[VOTE] December Membership

[Noble Ire]

Voted.

[Kuja]

Voted.

[Simplicius]

Vote made.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Voted.

[Knife]

I object to a one named candidate vote.

[Mr Bean]

I object to a one named candidate vote.

I second that objection.

[Simplicius]

It's hardly without precedent, though. Surlethe, Gil Hamilton, and Spyder were all automatically elevated by dint of being the only nominees, while the elections of Noble Ire, Spin Echo, and TedC were all single-candidate votes. No-one objected at the time; is there something about this particular vote which you find troublesome?

[Knife]

It's hardly without precedent, though. Surlethe, Gil Hamilton, and Spyder were all automatically elevated by dint of being the only nominees, while the elections of Noble Ire, Spin Echo, and TedC were all single-candidate votes. No-one objected at the time; is there something about this particular vote which you find troublesome?

Nope. I neither care for or against the actual candidate, rather if the HoC is selecting our nominee's for us, there should be more than one name. Wasn't one of their complaints, that of lack of diversity in the Senate? Shouldn't they, then, be tasked to bring more than just one name to the floor for a vote?

[Coyote]

[... if the HoC is selecting our nominee's for us, there should be more than one name. Wasn't one of their complaints, that of lack of diversity in the Senate? Shouldn't they, then, be tasked to bring more than just one name to the floor for a vote?

Well, it's not like this will be the only vote, ever. They're free to nominate more as time passes.

Besides, the HoC was created at a time of high drama. There was much clamor and grumble, which I felt would die down once the initial novelty and venting wore off. Many of the most boisterous complaints and gripes were, apparantly, seen in retrospect as being the grousing of the moment. Now things are settling to a more calm tone, which is as it should be, IMO.

Well, except for Ray245. He keeps spamming every little suggestion that floats to the top of his head. But he'll grow, or it'll be, I dunno, death by Unga-Bunga or something.

[CmdrWilkens]

It's hardly without precedent, though. Surlethe, Gil Hamilton, and Spyder were all automatically elevated by dint of being the only nominees, while the elections of Noble Ire, Spin Echo, and TedC were all single-candidate votes. No-one objected at the time; is there something about this particular vote which you find troublesome?

Nope. I neither care for or against the actual candidate, rather if the HoC is selecting our nominee's for us, there should be more than one name. Wasn't one of their complaints, that of lack of diversity in the Senate? Shouldn't they, then, be tasked to bring more than just one name to the floor for a vote?

Truth be told, and I'll put it out here:

This is sort of a "told you so" moment for those who thought that the HoC would be a place for a lot of complaints and a little contribution. Now that said I don't think a single month (especially with an abbreviated nomination period) is telling but if this continues into Jan, Feb, etc well then its telling. If the board at large complains that the Senate is being too exclusive but can't get off their ass to nominate some candidates then its just sour grapes on their part.

That being said I have no objection to single person votes. We've had them before and the folks placed on the Senate through such votes have been well received. If folks think that a person isn't ready to be a Senator then they need to vote "none" and make their case heard. Personally I abstained in this matter because I just haven't had enough contact with Stark (despite his prolific posting) to have a true opinion on the matter.

So as a sort of wrap: one person votes have been usual and frequent so that stands, I personally will not support and will actively oppose an attempt to require a minimum of a two or more nominations per vote; if folks support or oppose a nominee then they need to make their case in the HoC or here; if you still feel that the case needs to be made that a person shouldn't occupy the seat then the rules as updated contain grounds for expulsion.

[Knife]

Truth be told, and I'll put it out here:

Knock it out.

This is sort of a "told you so" moment for those who thought that the HoC would be a place for a lot of complaints and a little contribution.

I don't understand your intent on this. I actually voted for the HoC, though I now regret it. 'You told me so' what? I don't recall you being against it. Nor do I particularly remember you for it.

Now that said I don't think a single month (especially with an abbreviated nomination period) is telling but if this continues into Jan, Feb, etc well then its telling. If the board at large complains that the Senate is being too exclusive but can't get off their ass to nominate some candidates then its just sour grapes on their part.

Kind of my point. So I'm stealing it for my position from here on out.

That being said I have no objection to single person votes. We've had them before and the folks placed on the Senate through such votes have been well received. If folks think that a person isn't ready to be a Senator then they need to vote "none" and make their case heard. Personally I abstained in this matter because I just haven't had enough contact with Stark (despite his prolific posting) to have a true opinion on the matter.

For the record and so Stark and Stark supporters don't misconstrue my intentions, I voted abstain on this vote because on the specific issue of Stark for Senate I could care less. I decided to post my objection though, due mostly to the absurdity of the HoC and all I went through to vote for such, only to have the status quo continue. Seriously, without the HoC, we could have had a one named nomination.

So as a sort of wrap: one person votes have been usual and frequent so that stands, I personally will not support and will actively oppose an attempt to require a minimum of a two or more nominations per vote; if folks support or oppose a nominee then they need to make their case in the HoC or here; if you still feel that the case needs to be made that a person shouldn't occupy the seat then the rules as updated contain grounds for expulsion.

