BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: Eirikr on March 13, 2013, 02:17:12 AM
-
Let me preface this entire post by stating that I am looking into how a potential realm policy interacts with the inalienable right to be inactive. I want to make this explicit because there are several other things that tie into the policy, but they should all (obviously) be secondary to the IR. I am also going to use very specific names because this is a very specific situation.
Background: Coria is a Republic and uses a message group called the Corian Senate to vote on all important matters for Coria. This includes things like diplomatic status changes, new laws, and the general direction of the realm. Currently, all lords are members of the Senate, as well as the government positions and the dukes (honestly, the ruler is currently the only one who isn't a lord).
Now, in Coria's recent debacle, several members of the realm cited that they believed it to be a problem when a referendum would fail despite no opposition during discussion. In response to this, I proposed a plan:
The Silent Senator proposal: As promised, I seek to implement a way to manage the Senate such that only members who willingly put their time into the functioning of this realm are allowed within the Senate. The goal of this, of course, is to facilitate actual discussion to help guide Coria as a whole to where its lords want it to go. To do this, it is important that we know why a referendum failed as well as why it is being passed at all. To account for times when Senators need a reprieve, a simple "Strike" system shall be used: Each month, a Senator is allowed three strikes. If a Senator fails to provide any indication of interest in a referendum, that Senator receives a strike. An indication of interest can be as simple as a publicly stated abstention (preferably with an explanation), seconding another Senator's thoughts, or express support or disagreement with the referendum. This can be as little as a single sentence. As indicated, failure to do anything counts as a strike. These strikes reset each month, regardless of the number of referendums actually put forth that month. Strikes do not roll over (that is, you can never have an allowance of more than three strikes). Strikes will be presented no more than a day after the referendum results and will be tallied by the Consul. Appeals may be made directly to the Senate, to avoid suspicion of modifying the tally.
Related to this is a separate proposal that essentially states how our Senate's membership already works and how we would add to it if the plan succeeded:
Senate Membership proposal: Formally state within the realm laws that the Senate is open only to lords and council members. All lords are immediately inducted when they gain a lordship, excluding lords previously removed. Any lord removed from the Senate may petition to re-enter. The petitioner will rejoin the Senate with one strike, but will not be able to vote in his first referendum. Should the lord fail to indicate interest, the lord will be removed again. All current council members are granted irrevocable access to the Senate and do not suffer the Strike System. It is assumed that council members already have a vested interest in politics of Coria. Should they lose their position for any reason, they return to the lord system. (If they do not hold a lordship, they are removed from the Senate.)
I don't want to dilute initial reactions with my reasoning on whether or not I'd say this acceptable, so I'll wait to respond.
-
At first blush, this seems fine to me. No player would be punished simply because they logged somewhat infrequently– the character would be punished (or, rather, would lose a privilege, depending on how we view message groups) for a clearly definable activity which could be carried out on any login-schedule that prevents auto-pausing.
I may be overlooking something though.
-
Meh... the whole keeping track of voting and giving "strikes" for, essentially, being inactive feels wrong somehow.
Just for curiosity's sake, how long do the votes last? 1 day? 7 days? 4.5 turns? If a vote only lasts two days, then that's way too short, and essentially requires people to log in frequently. At that point you could strategically call votes on the weekends or when you know a player is typically inactive to trap them.
A character should, in general terms, be able to log in and play once every few days. It doesn't seem right that you're automatically putting them in some group they didn't necessarily ask to be in, and then requiring them to put in extra time and effort to stay there or get blackmarked and kicked out.
I dunno. I can see opposite sides of this, and I'm not really sure which way I lean. The whole keeping track and three-strikes thing does raise my hackles, though.
-
Meh... the whole keeping track of voting and giving "strikes" for, essentially, being inactive feels wrong somehow.
Just for curiosity's sake, how long do the votes last? 1 day? 7 days? 4.5 turns? If a vote only lasts two days, then that's way too short, and essentially requires people to log in frequently. At that point you could strategically call votes on the weekends or when you know a player is typically inactive to trap them.
