StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Works for me, and Knife I agree he has done a fine job as mini-mod. Anyway RogueIce is nominated, seconded, and supported.

I appreciate the gesture guys, but frankly I'm surprised that was as close as it was. I have the same problems as Havok - too new, pissed too many people off - but even moreso (the last time anyone as new as me got added to the Senate was Spin Echo, two years ago).

RogueIce has the seniority but then so did PainRack - and IMHO PainRack is better in debates, though he doesn't have mod experience. Alas I guess neither have the name recognition or the genuine ASVS cred (tm) to peel any votes off the Mindless No Block (r).

Anyway for next month I nominate Knife, if he actually wants the position. He's definitely in the category of people who you'd expect to be in the senate, if you hadn't checked their profile.

Starglider wrote:Anyway for next month I nominate Knife, if he actually wants the position. He's definitely in the category of people who you'd expect to be in the senate, if you hadn't checked their profile.

I would double check with him. Knife was an original Senate member who resigned his post. If he consents to nomination I'd be more than happy to put him up for the vote but he left the Senate less than 6 months ago so as before please check with him before pursuing the nomination.

CmdrWilkens wrote:If he consents to nomination I'd be more than happy to put him up for the vote but he left the Senate less than 6 months ago so as before please check with him before pursuing the nomination.

That would explain why I was thinking 'hey, I thought this guy was already in the senate, why isn't he'. Never mind then.

Other members with a decent chance of passing a vote... Glocksman perhaps? I'm pretty sure I can dig up some good posts for him. Any seconds?

I nominate Straha for his contribution to the forum by providing us with many useful insights into the politics of Iran, as well as the geo-political situation in the middle east.

The Iranian election thread.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... n#p3120020

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... n#p3117682

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... n#p3111985

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... n#p3110384

my anti-nomination is Nobody, I think we have enough right now.

I'll second Straha.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:my anti-nomination is Nobody, I think we have enough right now.

Interesting choice but are you sure they'll be available to participate regularly?

Just what in heaven's name is wrong with this vote? Can somebody please explain to me why Straha doesn't belong in the senate?

For god's sake, just look at his contributions in the iran thread and =52&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search]in the History Forum.

Also, I find it funny that someone who was just elected to the senate a few months ago votes for none. The door closes behind me, or what is the idea here?

I really can't speak for the Senate, but I do know that Straha has a long history here and for a substantial portion of it, he needed to be castrated. There might be some people in the Senate who remember that more than his contribution to the Iran thread.

Knife wrote:I really can't speak for the Senate, but I do know that Straha has a long history here and for a substantial portion of it, he needed to be castrated. There might be some people in the Senate who remember that more than his contribution to the Iran thread.

QFT. He's improved, but not enough yet.

There seems to be a growing contingent within the Senate which thinks the Senate is too big. Okay, fine, but if we're going to do that, then we need to start cycling people out to make room for new people. The last thing we need is an ossified old boys' club where being popular in 2006 counts for more than contributions today.

Anyway, if you compared Straha posts from 2003 to Straha posts from 2009, you'd think they were from different people. I voted "yes".

I'm completely behind Straha. Even when I joined, "Castrate Straha" was an old meme and I didn't quite understand it; nowadays, he's on my radar for making intelligent, informative posts, especially in the Iran thread; IMHO the idea he's a spammer is completely ludicrous.

RedImperator wrote:The last thing we need is an ossified old boys' club where being popular in 2006 counts for more than contributions today.

QFT. Should there be a time limit on how long someone can be Senator? Six months? Two years? Three? (Or what if, monthly, we just have a poll where the Senate votes out one of its own alongside the in-vote ...)

Oh, I'm not saying he hasn't changed in six years; rather, just saying he has history. People tend to take that into account as well as recent events, nor am I saying I'd vote against him, if I could, just bringing up the notion of why some of the vote is going the way it is. I'm not entirely sure I agree with this notion, just that I'm sure it exists.

Surlethe wrote:

RedImperator wrote:The last thing we need is an ossified old boys' club where being popular in 2006 counts for more than contributions today.

QFT. Should there be a time limit on how long someone can be Senator? Six months? Two years? Three? (Or what if, monthly, we just have a poll where the Senate votes out one of its own alongside the in-vote ...)

lol. I'm not entirely sure why there shouldn't be a old boys club, nor why it is a bad thing. There are little clicks all over this board, why that one gets the bad press, beats me.

Well because unlike other cliques, the senate has actual privileges and some, at least perceived, power.

