[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

[MKSheppard]

I think that right now emotions are running too high to make this a fair and impartial to Stark.

I move for a Tabling of this discussion, to be taken up in One Month (Dec 1st).

I disagree.

One of the planks of the Testingtard Movement in the Late House of Commons was that the Senate was ineffectual. If we keep tabling or rescheduling votes/discussions on specious legalistic grounds, we'll never get a damn thing done.

Anyway, another birdie has spoken to me:

Stark Nomination in House of Commons

Go down to about the 9th post in. Two links are given in support of his nomination by Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba.

Example Thread One
Example Thread Two

NUA's post was:

Here are examples of Stark preventing the GNC forum from being entirely useless and un-entertaining.

Most examples of his drama-destruction are in Testing, and thus all records of his mockery of the Senate have been destroyed.

I submit that he must become part of the Senate as a sort of 'SDN Republican' - he'll destroy the government from the inside!

None of the links lead to posts of any exceptional interest or quality.

[Bounty]

One of the planks of the Testingtard Movement in the Late House of Commons was that the Senate was ineffectual. If we keep tabling or rescheduling votes/discussions on specious legalistic grounds, we'll never get a damn thing done.

Isn't it about time to just let it go? Testing is dead, the HoC is dead, the Senate is reinvigorated, and things are finally settling down. Why then do you feel the pressing need to keep up the crusade?

[Frank Hipper]

I move that there's enough here to bring this to a vote.

Seconds?

[MKSheppard]

I second the motion for vote.

[Tiriol]

I move that there's enough here to bring this to a vote.

Seconds?

I second the motion.

[Bounty]

I move that there's enough here to bring this to a vote.

Seconds?

As was the case the last time this was tried, I question the merit of a discussion where Stark hasn't had his say, and in this case I very much question the motives of the Senator bringing this matter up.

LadyTevar has a point when she says there are emotions involved here that warrant letting the issue rest.

[Frank Hipper]

That emotions are involved in no way invalidates the nature of the evidence presented; it's pretty fucking exceptional.

[MKSheppard]

As was the case the last time this was tried, I question the merit of a discussion where Stark hasn't had his say, and in this case I very much question the motives of the Senator bringing this matter up.

Stark can still post in the Senate to defend himself, unlike last time.

LadyTevar has a point when she says there are emotions involved here that warrant letting the issue rest.

Didn't one of Stark's complaints consist of "the Senate was ineffectual and did nothing"?

It is fascianting that a public forum full of poorly-thought out whining and tongue-wagging is actually more effective than the Senate at everything except that which the Senate has 'special powers' to do. There was no real reason for HoC nominations to be accepted, but they were; there was no real reason to accept pressure on testing, or any other issue moved from the HoC to action. Senators don't even vote on the actual changes that are happening or being discussed. When it was started - largely as part of the 'Senate is stupid' testing lol - I had no expectation anything discussed there would ever go anywhere. Look where we are now.

Frankly, when a totally open forum of every idiot on the board is more useful than the so-called 'elite', that's the biggest full stop you could put on Starglider's post. When people like Ray participate more than most Senators in discussing board issues, that highlights what people have been saying about Senate participation (no offence, Ray).

Actually Ray's a good example of the HoC. He posts a lot here, a lot of his ideas are stupid, but things are discussed and he's a part of all kinds of decisions. He'd never, ever be 'allowed' in the Senate.

EDIT - Shit, look what Hotfoot and Red and I are doing; we're posting HERE, because while we're Senators we're not head-up-ass about it. Where is the engine of change in the forum below the Mod level?

I rest my case.

[Edi]

The complaints about Stark are actually for the most part valid. When it gets down to things where he knows his shit, he can hold his own, but he's actually more likely to just go straight for invective and almost outright trolling if somebody dares disagree with him. He has been one of the main reasons why much of G&C is nigh unreadable because of his tendency to shit all over threads where someone has a different opinion than he does (e.g. liking some game he thinks is trash).

He's not as active on some of the other forums, which limits his visibility on the board in general, but the way he acted as the instigator and fanned the flames of the recent squalls of drama just reinforces the argument for booting him from the Senate. Before Mike simply told the Testing/HoC crowd to shut the fuck up and locked the HoC forum in its entirety and personally came down on Stark, it didn't much matter who said what to him, there was essentially no effect.

