attempt to sway opinion. Nor can I present any evidence to "prove" someone deserves to be a Senator. Hell if I had "Q" powers and waved my hand to have actual Senator Harry Reid or Senator Mitch McConnell sign up tomorrow and I put them forth as possible Senators, could I then say "here we go, real life senators with decades of experience, proof they deserve to be SD.Net Senators?"
Hell no, leaving aside the absurdity of either one of them signing up(Or me having Q powers) I use it as an example.

At present what is required to be nominated as a SD.Net Senator
1. Having an active SD.Net account(Not being banned or current VI titled)
2. Winning enough votes from existing Senators.
That's it

How then can one construct an "Argument"? It's a popularity contest free from the requirments of a formal argument since all I'm trying to do is convince people, not prove something. Yes being able to prove a possible Senator is a swell person and does not kick puppies for fun would help. But ultimately all I or anyone else need to do is convince at most twenty six people and bam, new Senator.

And of course as noted, I did not construct any argument, I did not spend long on the subject I did two things. One, I voted no and stated my reasons, Stark's an ass, he's an easy to read ass, but he's an ass. Two, when the voting went against my point of view I briefly sought to Lawyer him away by seconding the motion, but as you will notice, I did not continue on that line once establishment or previous no second possible Senator votes had been demonstrated and brought back to memory as precedent for a one vote month..

Are you using the excuse that you were grandfathered in as justification for it? Why bring it up at all? The original Senate was selected from prominant users who were considered to be upstanding members of the community, or at least "cool" by the selector standards. If you'd like, we could do away with the core group of Senators and put them up for a re-vote, to see if they're still worthwhile additions to the Senate, but I think that is perhaps a bit extreme.

I bring it up to explain why there are fifty one odd Senators despite us electing far fewer than that. And also I have stated in the past should any such option come before the Senate for a dissolve then re-vote a new core(In essence a reboot) I would happy be the first to resign my seat and would not mind in the slightest if I was not re-elected so long as the new Senate acutally had discussions and move quickly from discussion to full vote. I have even suggested a number(Twenty one) as the max number of Senators allowed at any one time with Senators losing their seats after a number of months and having to "run for re-election" as it were.


I've edited out the rest because it's a sideline because Stark is merely part of it. There are too many Senators, to many people who contribute little if nothing to the discussion here. Myself included, I'd already give up my seat but I'm committed to holding onto it until I'm sure I can take as many of you with me as possible. Maybe not twenty one, but thirty one, whatever the number we need less not more Senators. The HoC it seems makes the Senate less useful as all active discussion is routed there minus the Ray spam.

So yes I voted against Stark, I'd vote against him again, or any other Senator to come after him. I voted against him both because he's an ass and because he's one more Senator into the slurry and one who has not contributed anything which means one more vote to wait on to reach Quorum. That's why it's a standard Hotfoot, I don't care who gets elected because I'll vote against them all.

There are and have been, too many Senators. CW might be opposed to him on procedural grounds or that the HoC can send anyone here and count on enough yes votes from people who just vote yes to everything(You know who you are... you people you...) to have them end up a Senator.
I on the other hand and simply opposed to any and ALL new Senators, and opposed to the ones we got for that matter.

[Mr Bean]

*Edit, were everyone to be kicked out the door tomorrow and Stark be one of the 21 names put forth, as long as I held a vote I'd vote against him as one of the newer, smaller Senate. The Senate I know will not be created as I know how much everyone hated the idea the last time I brought it up here.

[Coyote]

Well, is that a motion, Bean? Table the motion that the Senate be pared down to 21 or 31 members? If so, we can start a new discussion thread about it and discuss the merits thereof.

[Mr Bean]

It's not a motion quite yet, it's an explanation, it's why I vote against all Senators. If I have some time this weekend I might formally put it forward(Again) to see if it's agreed on.

[Coyote]

Well, there's talk in the HoC as well, I think the idea has some traction. I've been thinking along similar lines, myself.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't have a problem with single nominee votes because they can always go "yes/no" or we can just let them in, we've done both in the past and we can pretty much handle it however we've felt the best. I only care that the people involved are a.) good debators, b.) contirubte significantly more to the forum than spammy nonsense and idiocy or synchophancy, and c.) are intelligent, or at least not complete morons. Stark at least qualifies by that measure, even though I am not overly fond of him (mainly because ihs "lulz SARCASM" attitude is grating to the point of caricature, but thats no reason to oppose his elevation, which while I didn't vote for, I didn't vote against either.)

If there are any problems, its the potential for the "House of commons" nomination method to be abused. The Senate should not be dictated to as to who they let in. I dont mind people making nominations in the least but we shouldn't be required to let someone in just because a buncha other people nominated him/her. That has too much for potential of abuse (as I recall senators were not supposed to promise nominations to firends or allow friends to ask them to be nominated, something similar could occur in the HoC) And if someone dislikes that we may or may not act on nominations, well too bad. Thats what we have Mods/Admins for (or the House of Commons now because they can start whinging in there, like they seem to have been now.)

