[Discussion] Hotfoot's question in the vote thread.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since we aren't supposed to discuss things in vote threads, Hotfoot, here is my answer:

Lady Tevar's proposal to count Abstentions toward the "not guilty" column is what I was referring to.

Currently if there were 10 abstentions, 25 votes for punishment, and 20 votes against punishment, the result would not be the software's stated 45% in favour of punishment, but rather 55.6% in favour of punishment, and the measure would pass, because abstentions are not counted toward the final total in the vote, which only makes sense, as abstentions and "not guilty" are not the same thing. Abstentions only count toward the quorum, and nothing else.

Tevar was suggesting that for this vote we also count the abstentions toward the not guilty column, and I was responding that I didn't think it was appropriate to alter procedure for a single vote, regardless of circumstance, and especially since people concerned about an inappropriate conviction can always make a formal post to the voting thread asking that the Whip count their votes differently than what they were originally stated to be in the poll.

[CmdrWilkens]

Let me be clear that I will not now nor ever count abstentions as "no." Part of it is that I don't want to set a precedent but more to the point we are all adults here or at least have been placed in a position where I expect everyone to do more than just jump on a random bandwagon. If you vote "No" then you should be against the motion and if you vote 'Abstain" then you should feel you do not have the information or involvement neccessarry to make an informed decision. So again I will not now nor ever count an "Abstain" as a "No."

As an aside to the larger question: I don't have the power to enforce this but let me again state that the rules have changed but some are still the same. Read the damn thread because there are some points worth considering:

1) Important threads (re: Punishment, policy, elevation) will be started only by the designated personnel. I am sorely tempted to declare the current vote invalid but I'm going to leave that call to the admins and or the Chancellor if he ever pops his head back in here.

2) If you are starting a vote thread then you MUST notify the Whip. Its spelled out in black and white and the purpose is to ensure that votes get immediate attention since their lifespan is only 1 week.

3) There is no hard and fast rule about when we begin posting a poll and ending the discussion but, this refers back to point 1, six hours of thread when the majority of the Senate membership has not had the ability to review the forum is NOT an acceptable length of time. Some of it is that the Discussion thread's initial purpose is to call everyone's attention to a potential asshole and then either catch them being an asshole due to the attention or causing them to shape up once they know the big stick is being waved around.

4) Going forward, and not as a rule but rather general policy, I will declare invalid any vote which does not receive a respectable amount of debate and discussion OR which is started in violation of the rules. This thread, as i said, I'm not gonna do that because I haven't tried to leverage the Whip position for control before and I would much rather wave my impotent stick of non-authority than actually go through the trouble of obtaining the neccessarry weight to actually swing it. That said I won't hesitate in the future.

[Coyote]

People may also be "abstaining" because they have a personal stake in the matter that would prejudice their vote-- and in such a case, they would not like to have their attempt at honest neutrality be counted as a "no punishment" option.

A quorum must be reached in votes, and 'Abstain' gives that option specifically without taking sides.

[Dalton]

The abstain option was created for people who did not want to vote one way or the other. Counting abstentions as "no" votes is a complete disregard of the will of the abstaining voter, most of whom vote abstain because they do not wish to vote one way or the other but otherwise want to mark their presence.

If there are ever any questions on votes, or if a tiebreaker is needed, that is where the Chancellor or the Executors (i.e., me) come in. Esteemed Senators Wilkens and Coyote are correct: they are there to make quorum and to present an option for those who do not want to vote yes nor no.

Greg, if you have any concerns about a vote, please let me know and I will do my best to resolve the issue.

EDIT: I just realized that this thread is kind of old My point still stands.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The abstain option was created for people who did not want to vote one way or the other. Counting abstentions as "no" votes is a complete disregard of the will of the abstaining voter, most of whom vote abstain because they do not wish to vote one way or the other but otherwise want to mark their presence.

If there are ever any questions on votes, or if a tiebreaker is needed, that is where the Chancellor or the Executors (i.e., me) come in. Esteemed Senators Wilkens and Coyote are correct: they are there to make quorum and to present an option for those who do not want to vote yes nor no.

Greg, if you have any concerns about a vote, please let me know and I will do my best to resolve the issue.

EDIT: I just realized that this thread is kind of old :oops: My point still stands.

Eh, it's okay, Dalton. I've always completely agreed with that interpretation (though in many earlier votes the abstention category was treated as the no category, which I thought quite wrong). It's just that it had been questioned in that thread and I wanted it clarified.