[Discussion] Proposed clarification on nominations

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm offering up for diuscussion the following idea as a single proposal to be modified and, perhaps, voted upon:

Proposed therefore:
Rule 2 shall be re-written:


2. One Senator, one vote -
A) Every month, starting on the 2nd, the nominating period for potential new members will begin, this period will last until the 25th of the month


B) During the nominating period any Senator may open the thread if they have a nomination, no thread will be opened unless there is a nomination to be made.
I) Procedure for Nominating -
1. Each Senator has the right to nominate one person per month. If someone has nominated the person you wanted already, then you can second that nomination. If two people have nominated the person you want then wait for the vote.
2. When making your nomination, add a link to the persons profile. You should also provide a link(s) to thread(s) that showcase thier abilities/contributions. You can link to individual posts by copying the url from the little page symbol in the section of thier posts which contains their avatar and user info, if you so wish.
3. All nominations must be seconded in order to be considered in the final vote. Once a nomination has been seconded a discussion thread will be opened in order to consider the nominations after they have been offered.


**Edited**
II) Eligiblity

A) Who can nominate - All Senate Members

B) Who can Vote - Every Senate member except the Chancellor
1)Exception: The chancellor may vote when a candidte has recieved exactly half of all other available votes. The Chancellor will in this case only cast a vote either in the affirmative or the negative. (see Rule 7)
2) This vote may apply in both the initial or the runoff vote, should a runoff occur.
**Edited**


C) At the conclusion of the nominating period on the 25th all persons who have been nominated will be placed in a [VOTE] thread.


D) Winning the [VOTE]
I) In all [VOTE] polls there will be the options to chose all nominated AND seconded candidates. There will also be the option to abstain or vote in the negative.
II) In order to be a winner a nominee must recieve the affirmative votes of at least half plus one of all elibible voters (see B.II).
III) In the event that no nominee secures this total no member will be accepted and the nominees will be eligible for the next month.
IV) The [VOTE] shall run from the 25th of the month in which the nomination were made through 23:59 GMT on the 1st of the following month (i.e. the January vote would end at midnight the evening of February 1st)

**Edited**
V) In the event multiple candidates are nominated but none recieves a majority of eligible votes a runoff vote will be held and the candidate recieving the greatest number of votes in the principle election will be given an up or down vote.
1) The vote will run from the 1st through 23:59 GMT on the 5th of the month following the nomination in such events.
2) The only poll options will be "aye" or "nay" to the question of elevating the candidate who recieved the greatest percentage of votes cast in the initial vote.
3) The candidate will be elevated if they recieve half plus one of the eligible votes as in D.II.
**Edited**


E) What if the wrong person gets Nominated
I) There is no wrong person as such, however there are people that will never be allowed into the Senate (for repeated bad behavior, or asking to get in).
II) In that instance the Chancellor will Delete the nomination (in the case of Bad behavior the Chancellor shall have to get approval for the deletion from at least 4 mods to prevent bias on their part) and PM the Senator that nominated them so that they know what's happening.
III) A list of those prevented from nomination will be maintained. Members who requested nomination (and thus vacated the right) will be recorded as well.


F) Additional regulations -
I) Only nominations and seconds on the nominee's may be put in a [Member] thread, if you don't agree on a nomination, then don't vote for that person. Any flames or arguments in that thread will be deleted - no exceptions! Discussion goes in the [DISCUSSION] thread
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).



**Edited**
Additionally the "THREADS" segment on [Member] threads will have the line about "a new one every 2nd of the month" changed to read "a new one created as needed during the nomination period."
**Edited**



-------------
Anyway that's the sum total of my proposal but I would be WELCOME to any thoughts others have and tweaks to the language everyone might like.


** Edited to change the nomination allowances**
**Edited for the housekeeping ned to change the nature of [Member] threads.
***Edited for housekeeping and to add the runoff election***

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd suggest opening the nomination to governers etc as well as senators.

[Alyeska]

I too recomend opening up nominations to govenors. Furthermore, I would reccomend that when the Emporer makes a nomination, the canadite doesn't even need to be seconded.

[RedImperator]

I'm also in favor of opening nominations to governors and above.

[fgalkin]

Same here.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[CmdrWilkens]

Edited to reflect the desired changes. Please keep the suggestions coming folks. Also added a minor bit of housekeeping to the proposal.

