[VOTE] Lyzerious

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-11-21 04:27am

VI for the new guy?

This little fella

This discussion thread

The case for:
1: He's clearly an idiot
2: Repeated factual faux pa and takes out his logical problems on other users
3: Keeps coming back for more
4: Picking on newbies is funny
5: Add your own (see discussion thread)

The case against:
1: It might not be very good for his self esteem
2: Add your own (see discussion thread)

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-11-21 08:20am

I'm against picking on newbies, hell all kids are stupid at one point...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2007-11-21 08:29am

Voted. Because there's stupid new mistakes and then there's "They were cowards who surrendered to guns!!!!".

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2007-11-21 09:23am

Voted!

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-11-21 09:42am

He's ignorant and can't be troubled to educate himself.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2007-11-21 09:59am

Voted.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2007-11-21 10:19am

I am quite unimpressed with his performance in the thread in question, but I'm also wary of dolling out punishments to new members after a single incident. Voted.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2007-11-21 10:44am

Present.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-11-21 11:23am

Abstain. Discussion threads are getting shorter and shorter.

SPQSDN

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2007-11-21 11:24am

Not to be a stickler, but didn't we just have (a few months ago) a discussion that vote threads should only really be started by Governors and Admins, or those with special dispensation from said officials?

Granted, three out of four governors agreed to brand him, and I may well be tempted to agree, but the period of time from discussion to vote was minuscule in this case. The original discussion thread was posted at 2143 on the 20th, and the vote thread was posted 0427 on the 21st. Not even eight hours had passed in the middle of the night for "discussion". Whether or not he deserves it, I think this is a clear case of jumping the gun. We're not in a rush here, what's the harm in letting things stew for a day or more while people have a chance to look at the arguments for and against? It's not like there wasn't discussion forming on the discussion thread.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-11-21 12:31pm

VI him. It's clear from his posts that he has no interest in even trying to educate himself, so the title is appropriate.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2007-11-21 12:43pm

This on the basis of one thread?

Voted.

Post by **Dalton** » 2007-11-21 12:54pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:This on the basis of one thread?

Voted.

I must concur with Gov. Sanchez.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-11-21 01:19pm

If you search on "all posts by..." you'll see his idiocy is NOT restricted to just one thread. He doesn't have that many posts, I managed to read all of them in a short time.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-11-21 02:13pm

I've read enough of his inane babble to decide my vote: title.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2007-11-21 02:26pm

Despite believing that he'll end up here for a vote soon enough, I do have to concur with those who believe this is jumping the gun.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2007-11-21 02:46pm

As much as I think he deserves the VI title from what I've read so far, if it's customary to give him more time, then so be it. We can always title him later.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-11-21 03:32pm

Because there are many who feel this title poll was placed too quickly, I would like to suggest that the votes for "No" and "Abstain" be counted together instead of separately when the poll ends.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-11-21 04:14pm

I voted no and I don't think he should be titled (yet) either but I don't want to change procedure for the vote, either. It's possible by posting in this thread for someone to change the official record of their vote, and anyone who feels they have voted wrongly should do so.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-11-21 04:25pm

Also I voted no on general principal as this was a stupid kid/new poster, who just really needs to live away from mum and da for while....

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2007-11-21 04:36pm

Voted.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2007-11-21 07:45pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I voted no and I don't think he should be titled (yet) either but I don't want to change procedure for the vote, either. It's possible by posting in this thread for someone to change the official record of their vote, and anyone who feels they have voted wrongly should do so.

What change? This was discussed a while ago, and it was decided to enforce the existing rule about who creates a vote thread and the general guidelines for doing so.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-11-23 04:04am

I voted fucking NO, on the basis that we've yet another example of a Senator "jumping the gun" (And I can say thatw because I've been guilty of taht before myyself.)

Post by **Dalton** » 2007-11-23 04:17pm

Due to several mitigating factors, including insufficient time to determine whether the person in question is truly deserving of such a vote and failure to follow proper procedure, I am declaring this vote invalid.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[VOTE] Lyzerious

Villiage Idiot for Lyzerious

[VOTE] Lyzerious