[Discussion]End HoC nomination at 15th of the month

[Knife]

Concurrent with the problem going on in the HoC with Senate nominations, where as nominations in the thread are still required to have 'evidence' in the way of links to threads where the proposed nominee showed what it takes to be a Senator, and yet it seems the rules to debate that 'evidence' and/or provide counter 'evidence' is not clearly defined and we're encountering a problem.

Should we, and by we I mean Greg, end the nomination process in HoC by the 15th or some other defined time and allow debate in the Senate, if debate is offered anyways, until the 25th or some other predefined time?

[Stuart]

Concurrent with the problem going on in the HoC with Senate nominations, where as nominations in the thread are still required to have 'evidence' in the way of links to threads where the proposed nominee showed what it takes to be a Senator, and yet it seems the rules to debate that 'evidence' and/or provide counter 'evidence' is not clearly defined and we're encountering a problem. Should we, and by we I mean Greg, end the nomination process in HoC by the 15th or some other defined time and allow debate in the Senate, if debate is offered anyways, until the 25th or some other predefined time?

I assume this question refers to This thread in the House of Commons that simply serves to pick up an old and stale debate. Personally, I feel that "I don't agree with person X on this issue" is not a valid set of grounds for objecting to a person's qualifications to be a member of this august body. So, the question becomes whether such a debate would be productive or just serve to raise old issues that had faded into the past and/or been overtaken by events. Surely it should be the quality of the argument that is presented that should be considered rather than the position taken on a specific issue when determining the suitability of a candidate?

To be honest, I do not see the virtue in the proposed period for debate and believe it will simply result in the Senate becoming a section dominated by old issues raised in opposition to specific candidates. Should not the other sections of the Board be the place to debate such revived issues leaving the Senate free to look at more fundamental issues? After all, every member of this august community has the ability to vote against a candidate if they should feel so inclined.

[Knife]

If that be so, I see no need to provide 'evidence' of the posting history of the nominee in the first place.

[Stuart]

If that be so, I see no need to provide 'evidence' of the posting history of the nominee in the first place.

Does not the evidence of posting history go straight to the primary qualification for entry to this august body, that is quality of submissions? Those who propose a candidate are required to show that his material meets the standards that justify admission to the Senate. This is quite a different issue from whether people agree with the position maintained in said posts. The danger of the proposed period for debate on each proposition is that it will devolve to a revival of a dormant issue in an inappropriate forum -which is precisely what happened in the quoted HoC thread - and ignore teh primary issue which is the quality of argument presented.

Surely we should beware of the argument "I don't agree with him therefore he doesn't belong here". A candidate who presents a logical, well-argued and well-supported position on an issue should be accorded respect regardless of the popularity of his position.

[Knife]

Should we not be concerned with either a)the factual accuracy of said evidence, b) the subjectivity of it and c) if it is subjective, it's relevance? You could name many posters on the board and link to lots of threads where as most of them are just bog standard comments and such, or were part of a herald debate thread that is famous but may or may not have acted in such a way we want as a senator but are remembered for being in a 'famous thread'. Unless a Senator or even in the HOC threads, normal poster takes time to click the link and sift through it all, a lot of it will go past without notice.

People willing, and or who were part of and remember such things bring up that participation in such threads are not as well remembered or as good as the title of the link suggest, should not be hushed just because there is a link for evidence but everyone should be reading all those links.

[Stuart]

Should we not be concerned with either a)the factual accuracy of said evidence, b) the subjectivity of it and c) if it is subjective, it's relevance?

I believe that those are inherent in the concept of a quality contribution; surely it would be hard to imagine a contribution that is considered to be of high quality yet is factually inaccurate and irrelevent? The purpose of posting links to examples of the candidate's contributions is to illustrate that it does meet the required standards.

People willing, and or who were part of and remember such things bring up that participation in such threads are not as well remembered or as good as the title of the link suggest, should not be hushed just because there is a link for evidence but everyone should be reading all those links.