Much as some people might think that it's just a few people going on a witch hunt against Stark, it's not. I know Shep is not liked by many here, so him serving as a messenger is likely to ruffle some people, as is the inevitable support from fgalkin and Mr. Bean (when he gets around to posting). Bean and fgalkin may have at some points acted too precipitously and that's been something that has not done the rest of us mods any favors if we've been involved in the issues in question.

Don't ignore the message just because of the bearer, but consider the arguments on their merits instead.

[Bounty]

PM from a member who wishes to remain anonymous:

Can I anonymously comment on the Senate that the more emotional reactions of certain Senators and persons of authority, such as in the case of as Shep's bizarre fixation on Stark, is what causes the ensuing critical comments by other members in Testing (before it got nuked) and, in turn, the ensuing reaction to these critical comments is what causes these instances of 'board drama'?

Looking at the first-ever instance of 'board drama', it was also caused by a senator making a rather controversial statement (Duchess' ban all of Testing spiel) that ended up getting openly criticized in public (i.e. Testing).

Anyway, now that it has been very clearly stated that very vocal comments regarding board policy won't be looked too well on, I think "board drama" won't really be a factor anymore since members won't be too eager to actually comment on Senate going-ons and whatever, since they are now more content to just keep their mouths shut to avoid any more decimations like those that happened to Testing and the House of Commons.

[Coyote]

One of the planks of the Testingtard Movement in the Late House of Commons was that the Senate was ineffectual. If we keep tabling or rescheduling votes/discussions on specious legalistic grounds, we'll never get a damn thing done.

Isn't it about time to just let it go? Testing is dead, the HoC is dead, the Senate is reinvigorated, and things are finally settling down. Why then do you feel the pressing need to keep up the crusade?

So, the whole reason why Testing had to be nuked, why the whole HoC had to be nuked, and why someone felt they could go against Bean but not "technically" go against Mike should just be swept under the carpet?

Bernie Madoff already bilked and spent his millions, so why go through the trouble, hassle and expense of prosecuting him?

[Bounty]

Only if you believe Stark was personally responsible for every evil to have happened to the board. In which case he should be brought up on that charge, and not trumped-up rules lawyering and a general gut feeling of dislike.

[Coyote]

PM from a member who wishes to remain anonymous:

Can I anonymously comment on the Senate that the more emotional reactions of certain Senators and persons of authority, such as in the case of as Shep's bizarre fixation on Stark, is what causes the ensuing critical comments by other members in Testing (before it got nuked) and, in turn, the ensuing reaction to these critical comments is what causes these instances of 'board drama'?

Looking at the first-ever instance of 'board drama', it was also caused by a senator making a rather controversial statement (Duchess' ban all of Testing spiel) that ended up getting openly criticized in public (i.e. Testing).

Anyway, now that it has been very clearly stated that very vocal comments regarding board policy won't be looked too well on, I think "board drama" won't really be a factor anymore since members won't be too eager to actually comment on Senate going-ons and whatever, since they are now more content to just keep their mouths shut to avoid any more decimations like those that happened to Testing and the House of Commons.

I find it funny that one single comment made by the Duchess --which she almost immediately retracted-- is pointed to as the "kickoff event" that started all this drama... as if that's an excuse. I find it disingenuous that we are expected to 'forgive and forget' Stark's months-long rampage and hostility, while continuing to carry a torch for an off-hand comment, said in pique, by a person who retracted it and has, in fact, since left the Senate of her own will for causing trouble (a stance I wish Stark could learn from despite months of posturing about leaving).

[Beowulf]

An abrasive writing style is not generally a valid complaint in this community. It is not exactly encouraged or required, but nor is it discouraged or prohibited. Let us not be so worried about style that we lose sight of substance.

The problem with Stark is that he does not post substance. It's all style. I third the motion for a vote.

[Coyote]

Only if you believe Stark was personally responsible for every evil to have happened to the board.

Hyperventilate much?

In which case he should be brought up on that charge, and not trumped-up rules lawyering and a general gut feeling of dislike.

The rules here don't need to be lawyered. They are pretty obvious-- and any feelings of dislike were not created from nothing.

Instead of focusing on 'poor Stark being picked on by mean ol' Shep' and 'procedural errors' why not find actual evidence where Stark contributed positive changes or instituted real reforms that turned out to be useful? So far you've attacked the messenger, the way the message was delivered, handled, and presented, but not much has been done to actually defend Stark's attitude, ravings, or justify why it is okay to undermine an agent of Mike if not Mike himself.

