Mr Bean's Grand Senate Reconstruction

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The proposal, while more reasonable, still basically turns the Senate into the board's legislative body, which is not reasonable, because that was never the point of the Senate in the first place, with all due respect, Your Excellency. We are here as an advisory body, not a legislative one, with certain judicial powers given to us through that advisory role; the Senate is and remains more like the Parlement of Paris in the Ancien Regime than like an Anglo-Saxon Parliamentary Upper House, and should continue to be exactly similar to the Parlement on those lines: A body of internally appointed individuals of note in the relevant competencies and field of the board, who advise the King (Mike) on the jurisdictional and legal matters of the board, lodge His decisions, and have limited right to debate and protest His policy and that of His Officers. Insomuch as the Senate needs reform, it needs to become more detached from the board at large, because right now all of this drama is the direct result of about a half a dozen people who, angered by a Senate discussion thread that happened close to 9 months ago, have created this persistent meme of ineffectiveness and tyranny out of the Senate's behaviour, as well as another meme, with no bearing on the truth likewise, that the Senate ought be representative, when in fact it is no such thing, never should be, and with luck never will be.

I again remind you that the Senate has not enacted one single point of law or one single punishment that the board as a whole disapproved of, and nobody can name one. There is merely a cabal of disaffected youths who claim that the Senate is malfunctioning because of the fact that they disagreed with some of the debates in the Senate. Make no mistake, this all stems to my admittedly melodramatic and overwrought suggestion that we eliminate testing; and the basically 9 months of relentless effort to destroy the Senate that have been their response in an unending farce of pointless arguments, but they will not stop if I am gone, and they will have merely stifled legitimate debate, the point being long established that one of the reasons for the Senate is that Senators can say what they want without repercussion, emphasis on say. I have made stupid proposals in the past--and they were shot down. Others, Kuja for instance, have done the same. The Senate, in short, works as intended, because nobody is perfect, but the Senate is generally mature and competent enough to prevent one single individual's foolishness from in it from damaging the board, and in that regard has worked perfectly.. Whereas those individuals do remain valuable in other situations.

Perhaps we should be discussing the measures required to suppress the unending claims about the Senate's malfeasance which are completely groundless. Perhaps we should be asking why, for almost 9 months now, it has been allowed for people to make claims that the Senate is nonrepresentative and oppressive to certain segments of the board, when no evidence supporting those claims has ever once been provided! Why have these people not been called to account and told to either put up, or shut up? Why are they allowed to continue this pernicious nonsense? Why have we abrogated the rules of this board to allow people to make claims about the Senate without providing evidence? We have come to this point only, my friends, only on account of a few misaffected individuals who have found that screaming the loudest gains them attention. We have tried to conciliate them by creating a House of Commons, and all they do is bray for more blood. This is a game to them, ladies and gentlemen, and it will continue for as long as we try to engage them.

No, we need to confront them now, and demand that proof of this nebulous claim of the Senate's ineffectiveness be provided in a manner where it can be coherently debated and either proved or disproved. It is time that the people making this claims adhere to the laws of the board and provide specific evidence of how they have been harmed by the actions and decisions of the Senate, and it is time that specific proof be provided that Senate reforms would cause any change in the current ills in the board. I first proposed myself as a Senator in this very forum as much as a year and a half ago that there was insufficient moderation on the board as a whole, and the steps to respond to that remain minor and incomplete even now, with action only being take in the past few months. And yet the general consensus is that increased moderation is the only effective way to deal with the genuine problems on the board to-day.

Why do we still have Zaia as a moderator, who has basically posted on the board a half-dozen times in the past two years? Where is Stravo? Hell, where are the admins? So far the only response has been to promote existing moderators to the rank of supermoderator, including some who have not been around the board for months, and to stack three minimods into a forum that did not need that many mods; I would rather see Shep mod N&P, frankly, or Thanas in SLAM, or Stas Bush in all of OT, than see such a sight as the whole sum of new moderatorial appointments be directed entirely into a single sub-forum.

Why is it that the "Solution" to this problem is to make endless games of trying to reform the Senate? We have two problems, and two problems only;

1. This board is now large, and needs many new moderators;

2. There is a cabal of people who hate the Senate becaues of the pleasure their game of playing politics on a message board provides them, who have constantly forced concessions simply by screaming the loudest, and we, ladies and gentlemen, have played their game for too long. It is time to stand up to them and start demanding they either provide evidence, or fall silent.

