StarDestroyer.Net BBS

sure you can

hell I'll even second it, since my nomination of Edi's kitty has been squashed.

Can I renominate someone else?

If so, I would like to nominate Painrack. He has made countless useful post in the history section especially in regards to Chinese history ( certainly more than what I know of) , healthcare issues and in some debates concerning Singapore( certainly much better than what I do in any debate)

Health Care
Against Kinnson
McCain: Socialized Health Care is Eeeevilll!
Health Insurance is Rigged to Kill.

History
Concerning Chinese civil war

Size of armies in ancient times

Myth of the Malayan Campaign

ray245 wrote:Can I renominate someone else?

If so, I would like to nominate Painrack.

I was considering nominating Painrack myself actually, but Cairber seemed a slightly better choice. I would avoid nominating more than four or so people per month though, because that will just split the vote sufficiently to allow the 'no more senators ever' permanent block to win.

If starglider or anyone else still cares to nominate me, I'm now removing myself from "do not nominate" status.

I still don't think anyone could find a single post from the last two years that marks me as worthy of the senate, but if you find something, go ahead.

ray245 wrote:Can I renominate someone else?

You can if your ass waits until the 2nd of the month. Until then NO.

Ray, calm down. You're not required to nominate people each month just because the rules say you can.

Coyote wrote:Ray, calm down. You're not required to nominate people each month just because the rules say you can.

Ah. Sorry about that.

Since the votes for any two of the candidates this month combined would still not exceed the votes for 'none', I propose that we bar all three from being re-nominated for six months, to avoid futher reruns. Balrog in particular has been nominated four times and rejected four times, so I think it would be fair to say that he would have to make significant fresh contributions to the board to be worthy of reconsideration.

Starglider wrote:Since the votes for any two of the candidates this month combined would still not exceed the votes for 'none', I propose that we bar all three from being re-nominated for six months, to avoid futher reruns. Balrog in particular has been nominated four times and rejected four times, so I think it would be fair to say that he would have to make significant fresh contributions to the board to be worthy of reconsideration.

I'd like to see something about this as well. It seems silly to see someone get repeatedly nominated only to be shot down every time. If all it takes is getting nominated enough times to finally get in doesn't that kind of defeat the point?

Bar me for as long as you want, but Cairber has only been nominated once, there is no reason to punish her because idiots in the HoC people cant figure out that 3 nominees along with 2 more options split between 35 people isn't usually going to get an overwhelming majority and you can count on at least 10 votes for "None" almost every time as that is the correct group faction that doesn't think that new Senators are needed.

Havok wrote:Bar me for as long as you want, but Cairber has only been nominated once, there is no reason to punish her because idiots in the HoC people cant figure out that 3 nominees along with 2 more options split between 35 people isn't usually going to get an overwhelming majority and you can count on at least 10 votes for "None" almost every time as that is the correct group faction that doesn't think that new Senators are needed.

I don't think we need to bar them after one nomination, but after you get put up for vote twice I think there should be some kind of limit on how many times you can be nominated. How many times does this make it that Balrog's been put up for vote?

General Zod wrote:How many times does this make it that Balrog's been put up for vote?

Four times, as I said in my original post. The reason I suggested not renominating Cairber is because even if everyone who voted for Havok voted for her, she still wouldn't have beaten 'none' (and vice versa). Of course the turnout this month was low, and if there was just one of the three they might've made it (Stark beat 'none' by 20 vs 12 in an unopposed vote, if anyone else had been nominated that month he quite likely would've lost).

Really this is why I developed the 'instant runoff voting' mod in the first place, but that was for phpbb2, and the board is now on phpbb3. Hopefully I'll eventually get time to update it.

That said with only three options you could do a manual IR poll with six voting options, plus abstain and none for eight. That doesn't give the option of approving of some candidates but not others - that would take 24 options for 3 candidates plus none, 25 with abstain, and the board config is currently set for 10 poll options max - but it's still a significant improvement and might've changed the result this time.

Alternatively we could just have a vote here between however many candidates get proposed, and only nominate the person who wins. That would be amusing.

Starglider wrote: Alternatively we could just have a vote here between however many candidates get proposed, and only nominate the person who wins. That would be amusing.

Aren't votes in the HoC going to run into the exact same issues that prompted the formation of senate in the first place?

Rules for nomination and voting are Senate matters. If the board wants to self regulate here is how:

Don't Nominate OR
If someone is nominated don't Second.

If a candidate is nominated, seconded, and supported sufficiently to pass the chancellor's discretion test then they will be considered. Other thoughts:

- The "no self promotion" rule is long gone. If you think you would make an effective senator then feel free to say so...just don't do it in this thread

- The "none" option, its here to stay and while I remainly largely agnostic on the issue there are currently 54 active Senators, 2 Inactive due to abscence, and 2 Others (myself and Mike who have access and can vote ). Theoretically even after our brief purge that is still a total of 58 people involved in the Senate so they have a point even if I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it.

I hope this is the right place to do this. Thank you for the nomination, second, and votes and all the kind words. I was just promoted yesterday to a managing position on a moms group site that I belong to and it involves a lot of work (promotions, ad management, board modding, etc) so I do not think I would be able to be a Senator here as well. Taking this position means a little less time for me to read threads here, which I love doing even if I don't post, but I feel like I would not be able to stay as current as I would need to to be a Senator.

What was the window for June nominations again? Can I still nominate Painrack?

Starglider wrote:What was the window for June nominations again? Can I still nominate Painrack?

If painrack's nomination is allowed , then I will second the nomination.

Starglider wrote:What was the window for June nominations again? Can I still nominate Painrack?

The Rules wrote:

• 2. Membership – Membership in the Senate is contingent upon previous evidence of quality contributions to the board and a continuance of that once elevated to membership.
  
  • A. Procedure for Nominating - Beginning on the 2nd of every month the House of Commons shall be placed open for the nomination of prospective Senators. Nominations shall close on the 24th of each month (excepting February when it will close on the 21st).
    1. All board members are granted the right to nominate for entry into the Senate excepting the Chancellor. Any member may start the thread provided only that it carries the [Member] tag and is on or after the 2nd of the month.
    2. Each member has the right to nominate one person per month. If someone has nominated the person you wanted already, then you can second that nomination. If someone has nominated and seconded the person you want then wait for the vote. A second does not count as a nomination thus a Member may both nominate one candidate and second any additional candidates they deem worthy of consideration.
    3. All nominations that have been made and seconded shall be considered.

how about Stewart or Chris?

Just think if we had preferential voting we wouldn't have this problem every month.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:Just think if we had preferential voting we wouldn't have this problem every month.

Put your bitching in another thread or I'm just going to ignroe any nomination you make. This thread is for nominations, seconds, evidence, and discussion of candidates. If you have an issue with the voting system then take it elsewhere.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

JointStrikeFighter wrote:Just think if we had preferential voting we wouldn't have this problem every month.

Put your bitching in another thread or I'm just going to ignroe any nomination you make. This thread is for nominations, seconds, evidence, and discussion of candidates. If you have an issue with the voting system then take it elsewhere.

Wasn't meant to be a go at you or anyone else. Apologies.

Ok though he might issue a sherman statement

I offiicially nominate Steve, given his history between Space Battles and ASVS back in the invasion era, and beyond, being the only sane moderator there for the longest time. And for being conservative but not a neocon idjit.

I'll second Steve's nomination.

I think Steve is a fine choice... anyone going to provide some threads? C'mon you guys, it's not as if how this works hasn't been explained multiple times.