StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What do you mean by vote the way I want them to? You aren't even voting. Is that hard to get through your fucking skull? I have no stake in who is in the Senate. I didn't participate in the nomination. But you guys aren't even fucking trying.

Anyone can tell its bullshit that Bounty and Thanas aren't getting real consideration. Fuck, fellow Senators have pointed out as much.

If you think there are too many Senators, guess who's job it is to discuss that. Oh wait, its the Senate. If you don't like the vetting process of the HoC its also your job to discuss it.

Edi honestly admitted he considers derailing the process just to say fuck you to HoC nominations he doesn't like. Now, if this isn't a basic failure of your mandate, what is?

You guys squandered away the power you had and forced the HoC to be made and Senate nominations to be given to them. Now you don't have the right to be upset about who comes your way as a nomination. Act like adults, ignore the ones obviously designed to fuck with you, and do your fucking jobs discussing the four real candidates. Don't give me the "Woe is me, some dicks nominated Ray bullshit." Explain why 25% of the Senate isn't voting despite there being multiple real selection choices. Or is that too fucking hard.

Dark Hellion wrote:What do you mean by vote the way I want them to? You aren't even voting. Is that hard to get through your fucking skull? I have no stake in who is in the Senate. I didn't participate in the nomination. But you guys aren't even fucking trying.

Abstain is a vote. It just isn't what you want. So ask yourself which of us here isn't getting it.

Anyone can tell its bullshit that Bounty and Thanas aren't getting real consideration. Fuck, fellow Senators have pointed out as much.

Thanas is neck and neck with Ace for most votes. Again, all I'm seeing is you upset that people are voting how they see fit rather than how you want.

If you think there are too many Senators, guess who's job it is to discuss that. Oh wait, its the Senate. If you don't like the vetting process of the HoC its also your job to discuss it.

Edi honestly admitted he considers derailing the process just to say fuck you to HoC nominations he doesn't like. Now, if this isn't a basic failure of your mandate, what is?

You guys squandered away the power you had and forced the HoC to be made and Senate nominations to be given to them. Now you don't have the right to be upset about who comes your way as a nomination. Act like adults, ignore the ones obviously designed to fuck with you, and do your fucking jobs discussing the four real candidates. Don't give me the "Woe is me, some dicks nominated Ray bullshit." Explain why 25% of the Senate isn't voting despite there being multiple real selection choices. Or is that too fucking hard.

Rant and rave rant and rave. Try saying something of substance instead of throwing a tantrum. You still haven't said how the senate started being confrontational to the HoC. And I'm really interested how we "forced" the HoC to be made.

It's just funny the way HoC 'nominations' (ps not real nominations) are treated. They're accepted even if they're not liked, considered 'failures' and a subject of hilarious threats, when they have no power outside of convention and can simply be ignored. I think some people just think it's more fun to make it an object lesson in why nobody but the Senate can do anything.

Stark wrote:It's just funny the way HoC 'nominations' (ps not real nominations) are treated. They're accepted even if they're not liked, considered 'failures' and a subject of hilarious threats, when they have no power outside of convention and can simply be ignored. I think some people just think it's more fun to make it an object lesson in why nobody but the Senate can do anything.

Aside from the bullshit last month where suddenly one candidate votes were a concern for a few people who hate Stark, I don't have an issue with the way HoC Senate nominations have been treated. 3 of the 7 people put forward are clearly joke nominations so I don't blame certain senators for saying "fuck the lot of them" and abstaining. I wish they wouldn't, but it's their prerogative and to get all butthurt about it is stupid.

Yeah, it's really not HoC's fault that people are abstaining because they hate 'joke noms' and refuse to vote for people with possible merit just because they share a ticket. It's a shame, but some people are just childish I guess.

People abstained long before the HoC was around. Some may be sinking to that level, but more likely it is just the fact that those nominated do not meet their personal standards. But I guess I shouldn't ask for reality to intrude on the pity party here.

I think it just came up due to the chatter, where it seems people are abstaining as a 'protest' (this may not be a part of reality). That's fine, but that's not the HoC's fault however much saying it is might serve agendas. I think the vote is at like 45% abstains right now; certainly this is quite normal and not a cause of a 'pity party' that you don't like.

Ender wrote:People abstained long before the HoC was around. Some may be sinking to that level, but more likely it is just the fact that those nominated do not meet their personal standards.

One possibility is also that they don't know enough about the nominees to feel comfortable voting for them in addition to the possible personal standards issue. For example, I knew next to nothing about Thanas until the History forum mod issue came around, then did some digging and was suitably impressed. Our paths just hadn't crossed too often on the board.

