[Vote] Alteration of the rules for nomination

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-06-23 11:15am

As we have been talking about a bit in the nomination thread it might be time to think about giving the governors nomination ability as such I'd like to propose the following for discussion and then vote:

---

Resolved that the segment of rule 2 ("One Senator, One Vote') reading "Who can nominate - Only Senators (no Governors, Chancellor, Executors or Emperor)" shall be changed to read as follows:

"Who can nominate - Every Senate member except the Chancellor"

---

I don't really think it'd be neccessarry to add a seconding funciton in and the last time I proposed changes it died because it got too complex so I'll just leave the changes as this and lets talk about it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-23 11:40am

I'm in favor of this. We all know and respect the reasons why it was just Senators, but frankly, our governors et al aren't evil puppetmasters trying to stack the Senate with cronies. Governors may see people who are entirely worthy of being in the Senate which the Senators may overlook constantly and those people may deserve to have their name mentioned, to bring it to the attention of the Senate. There could just be some face slappings and "How'd we miss him? Welcome brother/sister!"

I think we can trust our Governors. Just my opinion.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-06-23 11:48am

I say trust me, because I trust me, so it makes perfect sense to amend the rules.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-06-23 04:27pm

I'm inclined to think it makes sense to allow Governors to nominate. IF the objection is to keep some distinction between Senators and Governors, allowing only the Senators to vote on the idea still enforcecs that distinction (for what little good it's worth, I suppose.)

Considering that Governors can basically post her and present their own opinions as is, I don't see why preventing them from suggesting nominations should be any different.

As an aside (not sure if this has come up, but what the hell), I know its not permitted for the plebes to nominate themselves (for obvious reasons), but could a plebe suggest a potential Senator to a Senate member?

Edit: Oops I notice there's a rule covering that last one. I'm not sure though if that nominating someone is an "automatic" disbar though for the person doing the nominating or the nominee. Shouldn't that be handled on a case-by-case basis?

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-06-23 05:55pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:Edit: Oops I notice there's a rule covering that last one. I'm not sure though if that nominating someone is an "automatic" disbar though for the person doing the nominating or the nominee. Shouldn't that be handled on a case-by-case basis?

That rule is probably there to prevent "get me in, and I'll get you in" deals.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-06-28 06:00pm

Seeing no real objections if someone could flip this thread to a vote and place it before the Senate for their input.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-28 10:03pm

I'll second the motion to send this resolution to vote.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-28 11:53pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:I'm inclined to think it makes sense to allow Governors to nominate. IF the objection is to keep some distinction between Senators and Governors, allowing only the Senators to vote on the idea still enforcecs that distinction (for what little good it's worth, I suppose.)

You would have to create a special rule that allows only senators to vote on that issue. As it stands right now, the govenors can vote on this.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-06-29 01:56am

The whole spirit of this rule change is to include the governors because we aren't afraid they will run power mad around the Senate (not that they couldn't if they REALLLLY wanted to but still). Adding in special rules and clauses and crap is what killed my last proposed rule change I think. This time I want to keep it short and sweet and voted upon.

*Edit*

Unless anyone objects I'd like to close this poll at midnight GMT this Friday, should give sufficient time for any remaining holdouts (I.E. practically everyone) to vote on this issue.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-06-29 07:59am

I think that this is a small enough community, with enough trust and savvy between the top-tier members, that we all know nobody's going to do anything abusive that wouldn't be called out by pretty much everyone else. I can't think of any reason not to open nominations to all Senators.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-07-06 06:11pm

Having noticed a lack of reply I'm adding this here to try and get some additional votes. Please fellow senators weigh in on this issue.

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-07-06 06:55pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Unless anyone objects I'd like to close this poll at midnight GMT this Friday, should give sufficient time for any remaining holdouts (I.E. practically everyone) to vote on this issue.

Hey, man, it's summer! Lots of us were off on vacation!

Anyway, in case I haven't mentioned it enough times previously, I support this change.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2006-07-06 09:16pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Having noticed a lack of reply I'm adding this here to try and get some additional votes. Please fellow senators weigh in on this issue.

I'm wondering if a minimum number/percentage should be required for future votes. We can't really alter board policy based on four people, can we?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-07-06 09:19pm

Sonnenburg wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:Having noticed a lack of reply I'm adding this here to try and get some additional votes. Please fellow senators weigh in on this issue.
I'm wondering if a minimum number/percentage should be required for future votes. We can't really alter board policy based on four people, can we?

I know there's no way to make it official policy on the button here but I wouldn't consider closing this poll until at least double digits had voted. The Friday deadline was simply my attempt to try and instill a sense of urgency to the process but it seems not to have worked.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2006-07-06 09:27pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
Sonnenburg wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:Having noticed a lack of reply I'm adding this here to try and get some additional votes. Please fellow senators weigh in on this issue.
I'm wondering if a minimum number/percentage should be required for future votes. We can't really alter board policy based on four people, can we?
I know there's no way to make it official policy on the button here but I wouldn't consider closing this poll until at least double digits had voted. The Friday deadline was simply my attempt to try and instill a sense of urgency to the process but it seems not to have worked.

Yeah, I'm wondering if maybe we should consider this as another revision that should be considered for all future votes. I don't think we'd need a quorum or anything, but a fair enough number so that we don't look, well, silly.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-07-08 01:19pm

Sonnenburg wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:I know there's no way to make it official policy on the button here but I wouldn't consider closing this poll until at least double digits had voted. The Friday deadline was simply my attempt to try and instill a sense of urgency to the process but it seems not to have worked.
Yeah, I'm wondering if maybe we should consider this as another revision that should be considered for all future votes. I don't think we'd need a quorum or anything, but a fair enough number so that we don't look, well, silly.

The funny thing is in roughly the same time period we have 23 votes on the munky999 poll but only 5 here.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2006-07-09 12:04am

I want to get on the record that I fully support this measure.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Edi** » 2006-07-09 03:15am

I've voted in support of this measure, don't know why it has received so little attention.

Edi

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2006-07-09 04:36pm

The poll closed somewhat early, but as Connor pointed out, Governors have virtually all the same privileges here as Senators; nominating new Senators does not seem inappropriate. They would not be Governors if their opinions were not respected, and that is, after all, one of the foremost criteria for membership in the Senate.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-09 08:02pm

I apparently missed the poll, but if I'd been around, I would have voted "yes".

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2006-07-12 04:17am

I managed to miss this, but would have voted "yes".

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-07-12 08:39am

Late but no less sincere agreement.

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-07-12 01:11pm

Can we do the vote over again, since so many people missed it the first time?

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-07-12 01:25pm

I was one of the four who managed to get a "yes" vote in. The Governors jobs as moderators require them to pay close attention to their respective forums and thus should be able to pick up on things that Senators may miss in threads they skip over.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-12 01:28pm

Zaia wrote:Can we do the vote over again, since so many people missed it the first time?

I'll second the motion and create a revote poll.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[Vote] Alteration of the rules for nomination

Adopt the following proposal?

[Vote] Alteration of the rules for nomination