StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just a quick, simple question, but this is the best place to ask it.

Why are people abstaining in these votes? If you don't think they should be made inactive vote Yes, and if you do think they should be made inactive vote No.
Am I missing the reason as to why people are abstaining?

NL is, I believe, protesting some element of the regulations surrounding it. The case of Stravo is different since he's a Governor and might be exempt.

I'd be happy if other senators could discuss this issue myself, actually.

Stark wrote:NL is, I believe, protesting some element of the regulations surrounding it. The case of Stravo is different since he's a Governor and might be exempt.

Same for Zaia.

I'd be happy if other senators could discuss this issue myself, actually.

What is there to debate, actually? There was a whole topic that explicitly said:

[Discussion] Inactive Senators.

Heck, if senators don't use the discussion thread (which btw has been open since January 31st), they only have themselves to blame IMO.

Yeah, and to me it seems like a no-brainer. I don't personally care who someone is; if they haven't posted in more than a year, bye-bye. NL says he'd vote for reinstatement for anyone booted on this, which is either a 'when they come back they get their stuff again' or the attitude that is becoming more common, 'I disagree with this and will vote to break it'.

I'll be honest I was surprised this was a voting issue and it seems the rest of the Senate agrees with that statement.

Eh? Did you mean that removal should be automatic?

Thanas wrote:Eh? Did you mean that removal should be automatic?

I thought removal was automatic
Given the voting threads I guess not.

Havok wrote:Am I missing the reason as to why people are abstaining?

Since the new year, I have voted "abstain" quite a bit because I've been preoccupied with Real Life and spending half my time in Detroit. So I haven't been following things around here of late.

As for the current threads - I haven't yet decided how I'll vote.

Mr Bean wrote:

Thanas wrote:Eh? Did you mean that removal should be automatic?

I thought removal was automatic
Given the voting threads I guess not.

Ah, I get it now. Well, not all votes are in, but it looks like people are using different kind of scales - Zaia for example has more "retain" votes than Stravo, who has more than Innerbrat etc.

I wonder why that is and if there are any other reasons besides "I do not like that guy/girl". Their perioda of abscence are all quite long.

What I amazed is why. I voted, and really my thoughts are

IB: She left for her own reasons and I really do not see her coming back.
Zaia: She pokes in occasionally but more time in a few select areas rather then general board.
Stravo: He left because real life got busier and that was pretty much that.

The only reason one even retains any moderator powers is that the adminstration is busy as fuck with real life and it takes time to realize such accounts are out there in disuse.

Zaia pops up sometimes, but hasn't participated in the Senate for yonks, that's all I care about.

I consider myself to have a conflict of interest since I consider Innerbrat and Zaia to be friends, Innerbrat a particularly close friend, so I'm recusing myself by abstaining, as I see it. I voted to remove Stravo, of course, since I don't have that conflict of interest and he's participated neither in moderation nor senatorial activities in so long, as far as I can tell, that it's ridiculous that he remains a moderator, let alone a Senator, no offense to him--he simply isn't here. The problem is that my friendship with Zaia and Innerbrat makes me want to irrationally retain them, so instead of inappropriately voting with my heart, I just abstain. This seems like a highly uncomplicated issue to me.

SO heres a couple things while trying to retain my personal need for a sense of impartiality:

- This is a vote because the rules require a vote for involuntary removal . If a Senator comes up and says 'I up and quit' then the person gets dumped and I probably won't even make an announcement about it. If a Senator just doesn't vote, and for the record 'vote' means either make a post in the thread OR simply read the vote PM, for a year or more then its a forced removal and I'm not going to do that without the concurrence of the rest of the Senate.

- In general I think removal should be about automatic BUT, as above, since this is forcibly removing someone from a post I feel (and thus wrote into the rules) that such actions must have a supermajority concurrence from the Senate.

- There are those with valid concerns about attempts to remove governors and I would say that is a matter of some concern. I can't remove supermods but regular mods and mini-mods (like me) can be de-authorized. For instance within the limits of the current software I cannot physically bar either Stravo or Zaia but I could kick Coyote or Stas Bush out. So voting for removal does become more of a housekeeping matter on my end (they get removed from the voter rolls) and any decision to otehrwise address their permissions rests with the Admin staff.

- As for comments either here or the Senate woudl be fine but, as Thanas pointed out, it would be nice when I post both a top level thread for discussion AND I post a top level thread giving notice that these votes are coming down the pike that makybe some points had been brought up earlier.

- As for "Abstain" in something like the removal vote there are a host of reasons for a member to feel a conflict of interest which keeps them from making a fair, in their own mind, choice. Likewise with the nomination threads, there are those who validly disapporve adding any members to the Senate and there are those who don't have a preference amongst the candidates so both votes should be available. In all honesty I think abstain is used too little rather than too much.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I consider myself to have a conflict of interest since I consider Innerbrat and Zaia to be friends, Innerbrat a particularly close friend, so I'm recusing myself by abstaining, as I see it. I voted to remove Stravo, of course, since I don't have that conflict of interest and he's participated neither in moderation nor senatorial activities in so long, as far as I can tell, that it's ridiculous that he remains a moderator, let alone a Senator, no offense to him--he simply isn't here. The problem is that my friendship with Zaia and Innerbrat makes me want to irrationally retain them, so instead of inappropriately voting with my heart, I just abstain. This seems like a highly uncomplicated issue to me.

How is it 'a conflict of interest' when you see the rules as clear in another case? Do you often have difficulty applying rules to your friends? If they don't participate anymore, why would they even care?