I do not think that the problem lies with posts of lesser quality or that are run-of-the-mill. That was not the issue addressed in the HoC thread linked by this one. The issue there was that objection was made to Havoc on the grounds that somebody disagreed with what he had said, not how he had said it. With that, I think we entered the very dangerous ground of excluding people on the grounds that somebody disagreed with the opinions they expressed. If we are to follow the suggestion of having a debate on each candidate in the time allotted I think it is inevitable that those debates will eventually rotate around the meme "I didn't agree when he said ***this*** so he's a scoundrel and he shouldn't be allowed in. That will be fatal to any diversity of opinion or reasonable and informed debate.

[CmdrWilkens]

I do not think that the problem lies with posts of lesser quality or that are run-of-the-mill. That was not the issue addressed in the HoC thread linked by this one. The issue there was that objection was made to Havoc on the grounds that somebody disagreed with what he had said, not how he had said it. With that, I think we entered the very dangerous ground of excluding people on the grounds that somebody disagreed with the opinions they expressed. If we are to follow the suggestion of having a debate on each candidate in the time allotted I think it is inevitable that those debates will eventually rotate around the meme "I didn't agree when he said ***this*** so he's a scoundrel and he shouldn't be allowed in. That will be fatal to any diversity of opinion or reasonable and informed debate.

I disagree mostly because I think it is both perfectly possible...and SHOULD be the expectation...that we find individuals who can disagree with others but still be able to engage ina viable debate. For instance take some of the nuclear weapons debates we've had over disarmament and what not. I vehemently disagree with Shep and Skimmer's positions but at the same time I woudl gladly point out that those threads deonstrate on both of their parts a well though out and very well supported defense of their position. We SHOULD, and this is my personal standard not any sort of universal standard by any means, expect the high quality posters elevated to Senator to be able to be both disagreeable AND intellectual.

Now that being said I don't vote in any nomination (nor can I nominate) so the sole gate keeping I hold is that I will require any candidate for Senate to have a distinct nomination and second along with a sample of relevant posts which demonstrate the contributions of the candidate. As to closing nominations early for a "debate" period I don't think that is neccessary. I would prefer if we kept the nomination thread clear of anything other than nominations, seconds, and supporting/dissenting posts but I think at the same time debate (if there is any) can and should be raised for the entire course of the nomination period. Outside of that I don't think my position allows me to say anything else.

[Stuart]

I disagree mostly because I think it is both perfectly possible...and SHOULD be the expectation...that we find individuals who can disagree with others but still be able to engage ina viable debate. For instance take some of the nuclear weapons debates we've had over disarmament and what not. I vehemently disagree with Shep and Skimmer's positions but at the same time I woudl gladly point out that those threads deonstrate on both of their parts a well though out and very well supported defense of their position. We SHOULD, and this is my personal standard not any sort of universal standard by any means, expect the high quality posters elevated to Senator to be able to be both disagreeable AND intellectual.

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments above. My concern (and it is no more than a concern) is that if we were to have a formal debate on each candidate, there will be a strong tendancy for the counter-argument to a candidature to be "he believes in ***this*** therefore I oppose his candidature. This is, after all, exactly what the thread that started this issue off did. The opposition to the candidature was not based on inadequate thought or logical deficiency but that the subject had once supported a view that the objector did not approve of. Supporters of teh candidate would tend to refute the objections based on that position. Thus, I think we have to recognize the probability that such discussion threads would quickly turn into revivals of long-dead arguments rather than on the merits of the candidate per se.

[Knife]

Ah, I see where you are coming from, however I don't want mandatory debate on each nominee, rather to make sure if there are objections, there is a clear place and rules to do so. We already have people chiming in with 'no chatter in vote threads' from old rules that were for a different type of set up in the first place. I neither want the Senate or HoC to be bogged down in rules, nor do I want asshats using rules to stiffle the discussion of the board and it's people which is the whole point of the Senate.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well within that:

a) A debate on any controversial nominee could be opened at any time.
b) I think leaving it out in the HoC is fine but if folks would prefer to limit it to Senators that's also fine.
c) I DON'T think we should change the nomination dates to give a dedicated window to such debates.

In other words I think the thread Havok opened is a perfect example of MOSTLY doing it right and I don't think there should be any major rule change to alter how that is done. I would expect that the Senators here can pick through the debte to the actual points made and if they can't well then maybe they ought to offer themselves up for removal.