Crazedwraith wrote:Well because unlike other cliques, the senate has actual privileges and some, at least perceived, power.

Exactly, and if we are going to impose limits on the number of senator, I would think that some of the newer members deserved that position better than some of the older members.

If not, then the senate is nothing more than a place that relies on a "first come, first serve" basis. If this is the case, then the whole point of having a senate is moot, given that there can be people outside of the senate that are far more capable in making decisions that most senators.

If Straha's posting history is a real deal-breaker for some, why was there no objection to the nomination? If Senate members are supposed to uphold some kind of standard of quality during their tenure as a poster, and there is evidence that a nominee has not done so, I think it needs to be presented somewhere.

I see this as a problem in the way we do business, and a really ripe target for anyone with a bone to pick with the Senate. Essentially, the way Senate membership votes are conducted leaves us open to criticism, reduces the body's responsibility for vote outcomes, and is generally antithetical to the values of the board.

Nominations are in line with board custom, as they need supporting evidence to be accepted. Usually this evidence goes unchallenged, but the nomination can be dissected and criticized as a rational argument if need be. But once the nomination goes up for vote, reason and evidence disappear from the process altogether. There is the vote itself and nothing but the vote, and since the ballots are secret, the vote is a black box. Nominees go in, and a good, bad, or preposterous result comes out. There is no discussion period. There is no case-making for or against, no weighing of evidence. All well and good, except for three little things: 1.) We discuss all our other votes; 2.) We are supposed to be high-standing SDNizens, which means users of logical argument; 3.) If we keep voting down all new nominees for no apparent reason, we sure look like assholes, don't we?

I mean, really. People gripe about the Senate being a self-selecting elitist clique because membership vote outcomes point in that direction, and there is no evidence to refute that gripe because the Senate provides no evidence at all. Votes go up, we all post our secret ballot, and that's it. Ridiculous, if you ask me.

As for Senate size growing out of control, I find the 'problem' overstated and silly. The group is supposed to do two things: discuss, and offer opinions as a body. Nowhere in that job description does a large number of people become a problem.* In fact, in order to address the existence of various "generations" of board members and corresponding changes in board focus and culture, it's better to have more people than fewer.



*Nowhere in that description does having members who are not "serious" or who like to upset the apple cart become a problem either, but that's another subject.

So, after being inactive for a couple days, I check out the Senate open up the nominations thread to find out which poor saps are being voted on this time... and see my name.

I can't say I'm not intensely flattered.

I would like to say something on "ye olde me". I joined this board as a young kid who thought he knew a lot more than he did, and acted like an idiot. I'd like to think I've matured a fair bit since then, thanks in no small part to this board. I'd like to hope I've changed in posting here, and I often feel bad for my more idiotic posts in the past.

If elected I would definitely do what I can for the Senate and the Board. I have some major time constraints on me right now, but that'd bring me around more often than not.

Anyway, thanks.


P.S. Thanas, I have a loooooong PM I've got to send you. Also, check out Testing.

Surlethe wrote:I'm completely behind Straha. Even when I joined, "Castrate Straha" was an old meme and I didn't quite understand it; nowadays, he's on my radar for making intelligent, informative posts, especially in the Iran thread; IMHO the idea he's a spammer is completely ludicrous.

RedImperator wrote:The last thing we need is an ossified old boys' club where being popular in 2006 counts for more than contributions today.

QFT. Should there be a time limit on how long someone can be Senator? Six months? Two years? Three? (Or what if, monthly, we just have a poll where the Senate votes out one of its own alongside the in-vote ...)

Well, I don't think we have too many people, so I don't think we need to come up with a mechanism to cycle people out. I'm half-tempted to propose one, just for the eventual lulz the discussion will provoke, but I don't think we need it.

RedImperator wrote:Well, I don't think we have too many people, so I don't think we need to come up with a mechanism to cycle people out. I'm half-tempted to propose one, just for the eventual lulz the discussion will provoke, but I don't think we need it.

I'm thinking that I could make a dartboard with names of various people on it, and then just throw blindly at it until I hit somebody.

You could use a regular dartboard, and evenly assign names to numbers (rethrowing if you hit a number that has no name assigned, in case of a number of people indivisible into the number of spaces.)

but then we would get clint eastwood as a senator nomination, after all he's the man with no name....

So, one day left, Straha seems perpetually behind by two votes, and still nobody besides Edi and YB have explained why they voted no. Awesome.

Nor did anyone even justify why do they think that they are more deserving to be a senator than Straha if they want to limit the size of the senate.