[Coyote]

I have to admit, it seems to me that most of the "power" that the Senate has is power that was perceived or projected onto us by others-- not anything endemic to being in the Senate. It's not supposed to be "elite" or whatnot, but people perceive it as such, treat it as such, and so it kinda becomes such, even though I honesty cannot recall off the top of my head nay time a Senator used his or her position as a Senator to try to slam someone.

What it comes down to is, we're not the ones with the problem. Other peoples' perceptions are the problem, and the sad truth is there are some folks out there in the world who are just going to perceive things wrongly because, for some reason, it suits them. A persecution complex? A need to "fight the man"; have some romantic rebel hero role to fill? Who knows?

I strongly supported the HoC because I honesty thought that there was something bothering people that we just "weren't getting", and giving the voice to the people to express it themselves would be a good thing. An area where they could bring up legit complaints immediately, Senators could be chosen that didn't seem like some "elite club" pickings, etc. If nothing else at least a sort of suggestions/complaint box where an official complaint could be dealt with.

But when people complain "the Senate is elite!" and then give us nominations like ray245, Schuyler Colfax* to work with, well, yeah, the Senate will have to be "elite", then, if that's the way to put it. I still like the HoC because good questions get brought up (like the IvP moratorium threads-- worth consideration) but it's kinda become something of a Vaudeville. Maybe the HoC is actually more in tune with the 'only semi-serious' nature the Senate was intended... my support has gone from "enthusiastic" to "warm".

... either way, I think we're over-thinking things.



*I have nothing against ray245 or Schuyler Colfax personally. I think they have both shown progress and are good guys. There may come a time when they could, realistically, be in such a position. But a little more time is needed.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Why is it that the "Solution" to this problem is to make endless games of trying to reform the Senate? We have two problems, and two problems only;

1. This board is now large, and needs many new moderators;

That's really the only problem. The board needs more forum mods.

2. There is a cabal of people who hate the Senate becaues of the pleasure their game of playing politics on a message board provides them, who have constantly forced concessions simply by screaming the loudest, and we, ladies and gentlemen, have played their game for too long. It is time to stand up to them and start demanding they either provide evidence, or fall silent.

Definitely agree. There's a group of people who seem to like bitching about the board's power structure for the sake of bitching about the board's power structure. There were those who whined that the moderators moved in mysterious ways (frequently detrimental to those who were whining, because they were usually trolls,) so the Senate was created. Then there were people bitching about the Senate being a 'Good Old Boys' club, when in fact the criteria for being selected for the Senate would tend apply heavy selection bias towards people with a certain set of characteristics. And then they started bitching about how the Senate never gets anything done, even though the Senate's powers are extremely limited. And they also bitched about how bloodthirsty the Senate seemed to be, even though most people who come up for banning by the Senate are usually so far beyond redemption that what to do with them is almost self-evident. So the House of Commons was created, so all their bitching could be concentrated into one place, and they were even given a modicum of power to nominate new Senators to address the 'Good Old Boys' club complaint. Except now they're bitching that the House of Commons doesn't have any real power, and the Senate disagrees with their nomination of low signal-to-noise ratio denizens.

Which is to say that while the House of Commons has done an admirable job of freeing legitimate complaints and points about the board from the cesspit that is Testing, and giving the board one common area to vent about . . . the board, it doesn't seem to have done much to shut up the perpetual whiners.

What will ultimately end up happening, I suspect, is that the Powers That Be will become thoroughly sick of it all, and simply disband the Senate and House of Commons, and go back to moving mysteriously behind closed doors. At which point, the usual suspects will get to bitching about that. So yes, I agree with your point. I'd also go as far as to say that things were much nicer before the board started listening to people with absolutely nothing better to do than to bitch about the rules, instead of showing them Room 101.

[Knife]

Indeed. Something close to that was the point I was trying to make. What horrible decisions has the Senate made, what power has it abused? I too was enthusiastic about the HoC and glad it passed, and have been nothing but disappointed in it since. Granted, it hasn't been that long and perhaps it is nothing but growing pains, but really the only difference between the HoC and testing is testing gets the auto delete. Seems to me, the same people and the same topics are being brought up in each.

[Sea Skimmer]

2. There is a cabal of people who hate the Senate becaues of the pleasure their game of playing politics on a message board provides them, who have constantly forced concessions simply by screaming the loudest, and we, ladies and gentlemen, have played their game for too long. It is time to stand up to them and start demanding they either provide evidence, or fall silent.

Wow, you complaining others of playing politics on a message board, I think I’m going to have to have a good hearty laugh at the irony in that one.