[CmdrWilkens]

I wanted to add the following. I recieved a PM with a suggestion on my proposed rule changes in so far as how a winner would be determined and I thought (after admittedly some delay on my part) that it should be brought to the attention of the Senate as a whole. I don't want to either reaffirm my idea or endorse this alternative but I do want the other senators to be aware of this option. So anyway here it is:

D) Winning the [VOTE]
[...]
II) In order to be a winner a nominee must recieve the affirmative votes of at least half plus one of all elibible voters (see B.II).

I don't think this will be a good rule as-is. I agree that some kind of majority vote would be required, but this rule can be very counter-productive if two or more very qualified nominees are being voted on.

What should happen is that one of the candidates wins for that month, and the rivals more than likely get nominated for the next month to try again. But, under this system of apparently needing 24 votes by a quick count of the Senator and Moderator usergroups, it is very possible that neither will reach the required number, and so neither qualified candidate becomes Senator.

Worse, the same situation may repeat for the next month.

Instead, I submit that if a certain percentage of negative votes occur, then none of the candidates will become Senators for that month.

The specifics of what percentage would meet the threshold for a "no" vote was not given but if others feel this would be a positive change then we could work that out on the fly.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip


The specifics of what percentage would meet the threshold for a "no" vote was not given but if others feel this would be a positive change then we could work that out on the fly.

In all honesty I do not see that this issue should get complicated in any way. KISS should apply: Each nominated person gets voted apon individually and if a majority approve then the person gets in.

[CmdrWilkens]

snip


The specifics of what percentage would meet the threshold for a "no" vote was not given but if others feel this would be a positive change then we could work that out on the fly.

In all honesty I do not see that this issue should get complicated in any way. KISS should apply: Each nominated person gets voted apon individually and if a majority approve then the person gets in.

The problem is the rules currently only allow for one new member per month thus unless we completely revamp the rules in a multi-part election you could wind up with 35% for candidate A, 30% for candidate B, 25% for candidate C and 10% for none of the above or abstain. In that case none of the candidates would get in under my currently proposed rules changes.

The alternative offered would allow that, perhaps, unless say 35% voted "none of the above" (not abstain but actually "none") then the candidate with the highest percentage (in the above example candidate A) would get in despite not having half + 1 of all votes.

While I see the idea there I also would caution that if someone votes for candidate B or candiadte C there is then no way to measure whether they would vote for candidate A in the affirmative.

What MIGHT work better is to allow for a run-off election. Thus in the event of a multi-person election no candidate recieves a majority then an up or down vote would occur on the highest vote getter. In the scenario above candidate A would be subjected to a simple yes or no vote after the close of the original poll where a simple majority would rule again.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip


The specifics of what percentage would meet the threshold for a "no" vote was not given but if others feel this would be a positive change then we could work that out on the fly.

In all honesty I do not see that this issue should get complicated in any way. KISS should apply: Each nominated person gets voted apon individually and if a majority approve then the person gets in.

The problem is the rules currently only allow for one new member per month thus unless we completely revamp the rules in a multi-part election you could wind up with 35% for candidate A, 30% for candidate B, 25% for candidate C and 10% for none of the above or abstain. In that case none of the candidates would get in under my currently proposed rules changes.

The alternative offered would allow that, perhaps, unless say 35% voted "none of the above" (not abstain but actually "none") then the candidate with the highest percentage (in the above example candidate A) would get in despite not having half + 1 of all votes.

While I see the idea there I also would caution that if someone votes for candidate B or candiadte C there is then no way to measure whether they would vote for candidate A in the affirmative.

What MIGHT work better is to allow for a run-off election. Thus in the event of a multi-person election no candidate recieves a majority then an up or down vote would occur on the highest vote getter. In the scenario above candidate A would be subjected to a simple yes or no vote after the close of the original poll where a simple majority would rule again.

I really do think that such ideas are quite unnessary, this is a web board not the parlimentry elections of Britian . If a person is deemed suitable enough to be in the Senate then let the senate vote for that person or persons, why arse about with run off elections? Why do we need to only let one in a month?
This months vote is a case in point, if all three are acceptable, are we not just postponing their entrance?
If a majority of voters think that all three are ok then let them in. It may be that voters only want two of them, then so be it.

