[Revote] Amendment to the Nomination Rules

[Knife]

I would respectfully submit that whoever voted no is more than fully entitled to have their reasons as their own without disclosing them to us. We don't have to have unanimity and I think its just trying too hard to go after it.

While that is true, the fact that a member of the Senate has voted "no" means that member has a reason to be apprehensive about the proposal. This reason may have been overlooked by those who have voted, and thus may merit consideration.

I doubt the request for disclosure was about unanimity so much as ensuring an informed decision process.

While I'll agree, this place should be about disscussion. If some one with the authority to vote, dissagree's, then they should come forward with their dissent and disscuss it.

(edit) lets face it, if you have *senator* under your user name, you should be use to the *rules* here and be able to stand the cleansing fire.

[Surlethe]

(edit) lets face it, if you have *senator* under your user name, you should be used to the *rules* here and be able to stand the cleansing fire.

And cleanse it does, both ways; if, perchance, there's an objection the rest of us have overlooked, I want to see it, because it might force me to change my mind.

[Coyote]

The best thing about the Senate is Transparency. If there's a gripe, it may be a damn good one, and I for one would certainly be interested in what it may be.

[Zaia]

One of the people who voted against this issue contacted me via PM to inform me that the reasons behind that person voting that way had previously been discussed, so at least one objection was made on grounds that have been addressed by the Senate as a whole.

I cannot speak about the other vote against, though.

[Rob Wilson]

No one has to explain why they voted the way they did.
If they felt the reason why was only of consequence to themselves (eg. that the rule was fine, or previous objections covered their own) then why should they be asked to explain their vote?

There is an inherent expectation of Privacy in an anonymous voting system. Just because some people choose to add a post to a vote saying aye or nay, doesn't mean that anyone has to.

[Rob Wilson]

OK guys, this was decided in July and yet the relevant part hasn't been changed... I know governments are slow, but this is silly. You made a decision, how about implementing it?

I should also point out that the rule was written that way to removve the Appearance of cronyism in the Senate. So no idiot could accuse the Mods of padding the place with yes-men.

I never once thought they would actually do it, but it helps to have a checks and balance system in place to prevent things in future. I thought they did that Model UN and Government thing in US schools, surely it got the point across.

As chancellor I hold the veto on changes to how the Senate is run, and I'm sorely tempted to exercise it in this case, as I've yet to see a compelling argument for the other side.

For anyone not yet sure of why not Governors and above - it's because they are Mods/Supermods and admins, so they enforce the rules of the board and any troll/troublemaker who fails to get a vote or discussion win in here will just wail that the place is full of people that the Mods use as puppets to make it look like the board members have a vote, but really don't. It's unlikely that anyone would believe them, but it would muddy waters and make it easy for a top-class troll to rubbish the board elsewhere and place doubt in peoples minds here.

Prevention is better than cure.

As to the argument that the Senators don't get to see enough of the board to see all potential nominee's - I put it to you that if someone is worthy of being a Senator, they'll make themselves known through reputation. And, as the Senate increases in size, the more likely it is that those missed initially will get found later on.

I do find merit in the argument for changing the nominations to Bi-monthly or Quarterly - the monthly nominations were only meant to be for a year to get the Senate to a respectable size, there is no reason not to change the period to something longer (it'll help in the search for new nominee's as well ).

As I'm jet-lagged, tired and only here for a day, I won't just veto this out of hand. Instead I'll leave it to Mike to hear out any replies and act however he see's fit.

But in future all changes to the Senate have to be Ratified by the Chancellor (either myself or Mike in Proxy).

[fgalkin]

So, Rob, what you're saying that you're more interested in the appearance of democracy than actual democracy itself? Not to mention the fact that this policy as it is does absolutely nothing to change that appearance. How many Senators were elected? Now compare that to the number of original senators picked by (you guessed it) us mods. So, not giving us a choice does not remove the criticism that the Senate is full of Wong's yes-men. And besides, why the fuck should we care about what the trolls here and the enemies of the board elsewhere think about SDN in the first place?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Coyote]

No, fgalkin, it is the possibility that having Governors, who are already mods and supermods, involved in the Senate's voting that will give rise to accusations that the Senate is an "appearance of democracy". In other words, it could be said that the Mods and Supermods will "stack the Senate" with their buddies, making the Senate simply a rubber-stamp committee for what "the popular/powerful members want".

We're not so concerned with what the trolls themselves think, but when we ban someone or treat them rough the reasons behind the actions are transparent and laid out for all to see, from Senate all the way to Parting Shots if need be. A troll that goes and whinges to the outside world is in a way an invitation for the troll's audience to come here and see for themselves. We are providing the evidence for all to see and nothing to hide, and part of that is not giving the apperance that the Senate is a coven of fluffers for the Mods.


As for Senators not knowing about everything going on in other parts of the board, ie, a nomination based on someone's performance in, say, the ST vs SW forum where I don't go to a lot, I trust the judgement of the Senmators in general and also threads of behavior are provided by the nominator and supporters so I can see specific examples that are meant to be a good cross-representation. If, despite this, there is still no strong feeling one way or th eother, then that is what the 'abstain' button should be there for.

[CmdrWilkens]

Rob,

As I've been the most vocal proponent for changes in the voting and nomination system I would simply forawrd that while I think it weel and good to remove the possible ethical binds that come with Governors nominations the senate vote itself is a sufficent check. Let me clarify by saying that despite the number of Senators added we seem to have run into the problem that despite our experience many of us are hard pressed to honestly recommend new names for consideration. Given that we want this body to broadly represent the cream of the crop, as it were, fof the board, I think expanding the pool of knowledge with regards to who qualifies is worthy of consideration. Thus I think the governors, who I would say, universally, have shown themseleves to be involved and interested participants, are well equipped to provide an additional angle.

The real check on the system is the voting process. By changing the voting system and as the Senate increases in size even if every single Governor wanted a member added the Senate could collectively keep the nomination from proceeding either by voting against or by failure to muster a quorum. Yes there could be someone the mods/supermods tried to slide in but having the nomination process extended quarterly and requiring sufficient interest to muster means that only truly qualified candidates will arouse enough interest to become members.

Even as the system stands now the accusation of cronyism could be levelled based on the initial membership of the Senate. Lord knows i haven't actively debated much in the last year or so and if people had never encountered me before my membership might be called cronyism. My point is that the system needs to be transparent, which it remains, and democratic, which it remains. So long as the system remains as such I see no problem in expanding the knowledge base we use to search the board for worthy candidates.