[CmdrWilkens]

Going back to Bean's proposal I think there is one critical factor:

These should not be Senate seats for life. Certainly there are folks who are tempermentally inclined to exercise the privledge of the Senate for a very long time but I don't think it shoudl be on a forever basis. I think Bean and I are both in agreement that there needs to be some re-fresh of the Senate ( many of us have also contended a need for a refresh of moderators but we fix what we can fix and let chips fall where they may elsewhere). In other words simply by virtue of existing as essentially an appointment for life there is little to measure whether a person is enthusiastic about it. The problme is that I would be hard pressed to simply comes out and say something along the lines of "you, you, and you, you are out for this round." I think a structured cycle that provides opportunity to either keep the status quo or bring in some new blood.

On the matter of having nominations come from the HoC instead of the Senate I think it does nothing of the sort to make this group any sort of "legislative body" mostly because:
A) We still vote on our own membership. Given the original intention of gathering up a body of posters who are known for their maturity one would expect that we can self-select for those same characteristics
B) We retain the right to refuse to vote in anyone who doesn't meet that self selection criteria
C) Senators are free to nominate whomever they feel like, the only person barred from nominating is ME.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Senate seats are a reward for behaviour on the board warranting recognition of merit, and privileges of discussing policy in combination with that recognition. So, what exactly is the justification behind making Senate seats non-permanent, unless the merit of the individual has changed? That's the main question I'm asking, and I again want to know why the Senate has become a legislative body rather than a forum for people to participate in governing decisions of the board should they decide to do so. All well and good, your proposal, Wilkens... ...If that was actually what the Senate was intended for. Are we to then change the function of the Senate? And if so, what is the new function to be, and does anyone other than Mike have the power to approve that change?

[Knife]

Senate seats are a reward for behaviour on the board warranting recognition of merit, and privileges of discussing policy in combination with that recognition. So, what exactly is the justification behind making Senate seats non-permanent, unless the merit of the individual has changed? That's the main question I'm asking, and I again want to know why the Senate has become a legislative body rather than a forum for people to participate in governing decisions of the board should they decide to do so. All well and good, your proposal, Wilkens... ...If that was actually what the Senate was intended for. Are we to then change the function of the Senate? And if so, what is the new function to be, and does anyone other than Mike have the power to approve that change?

Indeed, at this point I think the Senate should become the 'old boys club' that a lot of people have been crying it has been for both the fact that it seems you can't shut those up who think that no matter what we do, and because to fix the problem you have to have some convoluted, overly complex system that changes the very structure and purpose of the thing.

[CmdrWilkens]

Senate seats are a reward for behaviour on the board warranting recognition of merit, and privileges of discussing policy in combination with that recognition. So, what exactly is the justification behind making Senate seats non-permanent, unless the merit of the individual has changed? That's the main question I'm asking, and I again want to know why the Senate has become a legislative body rather than a forum for people to participate in governing decisions of the board should they decide to do so. All well and good, your proposal, Wilkens... ...If that was actually what the Senate was intended for. Are we to then change the function of the Senate? And if so, what is the new function to be, and does anyone other than Mike have the power to approve that change?

The original purpose of the Senate was divided into two categories:
- Debate, discuss, and deicde on changes to board policy
- Try and convict members of the board guilty of infractions that the moderator staff do not summarily enforce.

Membership was based on a combination of seniority, maturity, and quality of posting however HOW the membership was chosen does not place an automatic limitaiton on those qualified to perform the two actions above. By point of comparison Moderator appintments are ALSO made essentially for life (at the pleasure of Mike would be the second half of that) and yet nobody disagrees with the idea that the mod staff needs fresh blood. Likewise with the Senate there is a need for new blood both in terms of providing different perspective on the issues AND because more than a few of the existing members are rather clearly (to me at least) not invested in the job of the Senate. Yes its a privledge and I don't think there shoudl be any compulsion to bring ideas forward but there is an expectation that once a member of the Senate that folks will contribute at least in so far as making their vote heard.

What I proposed does not require that any existing Senator leave, and in fact I would be rather suprised if anybody in the Seante would be voted off. In order for an existing member to be left out the membership of the Senate would have to judge that there are at least 3 better options than that person for service in the Senate. That is in a contest between 2 senators and however many nominations are made from the HoC a sitting Senator would have to be adjudged as the 4th best option by the existing membership of the Senate in order to be dismissed. I think I can safely say that any person so adjudged probably shouldn't remain in position.