A character should, in general terms, be able to log in and play once every few days. It doesn't seem right that you're automatically putting them in some group they didn't necessarily ask to be in, and then requiring them to put in extra time and effort to stay there or get blackmarked and kicked out.
I dunno. I can see opposite sides of this, and I'm not really sure which way I lean. The whole keeping track and three-strikes thing does raise my hackles, though.
The built-in game minimum for referendums is 3 days. We just passed a law in Coria requiring it to last at least 5 days.
If you have an alternative for keeping track, I'd love to hear it. Saves me a ton of trouble tallying and such.
-
A referendum could fail despite no opposition during discussion (meaning inactivity) if only absolute or qualified or two-thirds majority is used. If simple majority is used then the option (YES/NO) with the most votes wins regardless of who didn't vote. Use it or lose it.
-
The built-in game minimum for referendums is 3 days. We just passed a law in Coria requiring it to last at least 5 days.
How do you use the built-in referendum feature to do it? You could, at least theoretically, have non-lords (council members) who have the right to vote, but couldn't because they're non lords.
I suppose that a 5-day minimum is a good idea. That helps.
But then if you're using the built-in referendum feature, then you can't track who voted. They could say they voted, and you couldn't prove otherwise. Or do you make them vote, and then say they voted? I'm confused.
If you have an alternative for keeping track, I'd love to hear it. Saves me a ton of trouble tallying and such.
I don't, really. Other than to say that if someone not voting causes a problem, then track them down and find out why they didn't vote. If they don't have a good reason, then smack them around a bit. But the idea that you're going to track someone's activity, and then punish them for not being active enough, has a really bad feeling.
-
How do you use the built-in referendum feature to do it? You could, at least theoretically, have non-lords (council members) who have the right to vote, but couldn't because they're non lords.
I suppose that a 5-day minimum is a good idea. That helps.
But then if you're using the built-in referendum feature, then you can't track who voted. They could say they voted, and you couldn't prove otherwise. Or do you make them vote, and then say they voted? I'm confused.
I don't, really. Other than to say that if someone not voting causes a problem, then track them down and find out why they didn't vote. If they don't have a good reason, then smack them around a bit. But the idea that you're going to track someone's activity, and then punish them for not being active enough, has a really bad feeling.
He's saying they have a situation where they bring an issue up for debate, and everybody talking says "Yea!" but lots of people are silent, then, in the actual mechanics-based referendum, they get lots of anonymous no-votes.
He wants to force people to speak up, or to be caught in a lie somehow.
FWIW, I believe Riombara had laws about dereliction of duty for Advisory Council members.
-
Terran has moved to a voice vote system at certain periods in the past due to different things such as expediency and/or frustration over people not voting.
-
These two things bug me in combination:
1) putting people in it without their consent
2) tracking those people and punishing them for not being active
Make it voluntary, and by request. Then when those people don't contribute, remove them. The whole keeping score thing just bugs me. It seems unnecessary and punitive.
-
A referendum could fail despite no opposition during discussion (meaning inactivity) if only absolute or qualified or two-thirds majority is used. If simple majority is used then the option (YES/NO) with the most votes wins regardless of who didn't vote. Use it or lose it.
Ah, you misunderstand the original point of the policy. It was never intended as an action against inactive nobles. It is intended as an action against active, but non-participating nobles. Every referendum we have run has been a simple majority. Often, a referendum will fail (that is, not pass) unopposed in discussion because some voting members still vote no despite not explaining what they disagreed with. For example:
5 lords get to vote. 2 of those lords discuss in the Senate why they support the decision. The other three say nothing. The referendum results show two votes in favor, three opposed. The referendum fails, and yet the supporting lords have no information as to why. They cannot fix the referendum, they cannot know if it was the means or the goal that was not supported.
Some of us in Coria believe that this was contributing nothing to the realm, so we began discussing how to deal with it.
He's saying they have a situation where they bring an issue up for debate, and everybody talking says "Yea!" but lots of people are silent, then, in the actual mechanics-based referendum, they get lots of anonymous no-votes.
He wants to force people to speak up, or to be caught in a lie somehow.
FWIW, I believe Riombara had laws about dereliction of duty for Advisory Council members.
