[Discussion] Banned from the Senate List?

[Dalton]

In light of some potential Senate bans, should we keep a running tally of people who are banned from the Senate just for reference?

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, a nice sticky just to keep a record.

[Kuroneko]

If it soon proves necessary, I propose that the Chancellor should be officially responsible for it, since it seems that the Whip is already wrapped in enough red tape, while Mr. Wilson is rather indecently uncovered.

(Although in practice this means that it will be left to the Executors, since the Chancellor is on leave. Speaking of taking up the Chancellor's responsibilities, at some point one of them will need to update the rules in light of this vote. It has been over a year.)

[Mad]

Yeah, a sticky would make things easier. The subject doesn't come up often enough for everyone to easily remember who is no longer eligible for nomination.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Ringleader, Einy, should be formally banned from the Senate for life, certainly. I can see the others being let off without that exclusion.

[Surlethe]

The Ringleader, Einy, should be formally banned from the Senate for life, certainly. I can see the others being let off without that exclusion.

I do believe Einhander has already been banned from the Senate for life for backseat nominations; he further has stated he possesses no desire to ever enter this august body.

EDIT: See this thread for details.

[Mad]

The Ringleader, Einy, should be formally banned from the Senate for life, certainly. I can see the others being let off without that exclusion.

Adding anyone to the list of ineligible members for Senate nomination for the referenced incident goes against the letter and spirit of the nomination rules. Having a "spotty record" is not enough to make one ineligible for nomination, and I see no reason to change that. After all, people change.

The reasoning, as I understand it, for making certain members ineligible for nomination as a Senator is to prevent political "I scratch your back, your scratch mine" maneuvering. If anybody violates the rule, then that member will have to do so knowing the consequences.

In any case, Einhander is already ineligible. Were he not, the fact that--after this incident--he would not be able to gain enough support to vote him in were he nominated would be enough to keep him out. So there's no need to expand the scope of the nomination rules as a result of this incident.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Adding anyone to the list of ineligible members for Senate nomination for the referenced incident goes against the letter and spirit of the nomination rules. Having a "spotty record" is not enough to make one ineligible for nomination, and I see no reason to change that. After all, people change.

The reasoning, as I understand it, for making certain members ineligible for nomination as a Senator is to prevent political "I scratch your back, your scratch mine" maneuvering. If anybody violates the rule, then that member will have to do so knowing the consequences.

In any case, Einhander is already ineligible. Were he not, the fact that--after this incident--he would not be able to gain enough support to vote him in were he nominated would be enough to keep him out. So there's no need to expand the scope of the nomination rules as a result of this incident.

The rules are simply standards to which all are held, it's been said numerous times that they do not completely limit our behaviour, and Einy is certainly behaving like he has power when in fact he has none, and should never have any, for that matter, which is what this is about.

[Dalton]

(Although in practice this means that it will be left to the Executors, since the Chancellor is on leave. Speaking of taking up the Chancellor's responsibilities, at some point one of them will need to update the rules in light of this vote. It has been over a year.)

Yes, that will be happening soon. There are other considerations, including the new Whip language vote, that must be resolved before we update the rules.

[Mad]

The rules are simply standards to which all are held, it's been said numerous times that they do not completely limit our behaviour, and Einy is certainly behaving like he has power when in fact he has none, and should never have any, for that matter, which is what this is about.

Why are the current rules insufficient for this situation? They make a good deal of sense to me and ignoring the spirit they were written in (avoiding political maneuvering) is completely unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

[Coyote]

A sticky list of banned-from-the-Senate personnel is a fine idea, and should be implemented.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The rules are simply standards to which all are held, it's been said numerous times that they do not completely limit our behaviour, and Einy is certainly behaving like he has power when in fact he has none, and should never have any, for that matter, which is what this is about.

Why are the current rules insufficient for this situation? They make a good deal of sense to me and ignoring the spirit they were written in (avoiding political maneuvering) is completely unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

It seems that the offence of trying to issue warnings, a prerogative of the moderation, is in the same spirit as trying to rig Senatorial appointments, i.e., they're both interfering with the operational mechanisms of the board, making them the same class of offence, and therefore not really ignoring their spirit at all. That is, granted, only my personal opinion.

[LadyTevar]

I think this is a non-issue. As Mad has pointed out, people change, and spotty records now should not be held against them as they mature as board users.

I do not think a list, sticky or otherwise, is needed.