[Connor MacLeod]

35 isn't really a huge number, and I don't really see how we can definitively "fix" numbers of Senators without either elminiating the mods from the roll or somehow limiting their influence, and at any number less than 50, it occurs to me that the majority of "Senators" will just be Mods as it is - why bother with a Senate? Just have a bigger Mod pool and let them discuss things. The other problem with limiting the numbers is just that, how does one factor in any increases in mod membership we get, because I don't see it doing so (so again you run into the problems of there being fewer "senators" than "mod/senators", and the cap becoming pointless whenever you increase the number of mods, and then we'll just have the "unwieldy" bullshit cropping up again.)

The other thought I have is that this is bloody silly, because it assumes the Senate has any real duties or powers beyond a purely informative role (and maybe not even that.) Nor should we have such duties. As has been mentioned already, the real issue is needing more mods (something, I might add, we've brought up countless times but never really seems to go anywhere as far as I can tell.) because alot of this as far as I can tell pretty much parallels mod roles

2. There is a cabal of people who hate the Senate becaues of the pleasure their game of playing politics on a message board provides them, who have constantly forced concessions simply by screaming the loudest, and we, ladies and gentlemen, have played their game for too long. It is time to stand up to them and start demanding they either provide evidence, or fall silent.

Wow, you complaining others of playing politics on a message board, I think I’m going to have to have a good hearty laugh at the irony in that one.

So you're saying what she said is untrue, regardless of however you feel about her behaviour personally?

[Knife]

The original purpose of the Senate was divided into two categories:
- Debate, discuss, and deicde on changes to board policy
- Try and convict members of the board guilty of infractions that the moderator staff do not summarily enforce.

Membership was based on a combination of seniority, maturity, and quality of posting however HOW the membership was chosen does not place an automatic limitaiton on those qualified to perform the two actions above. By point of comparison Moderator appintments are ALSO made essentially for life (at the pleasure of Mike would be the second half of that) and yet nobody disagrees with the idea that the mod staff needs fresh blood.

Everyone except apparently Mike. Let me reinforce that, you can make all the inferences to democracy you want; everyone who is in a position of authority here does so at the whim of Mike Wong. Mod's serve at the pleasure of Mike Wong. The Senate, a minor advisory panel, serves at the discression of Wong. The HoC was created because of, both the described 'need' of such a thing dictated by the advisory panel, to the Admins and cleared by either dictate or by fact of omission by Wong.

This idiotic notion of democracy is asinine and needs to be crushed. This is Mike's house. These are his rules, if you believe for any second that the Senate exists or the HoC exists when Mike hates either one, is the ultimate of arrogance. We are not a democracy any more than Mike allows.

Likewise with the Senate there is a need for new blood both in terms of providing different perspective on the issues AND because more than a few of the existing members are rather clearly (to me at least) not invested in the job of the Senate. Yes its a privledge and I don't think there shoudl be any compulsion to bring ideas forward but there is an expectation that once a member of the Senate that folks will contribute at least in so far as making their vote heard.

Love you like a brother, two foot onion, but that makes no sense. No admin, nor Mike himself has ever shown contempt nor displeasure at the 'advisory board' that is the Senate. Hell, Mike has debated Mod's before without canning or banning them. His judgment, besides final, seems well placed. Why are we fighting about his supposed judgment?

What I proposed does not require that any existing Senator leave, and in fact I would be rather suprised if anybody in the Seante would be voted off. In order for an existing member to be left out the membership of the Senate would have to judge that there are at least 3 better options than that person for service in the Senate. That is in a contest between 2 senators and however many nominations are made from the HoC a sitting Senator would have to be adjudged as the 4th best option by the existing membership of the Senate in order to be dismissed. I think I can safely say that any person so adjudged probably shouldn't remain in position.

Your positions posits that the board reigns supreme and not Mike. We are not a country nor a culture nor a soveriegn entity. We are people on a message board. Yes some rules need apply, but we are in the realm of idiocy at this point. If we ever get to the point where some asshat in bumfuck USA represents me on a message board and Mike agrees with it, I'm gone.

The Senate was not originally thought of by either Rob nor Mike as an actual congressional body. It is not representative, nor should it. To force it into such by popular fiat is folly. The plebs have their outlet. Two actually, if not three. HoS, the shithole Testing is, or HoC (the new testing times two, now with glow in the dark with kung fu grips).

[Stark]

As previously remarked elsewhere, the rules of the Senate say that senators "get to discuss board policy." When did this become an obligation instead of a privilege? When did the Senate become the board legislature?