This is half right. The situation is correct and we are aiming to force people to speak up. There's no intent to catch them lying, though; we're just looking to know why things aren't passing. If people don't want to put anything into running their realm, why should they get a vote? We haven't had a problem failing a referendum when there's good discussion on both sides. The matter is dropped.
It's also fine if someone just agrees with what someone else said; at least there's some indication as to why they voted the way they did.
-
These two things bug me in combination:
1) putting people in it without their consent
2) tracking those people and punishing them for not being active
Make it voluntary, and by request. Then when those people don't contribute, remove them. The whole keeping score thing just bugs me. It seems unnecessary and punitive.
1. The Corian Senate has traditionally consisted of all lords without asking them if they want to join. This is a direct result of how referendums are programmed. Unless the referendum system becomes voluntary as well, I don't see this changing. The point is that lords aren't receiving random referendums without a forum to discuss them.
2. Being on the Senate is a privilege; some realms don't even provide a forum like this, they just enact laws. In a sense, tracking and removing people is not a "punishment", but a way to root out those who aren't contributing (inactive or not). The logic is that they don't seem to want to participate or they take the privilege for granted.
They can voluntarily leave the Senate at any time, though I've never seen anyone request it. Admittedly, that option hasn't been explicitly noted in quite some time. Would adding that help?
-
So it's not that they're not voting, they're just voting without contributing to the debate? That actually makes this proposal seem a little worse, honestly... If the problem is that you have a bloc of anonymous "No" votes, why don't you simply do away with the secret ballot and go to voice votes? In game terms, don't use the built-in referendums. Force people to send messages in which they must announce their vote. Riombara's Advisory Council has done this for years since the group does not fit precisely into any of the predefined referendum options. It may not compel people to contribute any more to the debate, but at least you will know who is voting no and can then ask them directly what their reasoning is, if that's what's bothering you. It strips away that protective anonymity that it sounds like some characters may be exploiting.
Disclaimer: I have a character in Coria, but not one in the Senate.
-
So it's not that they're not voting, they're just voting without contributing to the debate? That actually makes this proposal seem a little worse, honestly... If the problem is that you have a bloc of anonymous "No" votes, why don't you simply do away with the secret ballot and go to voice votes? In game terms, don't use the built-in referendums. Force people to send messages in which they must announce their vote. Riombara's Advisory Council has done this for years since the group does not fit precisely into any of the predefined referendum options. It may not compel people to contribute any more to the debate, but at least you will know who is voting no and can then ask them directly what their reasoning is, if that's what's bothering you. It strips away that protective anonymity that it sounds like some characters may be exploiting.
Disclaimer: I have a character in Coria, but not one in the Senate.
But if the characters are active anyway, this proposal clearly doesn't impinge upon their activity. i.e. not an IR violation?
"Not an IR violation" does not and should not mean "Best way to do it."
Going to voice voting is ideal– but that doesn't mean sub-optimal policies should be banned.
-
First of all, can referendums be limited to a message group? I recall seeing a feature request about this but did not find it during my brief search.
Regarding the suggested system, I would do it differently. I am no magistrate though and can not say if the proposed system or my suggestion are IR compatible with any authority. I feel that both are.
The Rule:
All region lords, dukes and council members are eligible for a seat on the senate. Should you hold such a position and wish to join the senate just let us know and you will be made a member. As a member of the senate you are expected to contribute your voice to the discussions and decisions being made. Should you wish to leave the senate at any time simply state your desire and you will be removed.
Optional: At a minimum, you, as a senator, are required to make a senate wide statement regarding each and every referendum brought before the senate.
The Culture:
With a basic rule in place, begin molding the culture. Be vocal yourself. Specifically call out those senators who have not contributed to a conversation. Encourage all others to do the same. If the referendum “Should we eat cheese” is brought before the senate and only two out of five senators have announced their positions, directly call out the other three and ask their opinion. If they still do not respond, send a private message. People will sometimes give an opinion if asked directly even if they were not willing to throw out their opinion on their own. Be open to whatever response the do give and try to turn it into a conversation.