Edit: And if we want to trim out Senators? That's fine too. I'll happily retire if someone more active/vigorous wants to take a part.

[Knife]

Most of this is directed at Bean, really, but you happen to be caught in the splash because you moved to object when in the last three votes of this kind you've never had a problem with voting for a singular candidate. When someone makes an objection to the status quo they've never made before, there is almost always another reason behind it.

Wow, you can quote me. Too bad you can't bring your self to quote the other shit I wrote in that thread that pretty much debunks your bullshit about me having some sort of hidden agenda. And unless you can produce my votes on those other one nomination threads you can kindly fuck off about what you think I have or have not had a problem with.

So for the record here:

Nope. I neither care for or against the actual candidate

For the record and so Stark and Stark supporters don't misconstrue my intentions, I voted abstain on this vote because on the specific issue of Stark for Senate I could care less.

I object to the one name nomination; I object because the HoC was suppose to be the plebs doing better than the Senate did, and they failed. All the emotion, bitching and screaming and they can't do any better than we did. Has absolutely shit to do with Stark or anyone the HoC would have picked rather than the quantity. One fucking nominee.

And scrolling through the HoC nomination thread, only about 18 people have contributed (I'll have to go recount to make sure) which is laughable few compared to all the bitches and whining about the few senators electing senators. The HoC was supposed to put the plebs voice out there and we have 18 nominating Senators, a couple of those are Senators.

[Ender]

My only thought is that for single contestant votes abstain should not be an option. In the case of multiple candidates it means they are on the fence about which one deserves it. But single person it should be a straight up or down vote. It wouldn't matter this time, as it was 20 for vs 19 against/abstain, but in the future I think abstain shouldn't be an option in these cases.

[Knife]

My only thought is that for single contestant votes abstain should not be an option. In the case of multiple candidates it means they are on the fence about which one deserves it. But single person it should be a straight up or down vote. It wouldn't matter this time, as it was 20 for vs 19 against/abstain, but in the future I think abstain shouldn't be an option in these cases.

Or a Senate vote to accept the nomination then another to vote for or against.

[CmdrWilkens]

My only thought is that for single contestant votes abstain should not be an option. In the case of multiple candidates it means they are on the fence about which one deserves it. But single person it should be a straight up or down vote. It wouldn't matter this time, as it was 20 for vs 19 against/abstain, but in the future I think abstain shouldn't be an option in these cases.

I disagree. "No" should be reserved for people who don't support adding the person to the roster, "Yes" should be for folks who think they would make positive contributions and "Abstain" needs to be there for folks who aren't really sure. Rather I think, and perhaps I can make it clearer in future vote threads, that if you don't have a solid opinion then "Abstain" is the proper vote.

Bean made the point, and I agree, that there are probably an awful lot of "sure why not" Yes votes and while I can't figure out who casts them what I will say is the Senate would be far better served by folks voting "Abstain" as their default option.

[Hotfoot]

Argument? This is not a debate on X vs Y, this is a popularity contest. Democratic elections are not quite logic free but not the same thing as a general argument. There is for example no "evidence" I can present to have someone "proven" to be totally unable to be a Senator at best I can attempt to sway opinion. Nor can I present any evidence to "prove" someone deserves to be a Senator. Hell if I had "Q" powers and waved my hand to have actual Senator Harry Reid or Senator Mitch McConnell sign up tomorrow and I put them forth as possible Senators, could I then say "here we go, real life senators with decades of experience, proof they deserve to be SD.Net Senators?"
Hell no, leaving aside the absurdity of either one of them signing up(Or me having Q powers) I use it as an example.

At present what is required to be nominated as a SD.Net Senator
1. Having an active SD.Net account(Not being banned or current VI titled)
2. Winning enough votes from existing Senators.
That's it

How then can one construct an "Argument"? It's a popularity contest free from the requirments of a formal argument since all I'm trying to do is convince people, not prove something. Yes being able to prove a possible Senator is a swell person and does not kick puppies for fun would help. But ultimately all I or anyone else need to do is convince at most twenty six people and bam, new Senator.

The idea that you're looking at this as a popularity contest is part of the problem. This isn't supposed to be a reward or an old boy's club, this is supposed to be an advisory body to help guide forum policies, bring trolls to the attention of administration, and set an example of how to behave. You want to simplify it down to a popularity contest, and that the entire process we've set forth of having nominating members supply foundations for an argument for inclusion of a nominee means nothing, by all means, ignore what we've been doing thus far. However, it's a disservice to what's trying to be done here. Maybe this is a little too much in the way of "serious business", but really, we do need to take ourselves a little seriously here, because as Senators we are setting an example of how to behave for the rest of the board. When we start lashing out based on emotions and moving goalposts to suite our needs, that sets a very bad precedent, and only reinforces the idea that if you've been here longer and are more liked, you're "allowed" to behave badly.