I remember in a quite old discussion on this issue that you expressed this very idea, and it is how I've seen the Senate ever since. It's not a Model UN (however much playacting there might be), it's just a select bunch of users who can discuss board policy in such a way as to allow change to be discussed or addressed without running into the rules regarding critising rules/moderators. I believe Mike has re-stated this intention quite recently.

However, this idea has come up many times across the board, particularly in the last few months of more open discussion.

[Mr Bean]

Well it's obvious my "Grand Reconstruction" is another one of the long lines of failed attempts to refine this board. The answer I get back out of nearly every attempt is always the same. Sorry it won't work oh and could we have more Moderator's? So I'm going to have to declare my third crack at reforming as failed as my efforts to lower the auto delete time on Testing to an hour. Not going anywhere at any point that's clear my ideas have little to no support and that further they are viewed as dangerous flawed by most of the Senators.

That's fine by me, I've gotten more people talking about the issue again and whenever a course of action is decided on I shall swoop in and claim it was what I wanted all along and thus take both the credit and the adulation of the Masses. Huzzah!

On the moderator issue
At present I have two normal members I would support as Super-Mods. One Senator I'd trust as a as well. Plus four possibles to moderate the more active forums. Admins? That's above my paygrade. So if we took everyone that's three maybe four new super-mods, plus three forum mods. Would it make a dent? Not likely the requested about seems to be more in the ten plus area. The only way to do that would be to take all our mini-mods and make them full super-mods. But that list includes good people like Stas and Thanas, but also questionable people like Bear(No offense bear) and out and out "No way Mike would agree" people like MKSheppard.

[CmdrWilkens]

Your positions posits that the board reigns supreme and not Mike. We are not a country nor a culture nor a soveriegn entity. We are people on a message board. Yes some rules need apply, but we are in the realm of idiocy at this point. If we ever get to the point where some asshat in bumfuck USA represents me on a message board and Mike agrees with it, I'm gone.

The Senate was not originally thought of by either Rob nor Mike as an actual congressional body. It is not representative, nor should it. To force it into such by popular fiat is folly. The plebs have their outlet. Two actually, if not three. HoS, the shithole Testing is, or HoC (the new testing times two, now with glow in the dark with kung fu grips).

I would compeltely disagree with your characterization of my position and let me say why in my ever loved bullet poitn fashion:

- Nothing in any proposal I have made including this one has EVER constrained the ability, or even pretended to constrain the ability of the Mods, Admins, and Mike to act as they see fit.
- Nothing in this proposal grants any sort of "right" to members of the board.
- Every member of the Senate is still only voted on by the Senate (which would continue to include all of the Mods/SuperMods/Admins)
- Its not a representative body in that it is never answerable to anyone other than itself and Mike.

[Knife]

At this point, I'd like to propose the Senate restoration act;
in so much as the Senate is not a congressional body rather;


RULES

1. With a Modicum of Power... - As Senators you can edit your own posts in any General Forum however should you ever be found to be abusing that power, first of all you'll have the Mods to answer to and when they are finished with you... you become my plaything, and once I'm finished with you, you lose your Senator-ship as a minimum!
Considering the members of this group I don't expect that to ever happen, but I'm laying out the punishment in plain sight right now.


2. Peon, I choose you! - Beginning on the 2nd of every month the forum shall be placed open for the nomination of prospective Senators. Nomination shall close on the 24th of each month (excepting February when it will close on the 21st). The nominees who have been seconded shall be placed into a poll by the Chancellor, the Whip, of an Executor whomever should be first available.


A. Procedure for Nominating -

I. Each Member of the Senate has the right to nominate one person per month. If someone has nominated the person you wanted already, then you can second that nomination. If two people have nominated the person you want then wait for the vote. A second does not count as a nomination thus a Member may both nominate one candidate and second any additional candidates they deem worthy of consideration.

II. When making your nomination, add a link to the persons profile (this allows other to search through all their posts of they wish and ensures they know just who it is you're talking about - not confusing RogueIce with Rogue 9 for instance). You should also provide a link(s) to thread(s) that showcase their abilities/contributions. You can link to individual posts by copying the url from the little page symbol in the section of their posts which contains their avatar and user info, if you so wish.

III. In the case of someone with a spotty record the evidence in their favour must be stronger than that required for a normal nomination. Don't be suprised if no one votes for them though.