Dark Hellion, I said I considered just saying fuck it, but didn't do that precisely because some of the nominated people deserved better. I can't claim to speak for anyone else. But it's precisely in the name of honesty that there's no use pretending that joke nominations don't irritate at least some people. It's one possible reason there are so many abstentions, but not the only one, as pointed out by Ender and reinforced by what I say above.

Edi, I know some people abstained for that reason - Bounty and Thanas (both quality posters) are not particularly visible and I don't believe the HoC thread actually threw up any examples/etc. T

Yeah, I think if Thanas or Bounty were renominated with some examples that they'd be elected without further complaint; I voted for Thanas, and I'll do it again, and after that, I'll vote for Bounty too, both of them are very much Senate material.

Isn't Thanas already a member of the senate, given the fact that he's one of the history forum moderators?

Flagg wrote:Isn't Thanas already a member of the senate, given the fact that he's one of the history forum moderators?

No, because the history forum mods are all minimods only, as I understood it, sort of like how back in the day Shep was an adjunctant horseman. If they want some people to have moderatorial powers over minor boards like history, but don't want to let them in the Moderator's Private Forum (which is the privilege that minimods lack), I wish they'd go ahead and do that for fanfics, too, considering for all that the administration here has become more effective i still don't see any updates to the C&C fanfics forum happening, and I'd always been willing to take the fanfics forum mod job as a minimod since I know there's plenty of people who don't trust me enough to let me into the moderator's forum. Oh well, enough of a diversion there, the point being that minimods don't automatically get into the Senate, either.

Ahh ok. I wasn't clear on that, thanks.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

ray245 wrote:Anyone, I decline my nomination. I am hardly responsible enough to be making rules and judgment for this board. Yup, my nomination is definitely a joke nomination.

You know if you had done that say about 2 weeks ago when the nomination was made I could have excluded you

Well, I was advised by others to be more calm in this area, and I don't think anyone is seriously considering my nomination in the first place.

What's this stuff anyway? Squandering power, thus forcing the creation of the HOC, plebes afraid of the Senators, 'confrontational attitudes', old world systems, new world orders, corporate sabotage, what on earth are you on about Dark Hellion?

why are you raising hell over the "democratic process" of a message board anyway?

A lot of senators abstained. So what? If its possible for me (and ray) to get nominated, then having a vote thread with the entire Senate abstaining shouldn't be such a big deal either.

Stark wrote:I think it just came up due to the chatter, where it seems people are abstaining as a 'protest' (this may not be a part of reality). That's fine, but that's not the HoC's fault however much saying it is might serve agendas. I think the vote is at like 45% abstains right now; certainly this is quite normal and not a cause of a 'pity party' that you don't like.

You know you guys keep coming back to people in the senate being "confrontational" and having "agendas" and all the other random ravings from DH. And I don't see one bit where that is coming from. The HoC treated this like a joke, nominating a number of people as obvious jokes and not bothering to provide links backing up why the serious people should be in the Senate, which they are supposed to do. The result has been a large number of people, yourself included, not playing along with it. My goodness, the HoC doesn't take something serious, therefore the Senate doesn't, and clearly that the Senate doesn't fall for it is clear evidence they are power hungry meanies. Yeah, that tracks. A majority abstains is unusually high, but as has been pointed out and led to your vote, no one bothered to do the basic vetting process that is supposed to happen. When the situations are different, the outcomes are different. What a shocker. Or am I letting reality intrude on your delusion again?

You don't like the vetting process of the HoC? Then act like adults and come to the HoC and say as much. This is of course ignoring that SeanRobertson called you out in the Membership thread. Now he said to do it by PM, but I would like to see people explain their abstain votes. This board is based on the premise of logic and if the Senate is being emotional about getting bad nominations and saying fuck it that is not a good sign. As the members who are supposed to represent maturity and good posting habits this is petty.

As for the confrontational attitude, perhaps you missed the thread after thread last year where "The Senate doesn't answer to the plebes" meme was thrown around. You made an advisory panel with joke powers (which hotfoot has reveled in pointing out time and again) into some separate old boys club. Can you not see how this would be confrontational. When a group exists that has the attitude they are the only real posters?

Simply put, if the Senate doesn't like something the HoC does how do you, the greatest and most mature of posters act. Like little fucking children, throwing a tantrum and refusing to vote. It would be great comedy if you didn't feel so much self-righteous vindication.

^Hellion, really, there have been several people who explained the reasons behind the "abstain" votes. There simply is no reason to assume that all those people are throwing a childish tantrum.

And I - as someone who is nominated - would like to point out that I am not bothered by the abstain votes at all. It is their vote and they have every right to voice it however they like. Neither I nor my ego is threatened by that. Heck, for all I know, the vast majority of the people who voted abstain simply did not feel comfortable choosing one candidate because they do not have a favorite, as happened when Ted C and Eleas were considered for membership.