And of course as noted, I did not construct any argument, I did not spend long on the subject I did two things. One, I voted no and stated my reasons, Stark's an ass, he's an easy to read ass, but he's an ass. Two, when the voting went against my point of view I briefly sought to Lawyer him away by seconding the motion, but as you will notice, I did not continue on that line once establishment or previous no second possible Senator votes had been demonstrated and brought back to memory as precedent for a one vote month..

Ah, I see, so because you said nothing beyond an initial post describing an intense dislike for him followed by a goal-moving endrun around his nomination, that's cool. That you didn't continue, that makes it okay? That means I shouldn't look at bullshit and call it just that? So you didn't persist, fine. You still made the attempt, you still hold the opinion, and it's frankly clear that you seem to see very little wrong in what you've done thus far. I'm well within my rights to call you on it and complaining about it only makes it look worse.

I've edited out the rest because it's a sideline because Stark is merely part of it. There are too many Senators, to many people who contribute little if nothing to the discussion here. Myself included, I'd already give up my seat but I'm committed to holding onto it until I'm sure I can take as many of you with me as possible. Maybe not twenty one, but thirty one, whatever the number we need less not more Senators. The HoC it seems makes the Senate less useful as all active discussion is routed there minus the Ray spam.

Now this is a much more legitimate point. One I'm not sure I agree with completely, but certainly much better than "I don't like Stark".

So yes I voted against Stark, I'd vote against him again, or any other Senator to come after him. I voted against him both because he's an ass and because he's one more Senator into the slurry and one who has not contributed anything which means one more vote to wait on to reach Quorum. That's why it's a standard Hotfoot, I don't care who gets elected because I'll vote against them all.

You're an ass, I'm an ass. Fuck, most of the Senate are a bunch of assholes, so I don't see that as a reason to exclude someone. You're an asshole if you point out things that people don't want to hear and/or point things out in a rude way. That doesn't mean you can't be right.

I on the other hand and simply opposed to any and ALL new Senators, and opposed to the ones we got for that matter.

See, it would have been easier for everyone if you had included that in your objection. Then I probably would have ignored the less logical part and we could have had a thread on reducing the number of people in the Senate. Saying it now, of course, just sounds tacked on and insincere, even if you do feel strongly about reducing the number of people in the Senate, the presentation is part of the package. That's what I mean about setting an example for other posters. Yeah, the content should feature, but the way you present it does count for a lot. Hell, that's the point of the organized debates we're having now.

Now, Knife:

Wow, you can quote me. Too bad you can't bring your self to quote the other shit I wrote in that thread that pretty much debunks your bullshit about me having some sort of hidden agenda. And unless you can produce my votes on those other one nomination threads you can kindly fuck off about what you think I have or have not had a problem with.

Actions speak louder than words, you chose to speak up now when before you remained silent. If you had such a big problem with this before you would have said something. It's not like you don't have the guts to say it, because you did here. So, what changed? You've yet to answer that question. Bean at least admits its because he doesn't like Stark, followed by clarification that even if he liked Stark, he wouldn't have voted for him. What's your excuse. Regardless if you abstained, voted no, or whatever, you raised the point here when three previous times you showed up, voted, and didn't say a word more.

Meanwhile, the argument that the HoC has done worse than the Senate is laughable on the face of it, because one still beats the hell out of none for over half a year. I honestly fail to see why you're so concerned with the numbers of people posting in the House of Commons. That's not what determines if its doing its job or not. What matters is that people who previously weren't being listened to, taken seriously, or represented in the Senate are now being heard, and there is an open dialog between regular posters and Senators. As far as I'm concerned, so long as one good thing came from the HoC, I'd be justified. So far, we've seen several things come from there: Senatorial nominations, Structured Debates on display for everyone for the FIRST TIME since the inception of the Collesium, suggestions for changes to the board software, mod nominations to increase moderator presence and control, and general discussion about the current board culture.

That only a few people have had the guts to talk there is for two reasons: One, very few people post on the forum in general, compared to the general readership. Look at the most active posters and look at the total and you'll see a huge dropoff past a certain point. Hell, the people who make worthwhile posts are even smaller still. Two, the people who don't care are going to continue not caring, so fuck 'em. I'd rather a dozen people make worthwhile posts in the HoC than have to deal with mountains of spam and lunacy. In fact, that's one of the reasons I suggested making a House of Commons, because up until that point, the primary point of ignition for board-policy rants was Testing, which was, is, and should be overflowing with useless stupid posts that nobody should take too seriously. Since we want to take this sort of feedback seriously, it helps to put it someplace where it won't be subsequently ignored. I'm happy to say that right now, very few people who care about board policy are ignoring the House of Commons, and that's a good thing. Like the topics or no, like the results or no, you cannot deny that things are being discussed and even done as a result of this.

So if you want to talk about the merits of what the HoC has done in the short time it's been active, I'd be happy to debate that with you.