IV. All Members are granted the right to nominate and vote for entry into the Senate excepting the Chancellor (not excepting those cases where the Chancellor must cast a deciding vote)

V. All nominations shall be considered. That said nominations of persons in bad standing with the Chancellor shall be considered for removal from the nomination process at the Chancellor's discretion. This may only occur upon notice to the nominating Senator and with the concurrence of at least four governors. (Except those barred from nomination due to requests to join the Senate as discussed below)


B. Other nomination rules

I. Only nominations and comments on the nominee's may be put in a [Member] thread, if you don't agree on a nomination, then don't vote for that person. Any flames or arguments in that thread will be deleted - no exceptions!

II. If you get asked (whether by PM, in a thread, IM, Chat, E-mail, Phone, Letter, or in person) by someone to nominate them, you have to inform the Senate so they can be barred from joining. Obviously this relies on your honesty, so don't disappoint us.

III. If you get asked to nominate someone else then inform the Senate and the nominee's will get a 90 day temporary ban from being nominated, we'll make a decision on whether to bar them after review of their board behavior and posting history (we'll certainly bar the person asking).


C. Membership Vote - The vote for entry into the senate shall be conducted beginning on the 24th of the month (21st in February) and be run according to the rules for Class C votes below.


3. One Senator, one vote - Aside from discussion on policy and the usual debauchery of the Senate the vast majority of duties fall under votes within a range of categories. All votes and the rules for undertaking them are as follows:

A. Categories of votes:

I.Category A:
Board Policies/Senate Rules/Usergroups/PermaBan

II.Category B
TempBan/Titling/Lesser Offenses/Resolutions

III.Category C
Election to the Senate


B. Special note for PermaBan votes

I. When a user, for violation of the Board Rules, is the subject of a permanent ban poll in the Senate, that user may be temporarily banned for the duration of the poll at the discretion of any administrator, or upon request by any two Senators other than the Senator who initiated the ban poll.

II. Should the Senate impose a temporary ban as punishment for violation of the Board Rules after considering a permanent ban, the Senate may elect to count the time spent banned during the poll towards the user's sentence


C. Quorum for votes

I.Category A votes required a quorum of 50% of eligible voters. Category B and C require a quorum of 40% of eligible votes.

II.Eligible voters are all members of the Senate, except the Chancellor, who are currently active. A member may be declared inactive when they have missed 10 consecutive votes or when they have notified the Chancellor or the Whip of their intention to be absent for a specified period of time. Thus for a 51 member Senate there are 50 eligible voters (after the chancellor is subtracted) with quorum at 25 and 20 votes respectively.

III.Votes for abstention shall count towards meeting quorum but will not count either for or against any measure being voted.


D. Majorities for passage

I.Category A votes will require a 60% majority voting in favor for the resolution to pass. Category B requires a simple majority of votes in favor, which is 50% of voters plus 1. Category C requires a plurality of votes.

II.By example with 50 total votes (not counting abstentions) Category A would require 30 members in favor, Category B 26 members, and Category C the greatest number amongst all votes no for abstention.

III.The Chancellor may exercise the power to cast deciding votes in any case where one additional vote would reach the passing threshold for any category.


E. Voting administration

I.The Whip should be notified when any vote is begun so that notification may be given to all Senate Members. Upon notification or in cases where the Whip begins the thread all active members of the Senate shall be notified by PM and given a URL link to the thread.

II.From the point of opening a vote thread there shall be a time limit of 7 days during which to conduct voting. All votes will be final at the end of this period.

III.In all votes the option shall be given to abstain for members to register for quorum but not count towards any verdict


4. Democracy in inaction - You, yes you lucky few, get to discuss board policy! You can float your own idea's for discussion, you can float your friends idea's if you wish, and when the Mods make a policy decision you get to comment on it. And unlike anyone else that might discuss/comment on it, you actually get to have an impact. Go you!


5. Power to the People - Part of your job as Senators is to discuss that which is bothering the masses as such bringin matters to the Senate attention should be done quickly and coherently.

A.If your friends want to make suggestions then you can pass them along, however you must make it plain that it is on behalf of someone else (don't have to give names) and the person(s) that asked you should know that it's not automatic that their suggestions will get approved.

B. The procedure for non-members to contact Senate members is now available here. Should a non-member ask how to get points raised etc, you can now give them that link. though the thread is clearly named and stickied in the Senate.

C. Should you get harassed by someone to push a point for you, or getting angry because they think you let them down. Report them to a Mod or myself - they will get a minimum of a temp-ban. I will not countenance anyone harassing the Senate members.


6. Thumbs up, Thumbs down- You, and you alone, get to vote on Custom titles, Ban polls, new Usergroups and your own wages... damn you don't get paid, ah well at least you can vote on the first three.


