StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Havok wrote:No, there is a correct course of action in the case of a year or more of inactivity and that is removal. That Wilkens gives the option to vote against removal is a testament to his character and his openness on these types of issues.

Not so--the Duchess is correct in this regard. The rules state that the Whip and the Chancellor are allowed to move for the dismissal of an inactive senator after a year. At no point do they imply that a senator is required to be active to retain membership, or even that the Whip or Chancellor have to create such a poll in the first place. The rules leave the dismissal or retention of an inactive senator up to each voter by whatever private criteria they feel relevant.

Duchess of Zeon wrote:There is thus no "correct" way to vote in the thread, and if there was, why would we need to vote?

This apparently needs to be said twice.

Kuroneko, we don't tell you how to do math, so why you trying to tell us how to poke the Senate with sharp sticks, buddy?

Just for everyone's edification here is the relevant rule itself:

R.2.C.II.b wrote:In cases of inactivity of more than 1 calendar year the Whip or Chancellor may call for a vote to remove. The vote will be held according to the rules of a Category A vote. If the measure passes the member will be removed from the Senate but may return subject to nomination as a member of the general board.

Please note a couple things:

1) "MAY call for a vote" should have been everyone's first indication that this is not some sort of automatic process

2) The point about making this a Category A vote (60% supermajority required) is that it shoudl be ahrd to kick someone out even if it is for being inactive.

3) Again the person leaves if the measure passes, this makes no point in regards to HOW an indiviudal Senator shoudl decide whether to retain or dismiss an individual. That is why they are Senators so they can exercise their judgement.

4) If anyone bothers to read the last part of that rule they will note that any person removed for inactivity (and incidentally by request as well) may be re-nominated by the board at large.

Havok wrote:As long as you admit this is all your fault, I'm done.

I'm sure something around here is my fault; damned if I can remember what.

Coyote wrote:

Havok wrote:As long as you admit this is all your fault, I'm done.

I'm sure something around here is my fault; damned if I can remember what.

I think it's the Spanish Inquisition...