[VOTE] What shall be the fate of Einhander Snowman?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Voted.

Can't do it. He's been warned and I don't see any likelihood of repeat offence.

Just so I'm sure, we're talking about the same Einhander? Maybe I have an unfair advantage, being on the staff, and being painfully aware of every time he's tried to "help" me do my job, but Einhander has been cited and warned for acting like a moderator many times. For this offense he is the definition of the repeat offender, and warnings have never worked before.

[Frank Hipper]

Voted.

Can't do it. He's been warned and I don't see any likelihood of repeat offence.

Just so I'm sure, we're talking about the same Einhander? Maybe I have an unfair advantage, being on the staff, and being painfully aware of every time he's tried to "help" me do my job, but Einhander has been cited and warned for acting like a moderator many times. For this offense he is the definition of the repeat offender, and warnings have never worked before.

If there were more flexibility in the choice of punishment, I may have voted differently.

But title, loss of sig and av, and irrevocable postcount re-set?

No way.
Especially not when the others involved in this are getting off with nothing.

[Zaia]

If there was more flexibility in the choice of punishment, I may have voted differently.

But title, loss of sig and av, and irrevocable postcount re-set?

No way.
Especially not when the others involved in this are getting off with nothing.

Yeah, I'm not sure why the poll is set up that way. Weren't we agreed to do the guilty/not guilty/abstain polls, and THEN vote on the specific punishment?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No one ever asked for a second option in either thread, so I didn't include one or go to the guilty + runoff setup. I only put up what the people in the discussion threads wanted, nothing more, nothing less.

We really need to formalize debating procedures, I think--require someone to actually propose something and have it seconded before it will be placed in a poll, and specify if it's a modification to an existing option or a new, additional option.

[Zaia]

No one ever asked for a second option in either thread, so I didn't include one or go to the guilty + runoff setup. I only put up what the people in the discussion threads wanted, nothing more, nothing less.

We really need to formalize debating procedures, I think--require someone to actually propose something and have it seconded before it will be placed in a poll, and specify if it's a modification to an existing option or a new, additional option.

I think, for future reference, we should err on the side of caution and have just "guilty/not guilty/abstain" (as I had thought we had agreed to earlier, but perhaps I am mistaken) and then conduct the run-off poll, regardless of what's specifically been mentioned in the discussion thread. Having one giant punishment against no punishment at all is probably part of the reason there are so many votes for not guilty. That isn't justice.

There are a listing of possible punishments for these kinds of offenses in the board rules; all of them should be available in the polls whether they're specifically mentioned in the discussion thread or not, in my opinion.

I also think it might be a good idea to have a certain group of senators who exclusively are allowed to start threads like this, so that they can be directly instructed on how to structure the polls so that this sort of compromised result doesn't happen again.

[Coyote]

The thing about post count resets is, you can chuck someone all the way back to zero, or cut in half at time of punishment, or... just shave off 10 as a slap on the wrist measure. Some sort of scale is needed for these sorts of things.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

an esteemed individual brought to my attention that postcount resets are NOT permanent, rendering irrelevant one of the main reasons why several people chose to vote against both this measure and the other one:

In the senatorial discussions regarding a post-count reset for Einhander. I am seeing that members of this esteemed body make a mention of the fact that a post-count reset is a permanent punishment.

It is a permanent punishment, on paper. However, a board-wide postcount resync does have the effect of removing a board member's zeroed-out postcount.

Now, boardwide resync's tend to be very rare, and are usually only done after the closure of Spamworld following April Fools Day. However, this does make a postcount resync a de facto temporary punishment with a termination date of April 2.

Thank you for your time.

So, no, postcount resets are by no means permanent. Perhaps this will lead to some people altering their votes.

[Spyder]

Voted.

Can't do it. He's been warned and I don't see any likelihood of repeat offence.

Just so I'm sure, we're talking about the same Einhander? Maybe I have an unfair advantage, being on the staff, and being painfully aware of every time he's tried to "help" me do my job, but Einhander has been cited and warned for acting like a moderator many times. For this offense he is the definition of the repeat offender, and warnings have never worked before.

Well, firstly no one's made any charges for those. We have only the one example raised in the discussion thread. If we were to take previous offences into account then they should have been raised in discussion. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that now that it has come to the senate floor we now have an established history for him. We have traditionally been harder on those that end up coming back here and Einhander knows this, (ref: Denis Toy).

Secondly, ""Not a Moderator" title for a year, loss of sig & av for six months, post-count reset." or "Nothing". Seriously, do I need to point out the problem here?

an esteemed individual brought to my attention that postcount resets are NOT permanent, rendering irrelevant one of the main reasons why several people chose to vote against both this measure and the other one:

Quote:
In the senatorial discussions regarding a post-count reset for Einhander. I am seeing that members of this esteemed body make a mention of the fact that a post-count reset is a permanent punishment.

It is a permanent punishment, on paper. However, a board-wide postcount resync does have the effect of removing a board member's zeroed-out postcount.

Now, boardwide resync's tend to be very rare, and are usually only done after the closure of Spamworld following April Fools Day. However, this does make a postcount resync a de facto temporary punishment with a termination date of April 2.

Thank you for your time.


So, no, postcount resets are by no means permanent. Perhaps this will lead to some people altering their votes.