7. Your Father smelt of Elderberries - Yes you can say what you like in here, and none of the non-Senators can reply or defend themselves. They can only look on in envy and disgust. However, I expect the members to behave themselves. You got in here on good conduct, don't change now.

8. Offices

A. The Chancellor

I. The Last word - In any vote, the Chancellor can only vote to break a tie. The Chancellor may not vote at any other time, nor show favourtism to a particular choice during the Polls duration. See the voting rules if you need clarification.

II. I have the Pooowweeer - When the Chancellor is away for a protracted period, his duties are shared by the Executors and the Emperor. They are bound by the same duties as the Chancellor when acting on his behalf. This does not, however, include restriction to the Chancellor's voting limitation. The Executors and the Emperor may continue to vote in all situations. Be aware though that the Emperor owns the Board and can act any way he wishes. Don't fuck him off!

B. The Whip

I. The Whip shall be elected from amongst the membership of the senate according to the rules of a Class C vote, the members nominating and seconding those persons they feel worthy of holding the post.

II.The Whip shall serve a term of one year unless resigning with due notice to the Chancellor and the Executors. At the end of each term the Whip shall be subject to a vote of confidence. This vote shall be for continuing the Whip's term or subjecting the post to a general election. It shall be conduted as a Category B vote. If the motion passes the Whip shall continue to serve. If the motion fails a period of one month shall be opened for new nominations. At the end of the month the election shall occur as in I. above. There is no limit to the number of terms a Whip may serve.

III.The Duties of the Whip shall be as follows:

a) Notifying all active members of the senate when any vote is occuring.
b) In absence of the Chancellor open all votes for membership comencing on the 24th (21st in February) of the month.
c) Maintain a current list of all active senators and hold count against quorum for all votes before the Senate.
d) Ensure all votes are conducted according to the rules of the Senate
e) Perform all other such duties as shall be assigned by the Chancellor, the Emperor, or the Executors.

PERKS

1. Sig you sir - Pretty soon the rules on Sigs are going to change (and as above you get to discuss and vote on them), and that means you get more leeway on your sigs and your avatars.

2. Now moor mizpelligns - Yep, as mentioned in Rule 1, you can edit away on your posts in all the general forums with gay abandon. Just be aware that trying to win a debate by changing what you said will be the very last thing you ever want to think about!

3. Time to Horse around - The new Horsemen/women will be chosen from within the Senators, and new Mods get chosen from the Horsemen. You too could cause fear and terror to decend upon the masses (in HOS anyway).

4. Where everybody knows your name - That Senator tag means that everyone knows you have a bit (a very tiny bit admittedly) of clout, it also means that you have proven your Debating skills. It doesn't ensure you'll also get respect, but it can't hurt.

5. Crystal Balls - who knows what the future will bring, but hopefully more perks.

THREADS

1. Clear as mud - As mentioned in above, you guys get to discuss board policy, and discuss points raised by others. You can also air any problems you may believe exists that needs addressed. There are doubtless other types of thread that will come into existance on the Forum, so they need a heads up in the title :

[Discussion] = a talk about board policies.
[Point] = A point of interest either your own or one that has been passed to you for discussion by an other board member (remember Rule 4).
[Problem?] = Something you feel is wrong and needs to be debated or cleared up. However it should be something that can only be mentioned here (board software issues are handled in OT for instance).
[Vote] = These will only be started by Governors and above in the case of serious votes.
[Voted] = A vote thread that is closed. When the title of a poll is amended to this, then too late the poll is closed.
[Member] - Thread for nominating new members. A new one every 2nd of the month.
[Poll] = Something silly, a perfect example would be Skimmer's Budget Poll thread. the Board automatically adds this so you don't need to worry.

2. Oh yeah. Says who? - If your going to raise a Problem, or have a discussion, then make sure you can back up your arguements. Take the time to research your points and provide evidence for your stand if required. You're all seasoned debators, so this should be natural, but I'm laying it out here so there are no excuses.

3. Well Done or Medium Rare - The serious threads in here are a no flame area. You can't agree with someone, then can vent outside the thread. I'm not saying no swearing (after all saying "It's fucking clear" adds emphasis), but attacks on another member in a Serious thread will get you par-boiled by me as a minimum!
i) If you lose an argument I expect you to concede the fact and move on.
ii) The phrase 'Concession accepted' will be an automatic admission of losing on the part of whoever uses it in a serious debate.

4. Wheeeeee - The rest of the time this place is for fun, and pretending to be crooked politicians, so if it doesn't carry a Serious thread label Crack on and have fun.