Punish the Silent Senators:
If a particular senator simply refuses to speak up over and over again, remove them from the senate. Maybe have a referendum about it before hand and only remove them with a majority. They are not being removed due to inactivity, they are being removed because they are not doing the job. The same guidelines used when banning nobles who do not follow orders would apply.
-
Well, actually, to implement this at all, we'd have to go voice. We can't deny a lord a vote in the referendum system by removing him from a message group. Even so, simply switching to voice doesn't change the fact that they aren't contributing. We need the feedback to determine if it's a specific aspect of the referendum that's being turned down or the whole idea.
Imagine you want to form an alliance with another realm. You are neutral right now. Several people speak in support of it. Nobody speaks against it. Referendum results show 10 in support, 13 opposed, 5 abstain. Are they opposed because they want to go to peace first? Are the opposed because they'd rather go to war?
When we raised a fuss about it most recently, we did have a noble or two state that they voted no, but I don't recall them giving a reason why they voted no. Instead, they just said that they always vote silently. I would be just as suspicious if a referendum passed without any discussion, but it's harder to tell since the referendum isn't created at all if there's no reason behind it.
Now, all that said, the reason I bring up the question of IR at all is that there are likely inactive nobles that will be caught in this. It's not the intent, but are the IR always treated depending on intent? That seems to be very open to abuse. Even if it's a vaguely defined "reasonable attempts to accommodate inactive players", I would feel more confident in just putting this forth.
Oh, and for the record, this has been proposed, but ironically, nobody seems to want to discuss it. (We had an OOC chat about how to make it work, but that's it so far.)
-
First of all, can referendums be limited to a message group? I recall seeing a feature request about this but did not find it during my brief search.
Regarding the suggested system, I would do it differently. I am no magistrate though and can not say if the proposed system or my suggestion are IR compatible with any authority. I feel that both are.
The Rule:
All region lords, dukes and council members are eligible for a seat on the senate. Should you hold such a position and wish to join the senate just let us know and you will be made a member. As a member of the senate you are expected to contribute your voice to the discussions and decisions being made. Should you wish to leave the senate at any time simply state your desire and you will be removed.
Optional: At a minimum, you, as a senator, are required to make a senate wide statement regarding each and every referendum brought before the senate.
The Culture:
With a basic rule in place, begin molding the culture. Be vocal yourself. Specifically call out those senators who have not contributed to a conversation. Encourage all others to do the same. If the referendum “Should we eat cheese” is brought before the senate and only two out of five senators have announced their positions, directly call out the other three and ask their opinion. If they still do not respond, send a private message. People will sometimes give an opinion if asked directly even if they were not willing to throw out their opinion on their own. Be open to whatever response the do give and try to turn it into a conversation.
Punish the Silent Senators:
If a particular senator simply refuses to speak up over and over again, remove them from the senate. Maybe have a referendum about it before hand and only remove them with a majority. They are not being removed due to inactivity, they are being removed because they are not doing the job. The same guidelines used when banning nobles who do not follow orders would apply.
I posted something in the Development forum about allowing more flexibility in the referendum system, but I didn't make a formal feature request because it seems like it was intentionally limited to the current options. I was going to write a full request if it was really just something that hadn't been done/considered.
Your system looks a lot like what I envisioned. I like how the Rule is stated, but the Optional portion is too strict. Requiring word on every single referendum can be either very intensive or very subdued depending on the volume of referendums. I think the allowance system is more forgiving to less active players that still want to participate. I see no issue with the Culture, though that is already in place as much as possible. It does get a little ridiculous when you have to start sending out 12 private letters. The punishment does go with what I've been saying in that the characters are essentially losing their job for lack of doing it. The thing that I don't like is that "over and over again" doesn't give any warning as to when something will happen (or if it will actually happen at all). It also leaves the door wide open for corruption, but that's an IC consideration.
-
I do not believe that your goal is in any way incompatible with the IR.
However, I, too, feel that voice vote is going to be your best way forward.
This is much easier with the message search feature: you simply make one person (usually, but not necessarily, the Judge) responsible for tallying the votes for every referendum, then you give each referendum a specific title, and require that every official vote cast must follow a specific format, such as
Official Vote: Alliance with Keplerstan
I vote "Yes".