I will grant you that there probably should be some limit on overall numbers voted on, or nominated, perhaps, if only to allow proper scrutiny of that persons sutibility. One just seems to be excessive.
If we wish to exert quality control, the nomination and discussion phase is where that should be done.

[CmdrWilkens]

What I want to say is that while I understand the board's rather laid back nature, no this isn't a parlimentary election, it still is an action that requires succinct and smart rules that don't leave huge gaps of clarity to be argued about after a vote. The vote should be the deciding factor and it should indicate whether an individual is felt worthy to join the ranks of the senators.

Moreover I completely agree with the idea of one per month in that the Senate should not be open for massive new admissions, limiting it to one per month means that admission is worth a lot more because the indiviudal was judged as the best amongst all their peers and THAT is the standard we should be looking for amongst those we elevate.

I understand other people aren't driven into a tizzy by election mechanics but this is the kind of thing that I turly live and breath: detailing the minutiae. I honestly think it is worthwhile and I wish others would agree but even if they don't I hope to convince others that changing the rules to be more coherent and less open to debate after the fact should be a worthy goal. But that's just me.

[RedImperator]

I think a runoff vote is perfectly reasonable in any case where no candidate recieves a majority of votes cast. And I do agree there should be a "none" option for those who don't like any of the current slate of candidates. If a Senator doesn't vote at all, then don't worry about it--only count the votes cast, unless you have some ridiculous situation where only three people vote or something.

Also, if the top two votes are "Candidate X" and "none", I'd say have a runoff between Candidate X and none.

[CmdrWilkens]

Additional edits to the proposal. What I'd like to do is get some more comments in before the weekend then try to move this for a vote during next week so that the decision would be finalized by the 5th in order to give guidance for the February nominations and votes (but without any ability to impact the January vote)

[CmdrWilkens]

Okay now that we have elected our new senator and have cleared the January table I would liek to request one last day of debate followed by a vote before the end of the week (assuming someone is willing to second this proposal as it will stand at that time).

[Connor MacLeod]

I have to ask: Do we REALLY have to make the voting in of new Senators a competition? I felt kinda bad voting against Surlethe, and that was still a tie.

Maybe it might make more sense to take each potential Senator as a 'case by case' basis (I would still say that allowing only one nomination per Senator per Month is a good idea though.)

If someone wants to nominate a new Senator, they just starrt a thread and add something like [VOTE] in the title. OR something like that.

[CmdrWilkens]

The idea is that the Senate is a highly limited forum which grants its members certian priveledges due to status. I think we should keep the number low else it loses meaning and becomes little more than a good cookie reward for being a longtime positive member. Sure we could open the gates and let a dozen members in a month if we thought them deserving but it would cheapen the Senate IMO. Still nothing requires anyone to vote or second or do anything other than think I'm off my rocker about this whole idea but otherwise we go back to the current system and tool along the same way. My idea isn't perfect I'll be the first to admit but its designed as a gateway to allow a limited number of highly qualified candidates in. Again if you don't like it then please vote it down, I won't have hard feeling about it but I do organizational scheming like this in my sleep so I hope everyone will forgive me if I'm passionate about the idea.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well that's another reason why the "competition" idea like we just voted could be changed. I mean, with the last thread, the way it was handled at least one person WAS going to end up a Senator. Shouldn't the Senate as a whole have the option to say "I don't think we need any more Senators right now?" - there was no real option like that before.

Hence, taking each potential Senator on a case-by-case basis would make a bit more sense. If there are people who feel none of the Senators nominated are qualifed, they have the option of individually deciding that.

The only way the above might be a problem is if there happen to be a lot more nominations (say, half a dozen or more. I don't think that's quite likely, given how this first month turned out, but its not impossible.) Maybe if it reaches a certain number there would be an added level to the decision making process or something. Or maybe we should just limit how many nominations can be made a month (and extend the ability of Senators to make nominations from once a month to something like once every three months.)

[Edi]

Well that's another reason why the "competition" idea like we just voted could be changed. I mean, with the last thread, the way it was handled at least one person WAS going to end up a Senator. Shouldn't the Senate as a whole have the option to say "I don't think we need any more Senators right now?" - there was no real option like that before.