Nothing in there says we are a congressional body, rather we are elite who decide whom gets to be elite with the sole purpose of advising the staff, due soley because we're elite. We are elite because we're old, experienced and the the history of the board says so, not some loud minority of the board, but the ones whom matter...staff and admin.

[Knife]

I would compeltely disagree with your characterization of my position and let me say why in my ever loved bullet poitn fashion:

- Nothing in any proposal I have made including this one has EVER constrained the ability, or even pretended to constrain the ability of the Mods, Admins, and Mike to act as they see fit.
- Nothing in this proposal grants any sort of "right" to members of the board.
- Every member of the Senate is still only voted on by the Senate (which would continue to include all of the Mods/SuperMods/Admins)
- Its not a representative body in that it is never answerable to anyone other than itself and Mike.

Love you like a brother;

your proposals are more of a populace attempt to assume the admin's position and by default, Mike's. Twice removed, hearsay.

other than to say a right to the board is anything other than what Mike say's it is. The only 'right' out side of Mike's sayso, is not to be here.

True,but current trends say it's on the verge of being not so.

Agreed.

[CmdrWilkens]

I would compeltely disagree with your characterization of my position and let me say why in my ever loved bullet poitn fashion:

- Nothing in any proposal I have made including this one has EVER constrained the ability, or even pretended to constrain the ability of the Mods, Admins, and Mike to act as they see fit.
- Nothing in this proposal grants any sort of "right" to members of the board.
- Every member of the Senate is still only voted on by the Senate (which would continue to include all of the Mods/SuperMods/Admins)
- Its not a representative body in that it is never answerable to anyone other than itself and Mike.

Love you like a brother;

your proposals are more of a populace attempt to assume the admin's position and by default, Mike's. Twice removed, hearsay.

other than to say a right to the board is anything other than what Mike say's it is. The only 'right' out side of Mike's sayso, is not to be here.

True,but current trends say it's on the verge of being not so.

Agreed.

1) I don't see how so. Virtually all of my proposal both past and present have been limited to how the Senate conducts itself. Its like the super bureacratic version of being a mini-mod. This proposal doesn't change who has board permissions, how existing baord permission are used, in fact it would change exactly nothing except for capping the size of the Senate and changing how we self-select our membership

2) Not sure how this is a response, as above all I am doing (and have done in the past) is try and create a system for the Senate to run differently which means the only folks directly affected are 35 posters including myself.

3) How so? If my variant were passed how would it continue to trend towards being self-selecting?

4) Yay

[Knife]

1) I don't see how so. Virtually all of my proposal both past and present have been limited to how the Senate conducts itself. Its like the super bureacratic version of being a mini-mod. This proposal doesn't change who has board permissions, how existing baord permission are used, in fact it would change exactly nothing except for capping the size of the Senate and changing how we self-select our membership

Brother:

Sorry but the 'joke' nominations are laid at your feet. As is the abstain/none of the above issue.

Size of the Senate would constitute such a large separation of the norm, you should have posted it yourself by now. That said, your proposals dictate the loss of rights/privileges to Senators. For all the 'Senator's don't make threads germane to issues' this would be one, not that I'm immune to not making threads,

2) Not sure how this is a response, as above all I am doing (and have done in the past) is try and create a system for the Senate to run differently which means the only folks directly affected are 35 posters including myself.

Love you like a brother in the 13th.

You are more interested in the preservation of the Senate than what it was made to be. I'm sure you can judge me the same via my posts and votes. I'm telling you now,I've radically changed my stance in the last few weeks.

3) How so? If my variant were passed how would it continue to trend towards being self-selecting?

abstain/none of the above issue.

4) Yay

13

[Connor MacLeod]

I was thinking on this and it did occur to me that there might be one reason not to limit Senate numbers (at leat not yet) is because then that would in fact make us more "exclusive" than we are now. I mean, as things stand there's no reason why new people can't be added from the populace. It might make sense to cap numbers if we decided to go with the "voting" idea, but again that's moving towards making the Senate more of a "legislative" body, and as said if we're gonna do that, ,we might as well just put in more mods, rather than trying to make the Senate replace the mods.

Part of it I think comes from viewing it like a real Senate, rather than the Senate being a name for what is (for all intents and purposes) a more public version of a private group. I am curious to wonder how many other private groups 'cap" t heir numbers.

Also, if there are problems with some of the people in the Senate being Senators, why the hell aren't people discussing or proposing removal? We have ample venues for it, and people who really feel serious about it (rather than just bitching and whining about it) should put together an actual case.