The "Official Vote: Alliance with Keplerstan" line can be copied & pasted so there can be no confusion; then, once the referendum has concluded, the Judge (or whoever) can use the Message Search feature to find all messages containing that tag, and tally up the votes.
(This is slightly different from Riombara's system; however, it is less prone to breakage, particularly with large groups.)
-
I do not believe that your goal is in any way incompatible with the IR.
However, I, too, feel that voice vote is going to be your best way forward.
This is much easier with the message search feature: you simply make one person (usually, but not necessarily, the Judge) responsible for tallying the votes for every referendum, then you give each referendum a specific title, and require that every official vote cast must follow a specific format, such as
The "Official Vote: Alliance with Keplerstan" line can be copied & pasted so there can be no confusion; then, once the referendum has concluded, the Judge (or whoever) can use the Message Search feature to find all messages containing that tag, and tally up the votes.
(This is slightly different from Riombara's system; however, it is less prone to breakage, particularly with large groups.)
That's how things used to be done before the game's own referendum mechanics.
What we used to do, to keep it simple and prevent a search through a pile of letters for someone (who could miss some or be dishonest) is that everyone who voted would include a recap of the previous votes and the tally.
It'd be nice to have an option to remove the anonymous nature of the game's referendum, though.
-
That's how things used to be done before the game's own referendum mechanics.
What we used to do, to keep it simple and prevent a search through a pile of letters for someone (who could miss some or be dishonest) is that everyone who voted would include a recap of the previous votes and the tally.
It'd be nice to have an option to remove the anonymous nature of the game's referendum, though.
Before the game's referendum mechanics, there was no message search feature, only Ctrl-F.
-
This may sound controversial, but I really LIKE the fact that votes are anonymous. For so many reasons!
Firstly, I do not like to play the two characters I have in the same realm the same. In fact, Sicarius often doesn't agree with his brother Saeculo (and as a result votes against him on certain issues). Yet if these were to become public, he'd have no choice but to support his older brother, lest he suffer a backlash.
On this path of thought, I also think it opens up the possibility of a lot more backstabbing, I read on the Wiki years ago a funny description of being offered a cookie to vote for person A, and then taking the cookie, eating it and voting for person B without person A ever knowing. I like this. I also like the fact that less powerful characters can make their own decision without the threat of repercussions of more powerful characters. If there was only one Duke for example, he could easily force everyone to obey his commands, and anyone who did not, well he could make their lives extremely difficult. (Depending on the government system, would depend on how relevant this is).
This is not to say that I don't think the above would make things interesting, I just think that there are two sides to it.
-
Before the game's referendum mechanics, there was no message search feature, only Ctrl-F.
I know, I didn't contradict this. But leaving the responsibility of doing that to a single person can easily result in votes being lost, be it intentionally or accidentally.
This may sound controversial, but I really LIKE the fact that votes are anonymous. For so many reasons!
Firstly, I do not like to play the two characters I have in the same realm the same. In fact, Sicarius often doesn't agree with his brother Saeculo (and as a result votes against him on certain issues). Yet if these were to become public, he'd have no choice but to support his older brother, lest he suffer a backlash.
On this path of thought, I also think it opens up the possibility of a lot more backstabbing, I read on the Wiki years ago a funny description of being offered a cookie to vote for person A, and then taking the cookie, eating it and voting for person B without person A ever knowing. I like this. I also like the fact that less powerful characters can make their own decision without the threat of repercussions of more powerful characters. If there was only one Duke for example, he could easily force everyone to obey his commands, and anyone who did not, well he could make their lives extremely difficult. (Depending on the government system, would depend on how relevant this is).
This is not to say that I don't think the above would make things interesting, I just think that there are two sides to it.
I have no issue with the default being private, as with the government elections. But we used to do these votes manually, publicly. And some people want to be able to hold public votes now too, and are forced to bypass the game-generated referendum. It'd be nice if there was the option for a public referendum.
-
Ok, the situation as explained definitely looks different than I got from the first message. If I were you, I would definitely use a public voice vote, though.
