[Discussion]New Senator nominations discussion?

[Capsaicin]

Edi made a reference to having a discussion thread on new Senator nominations.

I think this type of thread maybe a good idea if the Senate wishes to discuss a nomination in greater depth than perhaps maybe permissable in the [Member] thread. Subject to the standing orders.

Agreed. Split the commentary from the original nomination thread and moved it here.

[Kuroneko]

The lack of recent nominations suggest that in general, senators do not feel there is an abundance of qualified candidates. If such is the case, does it make sense for this process to be monthly? If not, what timeframe is reasonable?

[Coyote]

Actually, there is someone I have in mind... a couple someones. But now that the idea of Senate nomination, and the possibility of voting on such things as standing board policy are in play, I want to watch and observe with new eyes, so to speak. People that I have looked favorably upon before might actually get an opportunity to influence direction here, and that means responsibility of a sort. So I'll wait, and watch, and make sure any nominations are not made in haste.

We may well have some months with no nominations at all. That's good. It is not a quota to meet, but a rare extension of membership benefits.

[CmdrWilkens]

As a thought on that we might want to consider simply ammending the rule to allow that there will be a nomination period each month but no thread will be created unless someone actually chooses to nominate a member for a Senatorship. Basically I would envision that we would have an open nomination period same as currently only no thread would be auto created until a senator actually nominated a candidate. Once the candidate was seconded a discussion thread would be created and we could discuss the dirty laundry so to speak. I know its fomralizing what we could do informally but then again I'm a fan of formalizing and codifying.

[Connor MacLeod]

Those are alot of good points, especially coyote. Its not a quota in the least. If anything, we should be very strict about who we DO allow to become a Senator - its not an exclusive club or anything, its a sign of one's status and the contributions made to the forum as a whole. Its an indication that that person is well regarded, and has had a positive influence.

That said, maybe it should not be considered surprising if we have few (or no) nominations often. It can take alot of time and effort on the part of a potential Senator for it to be apparent whether or not they would be a beneficial addition.

That said, even if there is only a single applicant a month, don't we still have to vote on them? I mean, just because you nominate a person doesn't mean he would automatically become a Senator at the end of the month, does it?

[Connor MacLeod]

Infrequent posting is not a negative mark per se. There are some senators with rather low postcounts and (compared to most denizens) very infrequent postinghabits but whose contributions made their inclusion a no-brainer.

I am well aware of this. THere are alot of "high post count" people whom I would not want to see (nor would ever expect to see) become Senators. I'm sure I don't have to name certain names (though I can certainly do that )

But my point is less of post count than in parrticipation. I can think of quite a few "logical" people whom I might add, but who I haven't seen posting legitimately in a long time. And at the same time, a small post count can offer a rather small "sample' from which to draw upon.

Edit: The first bit on the above paragraph I thought might need a further bit of elaboration. what I mean is, it would be kinda pointless to nominate someone for Senator if they've been gone for a long time or haven't made a fairly recent appearance, no matter how rational they are or were.


I will point out that Mad as it is is a rather infrequent poster here (he's more common over at SB), but what he does post is generally quite worth reading. In terms of respect, given how long I've known him, I'd rate him as highly as I do Publius, which should tell you something about the guy.

[CmdrWilkens]

My understanding would be that all nominated persons get put in a poll, now there is no formal statement as to how that poll is structured but similair to many of our other polls there could be a none of the above or abstain option.

Moreover the exact rule is that the "winner becomes a new senator" we have as yet not defined what "winning" a nomination pool is defined by...actually come to think of it I'm going to throw this out there for discussion in a seperate thread because I'm gonna leave this one for discussing canidates.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well Coyotes' comment about "no nominations in a month" got me thinking. I mean, even if we have two people nominated, is it neccesarily required that either get nominated? Wouldn't it be possible for Senators to choose NOT to nominate someone? (Not just abstain, ,but actually vote "I'd rather not pick any of the choices")

Granted, my personal opinion is that both Mad and Kamkiaze Sith would make decent additions - naturally I'm slightly more in favor of Mad for obvous reasons - but that's just my opinion. The other Senators might feel otherwise.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well I put some proposed rule changes up and we'll see what everyone thinks about it.

[RedImperator]

The lack of recent nominations suggest that in general, senators do not feel there is an abundance of qualified candidates. If such is the case, does it make sense for this process to be monthly? If not, what timeframe is reasonable?

The original list in the mod forum was about 100 names long (not including the mods themselves). Now, I don't think all of them were qualified, but a lot of them were. I'm disappointed we haven't gotten more nominations so far.

[CmdrWilkens]

The lack of recent nominations suggest that in general, senators do not feel there is an abundance of qualified candidates. If such is the case, does it make sense for this process to be monthly? If not, what timeframe is reasonable?

The original list in the mod forum was about 100 names long (not including the mods themselves). Now, I don't think all of them were qualified, but a lot of them were. I'm disappointed we haven't gotten more nominations so far.

On that note I'd reply that we're just getting off the ground here and actually getting a functional semblence of even a partial democracy going takes time. The limits of our responsibilities is still rather nebulous and the scope of our power even more so, thus I think a lot of the Senators have not really considered how much impact they can or even desire to have.

That said if the mods (or Governors if you prefer) would like to nominate then all they have to do is wait until we finish discussing and vote on the current set of proposed rule changes which would open nominations to all Senate members at which point those you felt were deserving from that list could be nominated (and then if found worthy seconded and voted in).

[Stuart Mackey]

The lack of recent nominations suggest that in general, senators do not feel there is an abundance of qualified candidates. If such is the case, does it make sense for this process to be monthly? If not, what timeframe is reasonable?

The original list in the mod forum was about 100 names long (not including the mods themselves). Now, I don't think all of them were qualified, but a lot of them were. I'm disappointed we haven't gotten more nominations so far.

For myself, its because I have never taken much notice of things other than what I was doing at the time in area's that interest me. As such, I have not exactly been taking notes of others abilities.
If future staff are to be selected from the ranks of the Senate, then care must be taken by all of us new Senators in who we elect. Give it some time and more will be nominated.

[Dalton]

Mad has been elected Senator, and this thread is now closed.