Stark has been calling for reforms or restructurings, and this and that, and I notice that he hasn't gotten much traction. He's resorted to shit stirring spam-blasting as a sort of insurgency, and all this "justified" by an off-hand comment made by one (now self-dismissed) Senator? Talk about vendetta.

I originally voted for Stark to be a Senator, did you know that? And now that I've learned that all he's interested in is trying to be some Rebel Without a Cause for his own lulz, I'm regretting it. My 'gut feeling of dislike' has a source.

[Bounty]

Two points from PM's:

Re: Coyote's comments


Duchess' comments didn't start "all this drama", it was just a particular example of a single instance of "drama".

That was just an example of how certain comments and other stuff made in the Senate which end up being disagreed on by the public end up being "board drama" when the public is free to comment and voice their disagreement, opposition, criticism, ridicule and whatever on the particular issue at hand.

However with the decimation of Testing and the House of Commons, such is no longer the case as the board's stance on questioning forum policy has been made very clear with "board drama" no longer being tolerated.

Hi,

Are members still allowed to PM the senate with our views or would that still be us trying to usurp the senate again?

In either case, It seems the case against Stark seems to have moved on from a question on whether Stark has broken the rules and thus deserves to explusion to the claim that 'well Stark never should have been elected in the first place!' which of course is a completely different issue all together.

Should the validity of past votes be called into question, not by any new information but instead because the Senators apparently don't like Stark? As far as I can see Stark's behaviour has not altered from before he was a senator, if nothing has changed then his previous elevation should not be invalidate simply because more senators have come to dislike him since then. Or because inversely more people that dislike him have become Senators.

[Bounty]

Grandmaster Yoghurt points out:

Shep brought up a PM discussing post 9 (NUA's) in the HoC nomination thread as the evidence for nominating Stark for Senate, but post 10 (Starglider's) also contained seven examples, including some outside of G&C, of Stark posting what at least I consider "substance" instead of just "style".

[Coyote]

I had very little contact with Stark before the vote for his elevation; I did know he was sarcastic and had some arguments to make. I was looking forward to him providing a critical point of view that would be worthy of consideration. Note also that I had the same ideas in mind when I made myself a major, public supporter of the HoC. Is the vote that brought him into the Senate invalid? I don't know, maybe; bear in mind he was floated as a candidate after Schuyler Colfax was shot down as a candidate. Take that for what it's worth.

However, the vote was validated at the time (did folks read it all the way through, including Simplicius's defense of "one-person nominations"?) and he was voted in, but instead of providing "thoughtful criticism" he basically just went on the attack. See, the basis of "providing a critical point of view that would be worthy of consideration" is hinged on the "worthy of discussion" part. If all we wanted were snarky comments and useless attacks on the staff, we'd've let him and the HoC stay as they were.

Stark did nothing but stir dissent, light fires, undermine staff, and then make demands about how the board should be run or he'd leave. He "didn't like how SDN runs things"; he made dramatic demands about policy --or he'd leave; he essentially plotted to undermine an appointed official of the staff; all these are violations. As a Senator, he's supposed to contribute to fixing things, seeking solutions, and being an example. He did none of those things, serving only as an agent-provocateur. Now, Testing is neutered and the HoC has been dismissed-- and so far, defense against this procedure has primarily revolved around the un-nice way that it has been presented. Tough.

[Mr Bean]

Well my internet decided to drop dead on me on Saturday so there has been some delay while I read up on the forums. Lets recap why I brought Stark to a remove vote to begin with.

First off when I put in for Stark's removal, it was with the tact approval of the administrative staff and Mike in particular. What was not approved by them was simply going directly to a vote as I did. Despite the monition for his removal passing there was enough issues raised while the issue had been debated back and forth among the Senate that the vote was undone. Just prior to the nuking of the HoC and restatement of Mike's commitment to the Senate it was a mistake on my part to bring it directly to Wilkens. And a mistake on Wilkens part to bring it directly to a no-comment vote. Due to not following procedure as was correctly pointed out at the time the vote was annulled and the issue tabled while the forum re-org, plagiarism and last follow-out of Testingastain's final repression was carried out.

My personal opinion was that the Stark vote could wait a week or three(I had planned to re-introduce the motion for Stark's removal on the 16th). But the vote's are over quicker than I thought. The forum re-orgs have been completed without issue and MkSheppard has renewed the issue.