Yes, Fgalkin, The Yosemite Bear and Tevar have all said they do not want any of the new people to join, for various reasons. Yet that does not mean anyone has to throw a temper tantrum in this thread - after all, those three were elected to express their opinions and *gasp* how dare they do that? Heck, If they believe the senate is too huge, that is their prerogative.

Ender, why are you treating the HoC as a single entity? Consider the 'joke' nominations to be a couple people's idea of 'Hello World' in the new thread. There were plenty of serious nominations by serious people after the fact: Bounty, Thanas, and J.

The reason people are unhappy is because A) This sets the precedent of every nomination being tossed out because of a couple 'joke' nominations, and B) It appears Senators don't care about any of the nominations, serious or otherwise. People seem to think that the Senators are being petty/rash (I'm not sure which, I'm just trying to figure out where everyone is on the issue) by not even considering the serious nominations.

I understand that some people have reason to abstain. But 25% of the whole senate? If this many people felt strongly on the issue, they should have brought up points weeks ago. If they thought the Senate was too big, they should have begun a serious discussion on it. If they felt the vetting process was too lean, they should have said as much in the HoC.

This is how adults would have handled such a situation. But waiting til the nominations are up, then bitching after the fact seems immature at best, and like they are actively sabotaging the system at worst.

Dark Hellion, as a discounted joke nomination, I find that you are overacting mang. Chillax a little.

Dark Hellion wrote:You don't like the vetting process of the HoC? Then act like adults and come to the HoC and say as much. This is of course ignoring that SeanRobertson called you out in the Membership thread. Now he said to do it by PM, but I would like to see people explain their abstain votes. This board is based on the premise of logic and if the Senate is being emotional about getting bad nominations and saying fuck it that is not a good sign. As the members who are supposed to represent maturity and good posting habits this is petty.

Or...being voted down for the stupidity of it, the HoC can henceforth put up nominations without the 'joke' nominations and do the vetting process the way it was supposed to be done. You keep screaming the childish behavior of the Senate and it rings as projection, perhaps if the HoC wasn't acting like a bunch of kids who get to use Dad's remote for the first time, you wouldn't have your nominations abstained. The HoC was not 'Forced' into existence, it was roundly called for by a very loud portion of the board populace, and voted on by the Senate and passed. You were not 'forced' to make nominee's, you were given the responsibility because, if nothing else, the same loud portion of the board, wanted more transparency in the Senate.

Honestly, the HoC acts just like the early Senate did. Joke threads, goofing off, and a couple members taking it too seriously. I remember all the cries against Marinia and her often posted threads detailing this infraction and that infraction and this rule change and that point of order. And yet, I can go into the HoC and see the exact same thing there by other people. So, I'll chalk it up to growing pains.

As for the confrontational attitude, perhaps you missed the thread after thread last year where "The Senate doesn't answer to the plebes" meme was thrown around. You made an advisory panel with joke powers (which hotfoot has reveled in pointing out time and again) into some separate old boys club. Can you not see how this would be confrontational. When a group exists that has the attitude they are the only real posters?

lol, it was a ridiculous, constructed issue for drama's sake and apperently still is after the creation of the HoC, it still exists.

Simply put, if the Senate doesn't like something the HoC does how do you, the greatest and most mature of posters act. Like little fucking children, throwing a tantrum and refusing to vote. It would be great comedy if you didn't feel so much self-righteous vindication.

Projection again, only one throwing a tantrum here is you.

I'm trying to figure out who died and made him spokesperson of anything.

I think it's a shame the entire pool of nominees is being dismissed by some because of the two joke nominations. That said, there are valid reasons to abstain from the vote - as some have detailed in the vote thread - so taking every abstain vote as some sort of slight against the HoC is just ridiculous. This reeks of Dark Hellion causing a stink for the sake of causing a stink.

Dark Hellion wrote:I understand that some people have reason to abstain. But 25% of the whole senate? If this many people felt strongly on the issue, they should have brought up points weeks ago. If they thought the Senate was too big, they should have begun a serious discussion on it. If they felt the vetting process was too lean, they should have said as much in the HoC.

As I recall, there were vote threads in the past where as many as a third of all participants in the vote abstained.

Bounty wrote:I'm trying to figure out who died and made him spokesperson of anything.

I think it's a shame the entire pool of nominees is being dismissed by some because of the two joke nominations. That said, there are valid reasons to abstain from the vote - as some have detailed in the vote thread - so taking every abstain vote as some sort of slight against the HoC is just ridiculous. This reeks of Dark Hellion causing a stink for the sake of causing a stink.

To be fair, I totally should've told Wilkens that I renounced my nomination. But some of those who nominated me seemed fairly serious, so I thought what the hell.