Is that a feature or a bug?

Can the 'esteemed individual' guarantee that this behaviour isn't going to be modified or patched out in future board upgrades and can this person guarantee that SDN will continue to have the April Fools Day Spamworlds followed by board resyncs. If not then it is logically prudent to assume that postcount resets are permanent.

[Noble Ire]

Odd, I could have sworn I posted a response to the Duchess' last post.

In any event, if post count resets are indeed temporary, I must admit to a certain amount of confusion as to their purpose. It was my understanding that the reset was meant to be a permanent statement on the body of communication of a charged poster, not some kind of temporary loss of "status". If the latter is in fact the case, then I'm not sure that the punishment is valid at all.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We can simply have a resync whenever we feel the punishment is no longer required for those it's been issued to; there's no reason why that couldn't be arranged if the Senate asked for it.

[Edi]

Voted.

Can't do it. He's been warned and I don't see any likelihood of repeat offence.

Just so I'm sure, we're talking about the same Einhander? Maybe I have an unfair advantage, being on the staff, and being painfully aware of every time he's tried to "help" me do my job, but Einhander has been cited and warned for acting like a moderator many times. For this offense he is the definition of the repeat offender, and warnings have never worked before.

They do work, for a time. The length of time the warning stays imprinted on him also depends somewhat on who snarls at him and in what tone. It's not that he actively, consciously tries to make trouble, his enthusiasm just tends to get the better of him.

[Coyote]

Regardless of the reset, the title will still be in effect, which is what really counts. I wouldn't get too worked up on the post count bit, because I have always felt that a post-count reset will give someone the urge to increase quasi-spam posting to "make up for the loss" and get back where they perceive they "should" be.

[Zaia]

We can simply have a resync whenever we feel the punishment is no longer required for those it's been issued to; there's no reason why that couldn't be arranged if the Senate asked for it.

Mike does them when he feels like it, usually only about once a year, I believe. I'm not sure how kindly he'd take to be told to do something when the board doesn't need it.

Edit: Apologies, Greg.

[CmdrWilkens]

Folks if we are going to chatter on about post count resync viability do so in a [Disucssion] thread. This is a [Vote] thread so remember to keep it clear of commentary.

[SirNitram]

No one ever asked for a second option in either thread, so I didn't include one or go to the guilty + runoff setup. I only put up what the people in the discussion threads wanted, nothing more, nothing less.

We really need to formalize debating procedures, I think--require someone to actually propose something and have it seconded before it will be placed in a poll, and specify if it's a modification to an existing option or a new, additional option.

*Ahem*

At no point was there a change in the rules where we skip the 'And what should the punishment be, having determined guilt' stage. In short, this thread's voting will only decide whether we punish Einy or not. There will be a following thread on what we do with him.

We will not be skipping things just because the person making the poll didn't think there was sufficient discussion to merit such a second step.

[Connor MacLeod]

Voted.

[Connor MacLeod]

They do work, for a time. The length of time the warning stays imprinted on him also depends somewhat on who snarls at him and in what tone. It's not that he actively, consciously tries to make trouble, his enthusiasm just tends to get the better of him.

My impression has always been, while I admit he may not actually mean it, and he may actually change for a time, he still tends to at some poitn forget or basically ignore what happened and then go back to "business as usual" for him. In this case he's actually "esecalated" the severity somewhat - before he always managed to be minor enough to stay under the rader.

Basically, it amounts to the fact that ein doesn't seem to fucking get a goddamn clue. No matter who yells at him, warns him, or what. No matter you do it politely or otherwise, ,he still reverts to the old, annoying "Einhander" behaviour at some point, and ends up pissing people off in the process.

I frankly take it as an insult to myself that he has so littel regard for people that he thinks he doesn't have to control his impulses - if I acted like him I would certainly not expect people to tolerate me, because its frankly fucking rude in the extreme.

That, I think, is the added reason why the punishment - "he SHOULD know better, and he should be expected to behave more like the rest of us.". And honestly, if I thought he could be expected NOT to do stupid shit like this again, I wouldn't favor a penalty (or a severe one.) But his history tends to suggest otherwise. It can be hoped that a punishment (though as others note, the punishment "as stated" needs to be revised because it seems too severe.) this time around will at last drive home the bloody point into his skull, particularily sincee if he persists in acting that way, we're bound to be less inclined to reverse it at some later date.

[Dalton]

How many times do we have to fucking say NO DISCUSSIONS IN VOTE THREADS? We have discussion threads for a reason. USE THEM!!!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Voted.

[Simplicius]

At no point was there a change in the rules where we skip the 'And what should the punishment be, having determined guilt' stage. In short, this thread's voting will only decide whether we punish Einy or not. There will be a following thread on what we do with him.

We will not be skipping things just because the person making the poll didn't think there was sufficient discussion to merit such a second step.

Since this is the case..."we find the defendant incredibly guilty."

[CmdrWilkens]

Seven days have passed since the poll was opened and therfore voting is now closed. With 40 votes counted there is a quorom present to do buisness. The vote at hand is a category B vote requiring a majority in favor. The vote tally is 21 for, 13 against therfore the measure passes. If the appropriate Admin could so enact the will of the Senate has been made known.