Moderator: CmdrWilkens
I have recreated the poll, since it apparently closed too early for many honorable Senators to vote.Resolved that the segment of rule 2 ("One Senator, One Vote') reading "Who can nominate - Only Senators (no Governors, Chancellor, Executors or Emperor)" shall be changed to read as follows:
"Who can nominate - Every Senate member except the Chancellor"
They're in the mail? Good; I was thinking you guys hadn't sent them yet.Zaia wrote:Shhh! Your check is in the mail!Mad wrote:Yeah.
What could possibly go wrong?
If mine isn't enough to make my eyes bulge I'll be dissappointedZaia wrote:Shhh! Your check is in the mail!Mad wrote:Yeah.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, my mail not arriving is certainly something that could go wrong and I should check into making sure that doesn't happen.Zaia wrote:Shhh! Your check is in the mail!
Oh, please; you guys want a pay raise? Isn't conspiring behind closed doors to oppress the feeble masses enough?Durandal wrote:Aye. Can we tack on a pay raise as well?
I want at least triple what I'm getting now.Durandal wrote:Aye. Can we tack on a pay raise as well?
I would respectfully submit that whoever voted no is more than fully entitled to have their reasons as their own without disclosing them to us. We don't have to have unanimity and I think its just trying too hard to go after it.Zaia wrote:Would whoever voted against it come forward and state your reasons? I went back to re-read the thread where we discussed this and didn't see anyone really stating much against it, so I'm curious as to why you would vote no.
While that is true, the fact that a member of the Senate has voted "no" means that member has a reason to be apprehensive about the proposal. This reason may have been overlooked by those who have voted, and thus may merit consideration.CmdrWilkens wrote:I would respectfully submit that whoever voted no is more than fully entitled to have their reasons as their own without disclosing them to us. We don't have to have unanimity and I think its just trying too hard to go after it.
This place is not a rubberstamp. Nobody is going to be punished for having an opinion different from the majority, and Mad does have a good point.Mad wrote:While that is true, the fact that a member of the Senate has voted "no" means that member has a reason to be apprehensive about the proposal. This reason may have been overlooked by those who have voted, and thus may merit consideration.CmdrWilkens wrote:I would respectfully submit that whoever voted no is more than fully entitled to have their reasons as their own without disclosing them to us. We don't have to have unanimity and I think its just trying too hard to go after it.
I doubt the request for disclosure was about unanimity so much as ensuring an informed decision process.
I was looking for an explanation as to the votes against because no one brought up any reasons to be against it previously in the discussion thread, Greg. I was hoping they would voice their concerns so we could address them.CmdrWilkens wrote:I would respectfully submit that whoever voted no is more than fully entitled to have their reasons as their own without disclosing them to us. We don't have to have unanimity and I think its just trying too hard to go after it.
