Senate Problems and Solutions

[Hotfoot]

At the behest of Rob Wilson, I am creating this thread as a repository for any criticisms or suggestions for the current way things are being handled in the Senate. Be honest and frank, if there's something that bothers you in the Senate setup by existence or omission, please make it known here.

[CmdrWilkens]

Its something that I've said probably half a dozen times since the Whip was created, and possibly more, but anyone who wants to conduct serious business in the Senate should read the rules. I know there are quite a few folks who think the system now (and even before I got on a bureacracy streak) is overburdened with rules and too formal for the level of import the forum really has. I can only respond that it may be a sandbox but it still has rules posted for how we play in the sandbox, I'm personally nearly OCD about rules and organization so this is sort of my baby. I think the way things are setup make sense and they serve a real purpose within the administration and oversight of the board. If you disagree then lets propose a different way of doing it, in the meantime read the rules and follow them because it ain't that hard.

[Spyder]

Does anyone have any suggestions for rules that should be taken out? Looking over them, most of the text seems to be nomination and vote procedures. I'm not too sure what you could clip out.

[LadyTevar]

The rules are fine, as long as they're being followed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Updating the rules should be continuous on approval of the changes, however, something that has been definitely lacking in the past. Also, clarifying text should be added as necessary, possibly without a vote. Some sections were downright ambiguous. For instance, the statement that only Governors and other higher-ups could create "important vote threads" left about a dozen different opinions on what an "important vote thread" constituted. That's been resolved now, but other language should be vetted in the future to prevent ambiguities.