Senate Confirmation Thread: Bullmoose (HAEV) (Confirmed)

[Franzl]

I get the feeling the Senate desires a nominee to the HAEV who won't actually do the job.

[Fritz]

I share Badger's concerns- this is exactly the direction the HAEV should not go.

In Bullmoose's example several posts above, I believe that "Person X" would have been removed from the voting rolls for lack of activity, anyways.

At this point, I am leaning towards voting against this confirmation.

Senator,

Your opinion regarding the upcoming vote aside, I have to ask:

How does someone who only votes in elections-how we currently gauge (in)activity-get removed for being inactive?

A voter must post at least 15 times in the preceding 8 weeks to be eligible to vote in an election.  So, in your example, Person X would have been removed anyway, having only posted 12 times in 6 months.

[bullmoose88]

I share Badger's concerns- this is exactly the direction the HAEV should not go.

In Bullmoose's example several posts above, I believe that "Person X" would have been removed from the voting rolls for lack of activity, anyways.

At this point, I am leaning towards voting against this confirmation.

Senator,

Your opinion regarding the upcoming vote aside, I have to ask:

How does someone who only votes in elections-how we currently gauge (in)activity-get removed for being inactive?

A voter must post at least 15 times in the preceding 8 weeks to be eligible to vote in an election.  So, in your example, Person X would have been removed anyway, having only posted 12 times in 6 months.

Ok, so supposing we substitute the proper posting requirements to maintain registration, is it not possible that a former active poster and histortically important voter could become a zombie?

[Fritz]

It is theoretically possible, sure.  I think Badger's and my concern is for voters who have become inactive posters in Atlasia, but remain active or at least semi-active in the forum at large.  However, I think these voters would be protected by point 1 in the guidelines, which states that a voter should have fewer than 25 posts in the last 2 months to be considered for removal.  Do you agree?

Also, this seems to be a major point of contention between tmth and myself.  He appears to believe history of service should be given very little weight in these decisions, whereas I feel it should be given great weight.  Where do you stand?

[bullmoose88]

It is theoretically possible, sure.  I think Badger's and my concern is for voters who have become inactive posters in Atlasia, but remain active or at least semi-active in the forum at large.  However, I think these voters would be protected by point 1 in the guidelines, which states that a voter should have fewer than 25 posts in the last 2 months to be considered for removal.  Do you agree?

Also, this seems to be a major point of contention between tmth and myself.  He appears to believe history of service should be given very little weight in these decisions, whereas I feel it should be given great weight.  Where do you stand?

That's a very important point, the ratified guidelines, clearly target most of the HAEV's energies at posters who haven't posted here, or anywhere else on the boards over the 2 month period.  Indeed, that's where I expect virtually all of the removals to originate.  But its important to note that the HAEV guidelines as presently constructed, also bring those posters, and I don't want to put words in your mouth here so correct me if I'm wrong, that you're most concerned about in its purview.  The HAEV's guidelines do not exclude them from consideration if they are nominated.  Obviously the criteria set forth in the HAEV's rules make it an uphill climb to remove them since they aren't the typical voter outlined for the "should"-type consideration in point one, and have point three going for them in some degree, but there is no exclude this type of voter from consideration provision.


As for the weight of the prior service, the guidelines--as presently written--do not say, exclude x voter from the threat of removal for y type of service.  Therefore, I think in those situations where the past service is the make or break factor, any prior record helps.  But the overarching question is, is the questioned voter a zombie? 

I apologize if I have not articulated this more clearly, I can't say that as a general grouping of evidence, point three information weighs lightly or heavily.  It is the quality of that evidence and how it reflects upon the questioned voter that determines its weight.  I'm going to take a very holistic view of the voter's record prior to saying, I'm going to give it x weight.  It would vary depending on the record.

Look, most of us get PMs of some form asking for us to vote for certain parties or candidates,  responding to that does not necessarily invoke zombie-ism.  Individuals who have served in the branches of national and even regional government tend not to be zombies.  I'm sure someone can give an example of a zombie senator, or a zombie governor that would shatter the statement, never are zombies.

But when do we reach that theoretical point, where even proponents of heavy weighting, like yourself, acknowledge that it is possible former important participants could morph into zombies?  The HAEV guidelines are woefully silent.  We know how the typical low post, historically low participation zombie acts and for the purposes he or she usually acts. 

I am open right now to suggestions from this body as to what factors should go into weighting this evidence.  Anyone?  I've mentioned a few, and I'll quickly say how they'll play in the general view.  If you disagree on how such a factor would play (as a + or a -, feel free to chime in)

1. Duration of time since in office.  My general view is that the longer the time out of office, the increased likelihood for zombiefication.  I'd weight this factor less and less with a higher time out.  There are other factors at play.  Did the poster run for office during his or her time out and just lose, or was nominated for an office but the nomination never passed.  These would sort of toll the duration factor.