I use abstain because I feel like it. If people don't like that I don't give a damn. But if you REALLY need an example I have abstained in cases such as the voting for Stark because while I couldn't vote for him because I have issues with how he tends to act on here (his excessively sarcastic demeanor tends to get grating) I also did not wish to actually obstruct him from getting into the Senate by voting no, because like it or not he is still capable of contributing or even debating intelligently.

I understand abstaining on a more complex matter. These current votes (not the membership vote) aren't complex. I mean, if you have time to read the OP and type up your "+1", there is no reason to abstain. You either agree or you don't.

I understand Broomstick's situation and others like it, but this is a yes or no thing. Even if you have a problem with the process, but don't think inactive Senators should be out, the answer is still yes or no. (Yes, they stay until we fix the process. No, they go and we will fix the process later.)

Connor MacLeod wrote:I use abstain because I feel like it. If people don't like that I don't give a damn. But if you REALLY need an example I have abstained in cases such as the voting for Stark because while I couldn't vote for him because I have issues with how he tends to act on here (his excessively sarcastic demeanor tends to get grating) I also did not wish to actually obstruct him from getting into the Senate by voting no, because like it or not he is still capable of contributing or even debating intelligently.

That's stupid. If you don't like what he says or how he says it, then why not just vote no?

That's stupid. If you don't like what he says or how he says it, then why not just vote no?

So according to you, I should let my personal feelings colour my attitudes and not try to be fair to a person even if I dislike them? Even though in the past the Senate has been bitched about for precisely that fucking reason? Is there some particular reason why that particular line of reasoning is sensible to you, or did you just not understand what I said?

Connor MacLeod wrote:

That's stupid. If you don't like what he says or how he says it, then why not just vote no?

So according to you, I should let my personal feelings colour my attitudes and not try to be fair to a person even if I dislike them? Even though in the past the Senate has been bitched about for precisely that fucking reason? Is there some particular reason why that particular line of reasoning is sensible to you, or did you just not understand what I said?

You didn't say you disliked him. You said you disliked the way he contributes, which is what I said, and since that is what matters on a discussion board, you should have voted "No". And who the fuck said life had to be or was fair? AND who gives a fuck if the Senate gets bitched at. It is your collective fault you listen to the idiots and bitches that do that. That has always been my position. Ask Coyote and Hotfoot.

Oh yeah and...

Connor MacLeod wrote:I use abstain because I feel like it. If people don't like that I don't give a damn.

Try to be consistent.

Havok wrote:AND who gives a fuck if the Senate gets bitched at. It is your collective fault you listen to the idiots and bitches that do that.

Quoted for fucking truth. First it started out people complaining about some aspects of the Senate, like certain members being batshit or other members seemingly using the Senate as a platform to express a grudge against another member, or the "good old boy network" shit. Instead of either ignoring the "plebes" or just addressing what were very limited concerns we end up with the HoC, monthly votes on new senators chosen nominated by pretty much any swinging dick that wants to toss a name in a hat, and we still haven't actually seen much of anything useful happen. Just a lot of overly dramatic bullshit and hurrhurr butthurt.

At least we finally got strike through...

Stark wrote:Do you often have difficulty applying rules to your friends?

Yes. And not merely on this message board; I am inclined to violate numerous regulations if the potential risk of doing so offers a benefit to those friends greater than the potential risk. I don't see why this is problematic. If you were driving a close friend to a job interview they really needed to get and they were late, wouldn't you be inclined to speed?

The entire process of recusal is intended to allow for precisely that--the fact that humans are imperfectly capable of rationality in situations which affect those they hold emotional attachment for, or other vested interests in. That's why Judges recuse themselves from cases. When the Senate essentially functions as a judicial body, how would it be anything other than inappropriate for me to involve myself in a vote over a person with whom I am a friend? If supreme court justices can recuse themselves from cases over issues like this, then I'll bloody well abstain.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Stark wrote:Do you often have difficulty applying rules to your friends?

Yes. And not merely on this message board; I am inclined to violate numerous regulations if the potential risk of doing so offers a benefit to those friends greater than the potential risk. I don't see why this is problematic. If you were driving a close friend to a job interview they really needed to get and they were late, wouldn't you be inclined to speed?

The entire process of recusal is intended to allow for precisely that--the fact that humans are imperfectly capable of rationality in situations which affect those they hold emotional attachment for, or other vested interests in. That's why Judges recuse themselves from cases. When the Senate essentially functions as a judicial body, how would it be anything other than inappropriate for me to involve myself in a vote over a person with whom I am a friend? If supreme court justices can recuse themselves from cases over issues like this, then I'll bloody well abstain.

This does nothing to dispute the belief of cronyism being rife amongst the senate.

JointStrikeFighter wrote: This does nothing to dispute the belief of cronyism being rife amongst the senate.

I thought the cronyism was accepted fact not rumor. JSF I have you say you might be a touch too skeptical.



That said I am suprised by the number of abstains on a clear cut issue. They are however at least voting present. Which is an encourage change considering the threads have been up for less than a day yet we are a few votes short of super-majorities for all three removals.

I'm of the opinion that if there are too many abstains, then the vote should be retaken and forced back into a Yes/No vote. Otherwise, what's the point of the vote?

JointStrikeFighter wrote:This does nothing to dispute the belief of cronyism being rife amongst the senate.

If it were cronyism, I would have never posted to this thread, and voted in favour of retaining both Innerbrat and Zaia despite their having left the community, rather than abstaining.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I'm of the opinion that if there are too many abstains, then the vote should be retaken and forced back into a Yes/No vote. Otherwise, what's the point of the vote?

This is sarcasm, correct?

How can anyone seriously be opposed to someone abstaining from a voting measure? Voting is always ultimately a measure of personal decision, and it is always wiser for a person to recuse themselves than to make a decision on spurious grounds.