Even so, I think you should make an attempt to ensure that you don't somehow end up entrapping, even unintentionally, someone who is inactive into being blackmarked by the system.
-
But if the characters are active anyway, this proposal clearly doesn't impinge upon their activity. i.e. not an IR violation?
"Not an IR violation" does not and should not mean "Best way to do it."
Well, it's a bit of a gray area, isn't it? This is basically creating system whereby characters are judged on their activity level. Don't have time to write letters explaining your position? You're out of the club. I haven't formed a definitive opinion yet, but I will say that this doesn't feel totally right to me, for reasons I may or may not be articulating well.
Some points worthy of considerations:
1. No one is being "punished," in the sense of bans or fines.
2. The group in question is not broadly inclusive; it is limited to a subsection of the realm's nobility, and so is already by definition exclusive.
3. No one is specifying that a player must log on at specific times or intervals. Five days is a quite reasonable window of time to grant, and almost all players who aren't about to auto-pause will log in at least once within this time frame.
I think my decision about this would hang on the second point. The Senate is not a group that any character (and by extension player) has a right to belong to. That being the case, I suppose I would have to grant considerable latitude to those running the group to determine how its membership should be constituted.
I still think the voice vote is a better alternative to try before adopting this system, but as it stands I'm not sure I would call it an IR violation. I don't care for it, but as Vellos said, just because it's not optimal doesn't make it wrong by definition.
-
1. No one is being "punished," in the sense of bans or fines.
Not by bans/fines. But that's not the only way to punish someone. They are having their reputation damaged by being kicked out of the Senate. Which could in the future lead to them not getting other lordships or council positions.
3. No one is specifying that a player must log on at specific times or intervals. Five days is a quite reasonable window of time to grant, and almost all players who aren't about to auto-pause will log in at least once within this time frame.
Yes, five days is a good length of time. Not impossible to imagine a situation where someone gets busy,and logs in once, quickly, during the middle of that time. Still, there is a limit to how many hoops a player should have to jump through to make sure they are being fair.
I still think the voice vote is a better alternative to try before adopting this system, but as it stands I'm not sure I would call it an IR violation. I don't care for it, but as Vellos said, just because it's not optimal doesn't make it wrong by definition.
I definitely agree. Just because a system is byzantine, inefficient, or whatever doesn't mean it can't be used, or violates the IR.
However, just because you're not *intending* to violate an IR doesn't mean that the system you use can't end up doing that. I suppose that if you're going to track people's activity (which is really what's happening here) then your rules should really include some OOC notice about RL inactivity, and a notice that having OOC reasons for occasionally not participating won't have IC consequences. This isn't letting them use OOC inactivity as a shield for poor IC performance, it's just a nod to the fact that sometimes !@#$ happens, and that as fellow players we're acknowledging this.
-
I suppose that if you're going to track people's activity (which is really what's happening here) then your rules should really include some OOC notice about RL inactivity, and a notice that having OOC reasons for occasionally not participating won't have IC consequences. This isn't letting them use OOC inactivity as a shield for poor IC performance, it's just a nod to the fact that sometimes !@#$ happens, and that as fellow players we're acknowledging this.
This seems fair.
-
However, just because you're not *intending* to violate an IR doesn't mean that the system you use can't end up doing that. I suppose that if you're going to track people's activity (which is really what's happening here) then your rules should really include some OOC notice about RL inactivity, and a notice that having OOC reasons for occasionally not participating won't have IC consequences. This isn't letting them use OOC inactivity as a shield for poor IC performance, it's just a nod to the fact that sometimes !@#$ happens, and that as fellow players we're acknowledging this.
I also agree. Maybe you should build in a grace period upon request. That should separate people who are making a good faith effort from those who just don't care.
-
I also agree. Maybe you should build in a grace period upon request. That should separate people who are making a good faith effort from those who just don't care.
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.
-
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.
Oh? The way I read it, you'd also get a strike for doing nothing at all, but I could have misinterpreted that.
-
Oh? The way I read it, you'd also get a strike for doing nothing at all, but I could have misinterpreted that.
I see how it can be interpreted that way, and until one of the them responds, I am not sure.
-
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.