Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

A failed experiment whereby board users were invited to advise the Senate, and instead attempted to replace the Senate.
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Havok »

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?
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Stark »

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.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Thanas »

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.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Stark »

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'. :)
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22456
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Mr Bean »

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

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Thanas »

Eh? Did you mean that removal should be automatic?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22456
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Mr Bean »

Thanas wrote:Eh? Did you mean that removal should be automatic?
I thought removal was automatic
Given the voting threads I guess not.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28821
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Broomstick »

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.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Thanas »

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.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Ghost Rider »

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.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

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.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by CmdrWilkens »

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.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Stark »

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?
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Connor MacLeod »

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.
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Havok »

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?
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Connor MacLeod »

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?
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Havok »

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.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Mr. Coffee
is an asshole.
Posts: 3258
Joined: 2005-02-26 07:45am
Location: And banging your mom is half the battle... G.I. Joe!

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Mr. Coffee »

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...
Image
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas
GALE ForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

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 threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
JointStrikeFighter
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 1979
Joined: 2004-06-12 03:09am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by JointStrikeFighter »

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.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22456
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Mr Bean »

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.

:angelic:

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.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

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?
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

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.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Abstaining In The Current Senate Inactives Removal Threads

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

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.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Locked