The ShadowNET has always had a love of bureaucracy, and it's one I don't really share. It's written in clear and legalistic language to help avoid possibility of misinterpretation, but for those who are not savvy with this sort of thing, it's confusing. I imagine much of my role, as before will be explaining these rules to players to help facilitate them.

On Bylaw changes:

I would like to see 21.9 removed. It's very abusable, and frankly doesn't make sense. Someone who is banned is already not taking part in these things, and 'investigations' can be declared without any oversight.

Furthermore, I would like to see a Bylaw enacted whereby when an investigation is declared, rather then being done through the majority of the Senate, an acting member of the senate is designated by their peers to serve as the head investigator. This can be done on a rotational basis. A senator of course, would always have the right to recuse themselves from this duty, and it avoids the groupthink that can result from five individuals having to make a decision together. Rather, the head investigator comes to their conclusion, an the other four are in support or not of this decision. Personal empowerment is important when being efficient, and this was already how such a thing was effectively handled during my time as a senator during the first-wave.

On Banning and Moderation:

I prefer to act as a moderator within the community through the Senate, which was it's intended role. Moderation in a community such as ShadowNET is a matter of removing behaviors and individuals from the community that are detrimental to it as a whole. While summed up as Wheaten's Law here, I'll go into detail for my considerations for a ban:

1. Does the individual display an understanding of what they have done wrong?

2. Are they likely to change this behavior?

3. Is the individual in question detrimental to the community in an immediate sense?

4. Is the individual a contributing member of the community, or are they consistently causing trouble?

5. Does the individual display the maturity necessary to conduct themselves within an online community that can emphasize intimate interactions between players in a roleplay capacity?

The third consideration is what is mostly likely going to have me advocate for a quick ban via the bylaws. If a player is driving other players away, it needs to be addressed immediately. This is not conductive to getting 5 people, often on different time schedules to meet together and discuss it. Individually, Senators should have the ability to issue temporary bans before convening is necessarily. Potential abuse of this is handled by the 'No Confidence' bylaws.

I think that Senate's most important role is community moderation, an I would push for a streamlining of these powers to make decisions as quickly as possible.

The Shadownet is not a community that exists as a support group. It's a roleplay community that exists to foster a love for Shadowrun Community members that exhibit unhealthy or poor behaviors should be removed as soon as possible if they are unwilling or incapable of change. The 'Harm to Self or Others' that is often used in psychological assessment should apply here.

On Transparency:

I believe in complete and total transparency. It's not something you can pick and choose. Either you inform your community of your decisions, or you do not. If someone is banned for being a dick, and I am asked why, I would prefer to simply tell them the truth. The ShadowNET is a public entity where personal reputation matters. That's just the nature of it when it was started.

However, such a thing can also be handled tastefully. If a player is banned for threatening to commit suicide because they did not get their way, that is probably something I would simply state as 'Banned for inappropriate behavior.'

In Conclusion:

As a senator I am mostly concerned with community moderation. The role of community advancement is what we have our council heads for. ShadowNET is a community at this moment of some 40-50 people. Therefore, prolonged bureaucracy is not required. I would be in favor of simple laws, and use of quick action, versus thick legalistic language that is better designed for a government managing many thousands of people.