Note regarding rules for voting

[CmdrWilkens]

Since it appears that everyone wants to debate a crapload of items, not the least of which is viability of certain punishments AND the proecdure for enacting punishments I am asking all to move those comments into THIS thread and cease to utilize the [VOTE] thread for anything other than its purpose.

That being said quick notes:

The rules themselves have NOT been changed to require a guilty/not guily followed by a runoff for punishment. We carried out a dsicussion on the matter and several votes have been carried out in that format however changing the actual rules of voting to REQUIRE a runoff has not been done. As of right now it is solely to responsibility of the [VOTE] initiator to determine whether the vote shall be guilty/not guilty with runoff or a direct vote on punishment.

With the discussion in the other thread regarding who starts votes please, going forward, refrain from initiating a [VOTE] thread unless you are a governor or admin OR have a second the motion from a governor/admin. The rules thread should be getting updated soon and hopefully we can stop having this uncertainty over how things go in here.

[LadyTevar]

Do we really -NEED- a guilty/not guilty vote before punishment? It seems this idea has only been pushing within the last couple months. Before it was a straight up punishment poll after a long discussion period.

[CmdrWilkens]

Do we really -NEED- a guilty/not guilty vote before punishment? It seems this idea has only been pushing within the last couple months. Before it was a straight up punishment poll after a long discussion period.

Do we need it? No not at all but there MAY be cases where there is a consensus on guilt but not punishment so having two polls would firmly establish guilt and then render punishment a more uncertain but still effective vote. That said I think it should be the exception but my point here was to remind folks that there is no requirement for a two phase vote.

[Surlethe]

Perhaps instead of requiring two separate polls, we could simply add another option to the existing polls: "Censure", which would be the same as "Guilty, but no punishment".

[Simplicius]

Separate guilt and punishment polls are the best way to give everyone a satisfactory option, but that's at least three threads for each of us to deal with - the guilty/not guilty vote, the doubtlessly lengthy argument over punishment options, and then the second vote. An all-or-nothing guilt + punishment vote appears short and sweet at first glance, but the example presently before us too closely resembles a train wreck. I would wager that this not entirely due to the sudden influx of Senate business.

An option for censure seems like it would be the best way to keep clutter down, even if it doesn't let everyone vote for the punishment they would like best. I'll support it.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'll say that simply allowing the discussion to run to its ntural conclusion is probably the best way to avoid any uncertainty about intended punisment. I think all too often (read everytime) we've movedto a punishment poll without truly settling on what the preferred forms of punishment would be. Part of the push for reminding everyone that [vote] polls are suppossed to be restricted is to cut down on early polling before the options are truly settled.

[LadyTevar]

I agree with Wilkens. We need to stop posting Vote polls before we've determined appropriate punishment.

[Connor MacLeod]

We shouldn't need seperate vote polls for guilt and punisment in EVERY case - we haven't in the past. I say determination as to how it is handled be on a case-by-case basis, which can be handled in the discussion forum. If there seems to be a broad consenus on punishment in most cases, ,we can simply skip to the guilt/innocence thing, I think. Alternately, we can also do "guilt/innocence" polls covering individual punishments in certain cases (if its narrowed down, per se.)

[Mad]

Perhaps most cases can probably be handled with a vote in the following basic format:

• GUILTY: Perm Ban
• GUILTY: Temp Ban
• GUILTY: Sig/Avatar Removal
• GUILTY: Demeaning Custom Title X
• GUILTY: Demeaning Custom Title Y
• GUILTY: Censure
• NOT GUILTY
• ABSTAIN

The actual options should vary depending on the results of a discussion thread, but as long as the basic "GUILTY: Punishment," "GUILTY: Censure," "NOT GUILTY," and "ABSTAIN" options are available, the vote thread can determine guilt and punishment. (If banning isn't mentioned in the discussion thread, there's no reason to include those options; if only one custom title is suggested, then there's no need to include a second one; etc.)

We would, of course, need some system of interpreting the results. If there was a tie between "GUILTY: Sig/Avatar Removal" and "GUILTY: Censure," then votes for the other "GUILTY" options should weigh in favor of an actual punishment.

[LadyTevar]

That might work, Mad

[Coyote]

Maybe a "special" category that would involve a combination of measures-- somethign that would have to be decided in th Discussion portion.

We have up to 10 possible votes in each poll thread, if need be we can use 'em all.

[Lord Poe]

That might work, Mad

I third Mad's idea. We should have a "this is what's at stake" for a guilty verdict at the beginning.

[CmdrWilkens]

Just for the record I am not bringing any suggesitons here to a vote. We've got a loose enough voting structure currently that any ideas or practices we have tried and suggested are okay. The matter of how we vote in a thread will ultimately be retained by whomever opens the vote and given that for important matters this is a restricted vote I rather suspect the mods and admins will be able to decide the best format.