Fine then lets deal with it now. I disagree with Tev on the issue of temper's running hot at the moment. The only reason I wanted time was so I could put a formal long-form post together on the issue highlighting all of Stark's negative Senate comments. All of his recent(Past three months) defending of the utter mess that was the House of Commons and trying to get Mike's permission to repost a few key things that were said in the private Moderator forums for the Senate. And frankly speaking everything that a certain member had put together for me to bring the Senate in a ban poll not a remove from the Senate poll.

So then lets recap
1. Stark has not demonstrated the qualities necessary to be a Senator, Specifically a member with a history of positive contribution's to this forum.
2. Since the day he was nominated to the Senate he has spoke out dozens of times for it's removal as a useless body and the promotion of the House of Commons as the only body for policy removal.
3. When confronted with the rules of the forum and being told they would be enforced he threw a hissey fit and made statements already repeated in this thread that I will now repost.

Is anyone going to step forward and take responsibility, or do we just stick with the current 'Senate totally useless, mods do what they want without transparency'? Because if the standard is 'Bean thinks it's good enough', I want nothing more to do with this sham Senate.

To note Stark was objecting to the enforcement of rules already on the books and was called out for it by Mike directly.

In short Stark was saying he wanted to be remove from the Senate if we continued to enforce the rules already on the books. For this he was directly called out by Mike about it and smacked down because despite repeated warnings Stark did not get it through his head until directly called out by the forum owner.

And why? Can we be honest about this? It was because he was pissed that the Staff had taken away what he considered his private play pen called Testing. Where he was free to spam and every time a moderator sent his G&C "lol fattynerds" spam comments or thread derailments into the Hall of Shame he could run to testing to bitch about it in plan view of the rest of the forum with no consequences. When he lost that playpen he grew irate and went to the Senate and the now defunct House of Commons to state his hate far and wide that the Staff had dared apply the rules to HIM and by god he was not going to let that stand!

So no he does not belong in the Senate, he has demonstrated the emotional development of a your average twelve year old. Make no mistake he is laying low at the moment. Much like with former member Schuyler Colfax, it's only a matter of time before he loses it and starts up his typical bluster, bluster and more bluster spam debate style for someone else DARING to disagree with him. While he's free to do this(After all consider this forum's tagline) he should not being doing it... as a Senator.

Please excuse the delay of my replies over the next few days, I'm stuck posting from net cafe's and the like for at least a week.

[Bounty]

PM:

I don't think adding Stark to the Senate should be considered a mistake, because it did in fact contribute to a real change; the Senate actually getting shaken up into something useful. At the time, having some riddicule the Senate seemed like a good idea because frankly it deserved a good poke. This isn't the case at the moment, though who knows if it will be needed again in the future.

Yes, some of Stark's posts were inflamatory, annoying, passive-aggressive and/or low-quality crap. That is true of quite a few Senators. As with the recent rennovation in the forum rules, I would suggest setting some appropriately strict and specific posting standards, that Stark and all other senators will have to abide by. I am sure Sheppard will take great pleasure in watching Stark like a hawk, and if he posts any more crap that will be an automatic ban without seeming like a witch hunt (since everyone else will be held to the same standard).

I would add that if Stark is kicked out, the specific charges should be codified and where necessary added to the rules, such that anyone who veers into the same territory will be given the same treatment.

[Bounty]

And another:

It seems to me that the general gist of the discussion is that Stark is not up to 'Senate Standards' and thus should be removed. If this is actually the case, then by all means do it, but I can't help but note: Stark's posting style has not changed since before he was in the Senate. Obviously it was seen as good enough to get him in then, but why not now?

Has the requirements for joining the Senate changed? If so, why aren't these changes documented in the rules for joining? Again, if he's not fit for the Senate, by all means drop him. But the fact that he got in without any real change of character is then evidence that there needs to be some much clearer guidelines for Senate participation laid out, as there is obviously a lot of disagreement over time on what constitutes acceptable behaviour for a senator/ potential senator.

[Mr Bean]

Typed on Blackberry
Excuse me for asking Bounty but at present your main defense of Stark is not that he was right but instead that there is no standard for removal of senarors for rule violations?

Could I ask you why in your own words why Stark should stay?

A simple statement on why Stark deserves to be a Senator?