Hence, taking each potential Senator on a case-by-case basis would make a bit more sense. If there are people who feel none of the Senators nominated are qualifed, they have the option of individually deciding that.

The only way the above might be a problem is if there happen to be a lot more nominations (say, half a dozen or more. I don't think that's quite likely, given how this first month turned out, but its not impossible.) Maybe if it reaches a certain number there would be an added level to the decision making process or something. Or maybe we should just limit how many nominations can be made a month (and extend the ability of Senators to make nominations from once a month to something like once every three months.)

We can change to once eevery three months after a few months, but not right off the bat. There is a very broad consensus among the staff at least that there are quite a few deserving people in the general popuylation who would make great Senators. Surlethe was already nominated this month, for example.

I also think that one reason for the lack of nominations right now is that perhaps the Senators have been a bit unsure about nominating people if they feel they haven't paid enough attention to other people's posting habits. I think we will see more nominations next month, especially if the Governors are allowed to nominate.

I do agree that the "None of the Above" option in the nomination polls should be added, perhaps also with an "Abstain" option for a neutral position.

Edi

[Connor MacLeod]

But if a Senator abstains, wouldn't that be obvious from their choice not to vote? Or are you just thinking more terms of "official' abstinence?

I do agree that there are other people like Surlethe who might be worth nominating still. But I think that's also an argument for the "case by case" basis then. If there are still more potentials out there, might as well vote on em and get it over with (wiithin some of the estabsliehd rules of course )

Or were there other reasons that I am not aware of for what seems like dragging this out?

[Edi]

I had official abstaining in mind, so that in tight races where votes count, it's obvious that all votes are counted for.

Case by case is how nominations should be judged and are judged, seems that way to me at least. The reason it's one nomination per Senator per month was supposed to encourage the Senate to actually pay more attention to the general population, to see who jumps to mind both in good and in bad. It'll also keep things from developing so that just a couple of people are nominating lots of folks, and to give the Senate control over who gets in. That was also a reason for the initially small group: To let the Senate decide, instead of it all happening by moderator decision.

We figured that the initial growth would be quick, or that there would be a bit more nominations early on, but the pool of suitable candidates is going to shrink rather swiftly past a certain point, because new potentially Senator quality denizes are pretty rare additions to the SDnet ranks.

Edi

[Mad]

The problem is the rules currently only allow for one new member per month thus unless we completely revamp the rules in a multi-part election you could wind up with 35% for candidate A, 30% for candidate B, 25% for candidate C and 10% for none of the above or abstain. In that case none of the candidates would get in under my currently proposed rules changes.

Which is what happened in this vote. Surlethe and I each had 36%, and Kamakazie Sith had 26%. Under Section D-II of these proposed rules, none of us would have been voted in. This section of the proposed rules has a drawback in that stiff competition can prevent any nominee from becoming elected.

The wording of the section may need clarification, as well. Currently, it says "all eligible voters," of which there are over 28 (28 being the most active poll in the Senate to date). Because of the number of effective abstains, the percentage of "all eligible voters" each of us got were smaller. In which case, the votes of Surlethe and I combined were exactly half of the highest voter turnout so far, 14 out of 28. Still under half + 1.

There could be a run-off vote that follows those rules. But a run-off vote should probably be an exception, and not the general case. And based on the wording of the proposed rule, most nominees will very likely receive less than 50% of the total eligible voters votes because of the number of non-votes except in truly extraordinary circumstances.

Also, I'm curious about the need for a nominee to be seconded to be in the vote. (Mostly because of my habit of trying to get rules as simple as possible; spaghetti rules remind me too much of spaghetti code.) If a nominee isn't seconded, then his or her chances of winning the vote will likely be smaller so if it was generally consisdered a bad nomination, the person won't win the vote. So why the need for the rule when the system should handle this due to its very nature?

[CmdrWilkens]

Okay then I'm just withdrawing this whole proposal from consideration. Not that anyone was really concerned but I figured I'd state that I'm putting it back in cupboard to be revived if we ever if in the future think about revising the rules.

[Connor MacLeod]

When do the nominations start up again anyhow?

[Dalton]

Oh, I forgot. Yeah, start up a new nominations thread whenever.

[Durandal]

I'd suggest opening the nomination to governers etc as well as senators.

I don't know about nominating governors, but how about confirming appointments?