They are having their reputation damaged by being kicked out of the Senate.
I don't think their reputation is damaged by the action itself. That's like saying that someone who didn't want to participate in gym class because it doesn't interest them loses reputation as a result. If they were removed for bad sportsmanship, then that would hurt their reputation. This is a system not dealing with infractions, but with apparently lack of interest.
I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the system they are proposing only affects active people, as in I think it only applies if you vote, which they will know because Eirikr already said they are using the voice vote.
No, the system would remove people who do not vote at all as well. Characters are
not given a strike for making it known that they wish to abstain. My logic here is that if you abstain without stating it 100% of the time, you probably didn't want to be in the Senate anyway. You are in a message group that you are ignoring. Let me remove the spam for you. I suppose there could be IC reasons (like being a spy) for not voting and yet wanting to stay in the Senate, but I wouldn't mind catching a few spies with this IC as well.
I think the OOC note is a good idea. Also note that there is a way to return to the Senate if someone is removed in error. I've made it fairly easy to do, but it does require that you take the first step.
In a somewhat similar case, is a guild allowed to remove inactive (that is, not pursuing the guild's mission) members? It is not as though the guild itself is a guaranteed piece of the game for the player; if someone hadn't created the guild in the first place, it isn't the player's right to have some other guild available to join. The Senate is similar in that some realms don't even provide a forum for characters to discuss issues like this. The King or whomever simply just implements what he feels like. (This is balanced by the protest option. There is still a way for nobles to resist.)
Does the IR protect the right for a player to participate in systems not guaranteed to exist? Just as an editorial note, I feel like I could word this better and that it sounds unintentionally like I'm trying really hard to make something illegitimate sound legitimate. Unfortunately, I don't know how to describe it very well.This may sound controversial, but I really LIKE the fact that votes are anonymous. For so many reasons!
I also like the anonymous vote for several reasons. As you say, it does allow for political maneuvering. I could be bribed to support a vote vocally and yet vote another way. What I don't like is that the current system can effectively deadlock a realm without allowing for someone with initiative to try and resolve the opposition's complaints. It just doesn't make sense for some things to be anonymous to me. A vote for a ruler or lordship is a vote of confidence in someone's conduct on many issues. You might not agree entirely with him, but you think the other guy's going to be really bad news if you vote for him. A vote on whether or not a law should be passed helps identify what you think is acceptable. It allows people to help you out and potentially find a compromise. As it is, there's so much pressure on trying to pass something that compromising is a vital tool to get anything done, but there is no need for the opposition to compromise at all. Ever. You can't even use it as a method to decide whether or not you will give them the same treatment. After all, they could start their own referendum and instantly be down one negative vote!
On the plus side, it does prevent people from trying to form political parties to some extent. Having the option to vote against those who believe I'm on their side without having to deal with the flak can be a real relief.