If it helps why not phrase it as if you were trying to get him consireded to be a Senator again. Please sing his praises.

[Simplicius]

2. Since the day he was nominated to the Senate he has spoke out dozens of times for it's removal as a useless body and the promotion of the House of Commons as the only body for policy removal.

I don't think making those statements counts against him. Recall that Senate activity was on the wane while use of the HoC increased. Recall that a point was reached where a Senator other than Stark opened a public discussion over whether the Senate was worth keeping around, and recall that the reply wasn't simply a chorus of voices saying "Of course it is, what are you talking about?" In that environment, saying the Senate is useless is more of a feasible conclusion than a dastardly plot.

The issue of posting standards and his contentious behavior toward mods deserves consideration, but this does not.

[RedImperator]

3. When confronted with the rules of the forum and being told they would be enforced he threw a hissey fit and made statements already repeated in this thread that I will now repost.

Is anyone going to step forward and take responsibility, or do we just stick with the current 'Senate totally useless, mods do what they want without transparency'? Because if the standard is 'Bean thinks it's good enough', I want nothing more to do with this sham Senate.

To note Stark was objecting to the enforcement of rules already on the books and was called out for it by Mike directly.

In short Stark was saying he wanted to be remove from the Senate if we continued to enforce the rules already on the books. For this he was directly called out by Mike about it and smacked down because despite repeated warnings Stark did not get it through his head until directly called out by the forum owner.

You're full of shit.

Stark made the post you're quoting at 3:54 PM on 20 October. There was no explanation of any kind given until Fgalkin posted this at 9:57 PM the same night. Nobody confronted Stark about anything; the mods just started nuking Testing with no announcement or explanation. Worse, by Fgalkin's own admission, the staff deliberately didn't tell anyone what was going on just for laughs--in direct violation of the "no anonymous mod action" rule.

And at any rate, you're lying. This is the entire context of Stark's post:

Once again, almost a month now. The Senate gave up it's option to take action when it failed to bring anything to a vote and the issue in the eyes of the admin staff got worse. It would be different if there were a few plans that had been put to a vote and defeated. Or better still approved. Instead we have three pages spread out over a three week plus posting period and even then nothing has been voted on, or even seconded to be voted on.

The Senate can have a say when it says something.

That's actually kind of ironic since there were several long and pretty decent threads in testing, and now it's 100% spam because... why not? The change directly increased the spam levels in testing so good work.

Of course, the hilarious cloak-and-dagger of anonymously changing the rules and waiting for something to happen which did and then bringing the hammer down is fantastic.

Who decides how much discussion is too much? How is it 'not saying anything' when the discussions became moot when the rules were anonymously changed? How did the problem get worse when several threads of reasonable quality existed? It's very big of you to say this shit now all the evidence is gone instead of making a public decision. I guess this juvenile 'trap' was better?

Is anyone going to step forward and take responsibility, or do we just stick with the current 'Senate totally useless, mods do what they want without transparency'? Because if the standard is 'Bean thinks it's good enough', I want nothing more to do with this sham Senate.

Stark's post was a direct reply to your claim (another lie, as it turned out) that somehow Senate inaction on Testing (after the mods just stopped enforcing the page 3 lock and then "hilariously" pretended nothing had been changed) led to mod action in Testing. Frankly, when I read that post, I had the exact same reaction Stark did. "If the Senate is going to get jerked around by Bean like this, then what's the point of being a Senator?" At the time, I had no idea this came down from Mike, and neither did anyone else, because the lot of you decided that privately hurf hurfing about the hornet's nest you damn well knew you were going to stir was more important than, you know, actually being good moderators and announcing a major policy change. And yeah, before you get up my ass with pedantic bullshit about "well, it was always in the rules that we could...", a deliberate effort to nuke every thread in Testing every 20 minutes is a policy change, especially when the "we can delete whatever we want" rule was barely in practice for five years.

There's nothing in Stark's post about "if you guys enforce the rules, I'm going to quit the Senate". Nothing, not in that thread, not anywhere else. Stark did start passively-aggressively complaining about what he perceived to be overzealous rules enforcement, in the House of Commons, and Mike did slap him down for that, but that has nothing to do with the statement you and others have seized upon as evidence that Stark was laying down ultimatums.

[CmdrWilkens]

The motion has been seconded however we clearly do not have unanimous consent. The vote will not be posted until after I get off work on Monday.