2.  The office in service occurred.  Not to slight any current officeholder, but in my view, its relatively easier to run for a regional assembly and seems to require less effort or participation and I think less committment.  All other variables held constant, I'm certainly going to give more weight to a senator than to an assemblyman.  The higher the level of office, the more weight.

3.  Other special factors.  Say the voter was a judge, and while he or she posts just enough to stay active, most of his/her posts are votes, but the remaining posts are usually constitutional or judicial critques or posts in a judicial debate.  That to me really illustrates that the HIP isn't a zombie.  It just shows a reduced level of participation as more of a backbencher--not interested in chiming in on every political point, but just in the realms of interest.  Contrast to a situation where I wouldn't give as much weight, say the former judge votes in a news poll by quoting another poster.

I'm open to other factors, these are just those that came to the top of my head.

In short, the HAEV does not give an automatic pass for prior service, and if a HIP has come under scrutiny and decision process has examined point 1 and found the presumption of zombieism, and point 2 does not rebut, then the HAEV must determine the weight of all prior record evidence to be considered for point 3.  Point 3 is not an automatic get out of jail free card in that if you have some record, you're exempt.  It would be unwise to say as a general rule, any evidence in point 3 is lightly or heavily weighted before examining the actual record and the picture it creates.

[Bacon King]

I call for a final vote on the nominee.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there are no objections then


A final vote on the nominee is begun, Senators, please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN



AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I call for a final vote on the nominee.

Just for the record if you think I am slow to the punch on opening some votes it is an intentional act accomodating this lax Senate. It was not my intention, nor do I expect it to continue in the next session with such fine individuals as yourself present in this august chamber, once more.

[Хahar 🤔]

I want clarification on the matter of Friz. he only showed up to vote and always voted party-line, but he was also a Senator.

[bullmoose88]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the questioning period had ended.

Anyways.  I feel it unwise to discuss the case for or against specific posters during these proceedings because they should not be prejudged in case they actually do come before the HAEV.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Bacon King]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[k-onmmunist]

Present and ABSTAIN

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This needs one more vote to pass. I am not going to bother with starting this over unless someone finds me a section of the OSPR requiring it and insists they will be very unhappy if we don't.

[Bacon King]

This needs one more vote to pass. I am not going to bother with starting this over unless someone finds me a section of the OSPR requiring it and insists they will be very unhappy if we don't.

Five in favor and an abstention = majority, no?

[Barnes]

This needs one more vote to pass. I am not going to bother with starting this over unless someone finds me a section of the OSPR requiring it and insists they will be very unhappy if we don't.

Five in favor and an abstention = majority, no?

The HAEV guidelines require a 2/3rds majority, I believe.

[Bacon King]

Oh, duh, right. I made this exact mistake when I was presiding over your HAEV nomination, Barnes

[Barnes]

Oh, duh, right. I made this exact mistake when I was presiding over your HAEV nomination, Barnes

That's right, I remember.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wow, I thought it was six. Guess we are both out of the loop for once BK.

[Badger]

I believe Bullmoose is as good a choice there is to serve on the HAEV, but I have serious misgivings about the HAEV as a whole.

If it was anyone remotely less skilled for the role I would vote nay. As it is, I vote:

ABSTAIN.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators voting in the Affirmative (5): Bacon King, Duke, Hans-im-Gluck, NC Yankee, and Tmthforu94


Senators Not Voting/Abstaining (5): Badger, bgwah, Fritz, Mint, and Winston Disraeli


Final Result, this Senate sucks with regards to activity among certain Senators.

[Peter]

Without a third member, the HAEV is in long term paralysis. Whilst I am keen to get to work and make actual decisions on the cases that are worthy of decisions, we can never get there unless the Senate does what it has to do.

I ask that the PPT formally return the nomination to the President and ask that the President either re-submit who we all consider to be a first class nominee, or another appropriately qualified person.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Without a third member, the HAEV is in long term paralysis. Whilst I am keen to get to work and make actual decisions on the cases that are worthy of decisions, we can never get there unless the Senate does what it has to do.

I ask that the PPT formally return the nomination to the President and ask that the President either re-submit who we all consider to be a first class nominee, or another appropriately qualified person.

If Bullmoose can't get through the Senate to the HAEV, then no one would. This is sickening.


Keep in mind that three of the Senators listed under Abstaining have yet to show up at all. only two actually abstained.