[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

[Darth Wong]

Oh, so it would take "psychic" powers for you to be able to discuss the fact that Stark acted like a child even though this fact was acknowledged early on, even before this thread began? Bullshit. You didn't need me to remind you of things that had already been said. The problem is that you decided to circle the wagons around him and attack the people who were going after him, because of the infantile factionalizing that invariably happens when something like this is brought up in any form.

Why couldn't you think of that? Oh yeah, that's right: you were not interested at all in examining the issue, and you decided instead to attack the people who were putting forth a proposal that you did not like. In short, you adopted a knee-jerk position, didn't feel the "other side" did a good enough job, obviously didn't feel like you should make the slightest effort to look at both sides yourself, and then declared that I'm being unreasonable to expect you to behave any other way.

[Coyote]

We were gathering evidence; it's that we didn't have time to get stuff together when, yes, Shep jumped the gun. I didn't even know at first he was interested in the Stark situation, really.

So far, though, a lot of the dismissal of charges stems more from "not liking Shep", "not liking Bean", and "Bean and fgalkin were meanies" and finally, "It wasn't wrapped up and presented all pretty-like". People rallying for Stark have admitted that there is a case by responding to Mike, but in the case of Hotfoot it seems to be that he's sticking up for diasagreement for the sake of disagreement, as if simply "disagreeing" automatically means "principles are involved".

[Darth Wong]

Starglider just PM'd me to express his bewilderment that I shut down the HoC for attempting to replace the Senate with its own standard-free self and that I also criticize the Senate for not being willing to impose standards on itself. I don't see how the fuck this is a contradiction in any way; there should be standards of conduct for those people who are given a hand in board administration, especially when they are engaging in their duties.

If the mods are not living up to their standards of conduct when discharging their duties, they should be called on the carpet and demoted to regular users if necessary. If Senators are not living up to their standards of conduct when discussing board policy, then they should also be called on the carpet and demoted to regular users if necessary. This is not a popularity contest or a social club.

Is it not clear that when discussing board policy, a Senator is not acting as a normal user but is, in fact, performing official Senate business? And that when he is performing official Senate business, he should act like it? Stark was discussing board policy in a manner totally inconsistent with someone performing his job as a Senator. Why do I need to point out such things?

[Hotfoot]

Oh, so it would take "psychic" powers for you to be able to discuss the fact that Stark acted like a child even though this fact was acknowledged early on, even before this thread began? Bullshit. You didn't need me to remind you of things that had already been said. The problem is that you decided to circle the wagons around him and attack the people who were going after him, because of the infantile factionalizing that invariably happens when something like this is brought up in any form.

No, the issue is that I was discussing the issue as it was presented. That it was presented poorly is not my problem, I shouldn't be expected to provide evidence for others. You see it as circling the wagons, I see it as most people realizing that the proceedings were crap. Believe it or not, I don't follow every post on this board and so far the threads in question where Stark was allegedly misbehaving have not been presented to the Senate for official review. It's a massive case of he said she said and despite NUMEROUS requests to show the threads in question, none have been. I'm sorry for holding to standards of evidence that were perfectly within your ability, Bean's ability, and fgalkin's ability to meet.

Why couldn't you think of that? Oh yeah, that's right: you were not interested at all in examining the issue, and you decided instead to attack the people who were putting forth a proposal that you did not like. In short, you adopted a knee-jerk position, didn't feel the "other side" did a good enough job, obviously didn't feel like you should make the slightest effort to look at both sides yourself, and then declared that I'm being unreasonable to expect you to behave any other way.

What are the rules of this site? Of the senate? That I should take a position I disagree with because the people I'm arguing with are doing a shit job? That's bull. I've stated repeatedly that if there is evidence, it should be shown. Instead, I came in and responded to what were basically lies because I felt that using a lie to indict a member of this board was inappropriate.

But I've outlined my reasons for my position. I've supported it with evidence and explained myself pretty well I think. If that's a "knee-jerk" reaction, then what's yours? You yourself have not provided any evidence, perpetuating the he-said she-said self-evident arguments that have made this entire action a farce. Every time I have asked you to support your points, you decline and instead go on the attack. If we are to have an intelligent discussion, I would appreciate some quid pro quo here.

[Darth Wong]

No, the issue is that I was discussing the issue as it was presented. That it was presented poorly is not my problem, I shouldn't be expected to provide evidence for others. You see it as circling the wagons, I see it as most people realizing that the proceedings were crap.

"Provide evidence?" No one even disputed that Stark behaved childishly while discussing board policy! No one even disputed that Stark attacked mods by snidely bad-mouthing them outside the Senate: a violation of the board rules.

You simply decided that this was not a valid reason to dump someone from the Senate, thus begging the question of what is a valid reason. This, in turn, led to a discussion of what standards of conduct the Senate should have: an issue which you disliked because you fear it would lead to other Senate members being expelled, which in turn begs the question of why any policy which might weaken Senators' apparent tenure-like status is a bad idea.

But I've outlined my reasons for my position. I've supported it with evidence and explained myself pretty well I think. If that's a "knee-jerk" reaction, then what's yours? You yourself have not provided any evidence, perpetuating the he-said she-said self-evident arguments that have made this entire action a farce. Every time I have asked you to support your points, you decline and instead go on the attack. If we are to have an intelligent discussion, I would appreciate some quid pro quo here.

Are you being a liar here, or an imbecile? No one is even disputing that Stark behaved childishly and did no follow anything near proper procedure for attacking a moderator's actions. The board rules state very clearly that there is one and only one place where you can do that. That is evidence. What more evidence do you require?

If you insist on acting as if you don't understand the board rules or don't see why they should apply to a Senator, then it seems pretty obvious that you are, as others have charged, disagreeing just for the sake of factionalism. I've already heard the ridiculous argument that Senators are allowed to break rules at will; some people here seem to have some very bizarre ideas of what a Senator is, and you seem to be at the head of that pack.

What are the rules of this site? Of the senate? That I should take a position I disagree with because the people I'm arguing with are doing a shit job?

In other words, you think a Senator should be a partisan, in addition to your bizarre notions about Senators not having to follow board rules. As I said earlier, it's becoming increasingly clear that there need to be some standards.