Disagree. The whole point of the HoC nominating candidates was that for whatever reason the Senate wasn't doing it right. If the best they can do is what the Senate was doing, then they nominating Senators is useless.

[Simplicius]

One of the main complaints was that we seemed to have given up on nominating anybody. Thus, even if the HoC only gives us one candidate in future nomination cycles, it will be justifying its continued existence.

If nominations from HoC peter out after a while as interest wanes or people forget or whatever, then the doubters can have their day. But it's a bit soon for that right now.

[Coyote]

I hereby nominate this particular era in SDN History as the "Seinfeld Senate Debate Cycle": a show about nothing.

fgalkin can so note it. So it is written, so it is done; the cycle is complete.

[CmdrWilkens]

So couple things:

Jan 1st has passesed and the vote is now closed. With 39 votes we have a quorum to do business. Stark carries 20 votes to 12 for none and has a plurality. If the appropriate admin could add him to forum access he has been added to the active Senators list.

Knife: I don't think i was very vocal about objecting to the HoC but I think I made a rather clear showing that I didn't support the idea. In other words I hope, and maybe it didn't come out this way, that I made the point that I did not feel it my place to actively oppose the HoC but rahter to voice my opinion that I felt is unneccessarry vote against it but otherwise remain silent. That said I don't believe the told ya so is warranted yet for the reasons listed rather that it will be if the trend holds.

On the last point, if the HoC is no better at nominating new Senators than the existing Senate then I would have no issue with bringing nominations back into the Senate alone. However, I'm willing to let things continue until we see how this will actually work long term.

[Coyote]

Nominating each month is silly. May as well make everyone a Senator once they reach, ohhh, say, 1000 posts. Make nominations either bi-annual (preferred) or quarterly, and put an upper limit on the amount.

[Hotfoot]

I'd like to point out that I even mentioned that discussion in the HoC would wax and wane with board drama, and that it in fact was rather the point of the whole thing. We'll have spells in the Senate where we do jack all but sit on our asses and look self-important. The idea of criticizing others for not posting about stuff when we ourselves have jack shit to post is frankly just plain stupid. Reality check time folks: The point of the HoC was not to be some sort of magic band-aid that would spawn ever-constant and useful discussions from the rest of the board, but to allow the rest of the board a voice with regards to shit that matters, because up until the HoC, the options other users had were, at best, limited and at worst just plain bullshit.

And yes, we've had single-nominee votes before, so really, just get off the damn high horses already.

As far as the HoC nominations, I would like to point out that we are under no obligation to actually ACT on anything from the House of Commons unless one of us feels that it is useful to do so. Ergo, the ultimate responsibility still falls on us to bring matters before the Senate, and if you really have your knickers in a twist over something that was brought to the Senate from the House of Commons, you might want to take it up with the Senator who thought it was a bright idea to bring it over in the first place.

On the same token, just because an idea was spawned in the HoC doesn't mean it's a waste of time. In fact, if a Senator decided to bring it before the Senate, chances are they think it was worthwhile themselves, or they wouldn't have bothered.

[Knife]

I'd like to point out that I even mentioned that discussion in the HoC would wax and wane with board drama, and that it in fact was rather the point of the whole thing. We'll have spells in the Senate where we do jack all but sit on our asses and look self-important. The idea of criticizing others for not posting about stuff when we ourselves have jack shit to post is frankly just plain stupid. Reality check time folks: The point of the HoC was not to be some sort of magic band-aid that would spawn ever-constant and useful discussions from the rest of the board, but to allow the rest of the board a voice with regards to shit that matters, because up until the HoC, the options other users had were, at best, limited and at worst just plain bullshit.

And yes, we've had single-nominee votes before, so really, just get off the damn high horses already.

As far as the HoC nominations, I would like to point out that we are under no obligation to actually ACT on anything from the House of Commons unless one of us feels that it is useful to do so. Ergo, the ultimate responsibility still falls on us to bring matters before the Senate, and if you really have your knickers in a twist over something that was brought to the Senate from the House of Commons, you might want to take it up with the Senator who thought it was a bright idea to bring it over in the first place.

On the same token, just because an idea was spawned in the HoC doesn't mean it's a waste of time. In fact, if a Senator decided to bring it before the Senate, chances are they think it was worthwhile themselves, or they wouldn't have bothered.

To get off my high horse, I'd have to be on one and you've seem to cornered the market on them.

Nobody here has their panties in a twist, sir. Rather I think I've brought up a fair point in objecting. You, of course, can disagree but I don't see any reason for the vem and vitriol you've stuck in there.

[Coyote]

Uh-oh, look out the window, guys. The villagers are angry and they have torches and Frankenstein rakes and wire hangers, and they're going to smack our pee-pees for chatting in a vote thread.

[Knife]

Uh-oh, look out the window, guys. The villagers are angry and they have torches and Frankenstein rakes and wire hangers, and they're going to smack our pee-pees for chatting in a vote thread.

Meh, we might have to amend some rules on that due to there is no Senate Nomination thread to do so. Creating a thread to discuss the vote thread seems rather cumbersome now.

[Ozymandias]

Stark added.