[Discussion] VI for Brianeyci?

[Hotfoot]

He's been gone for a week. I've had longer absences from posting just from being bored.

[Mad]

Red Imp, the discussion is between a title and some say a ban. If he goes away for however many years, even, and then comes back, he goes right back to "title or ban" status.

In this case, the idea is to prevent someone from "attention whoring from beyond the grave", by having us tussle over them after they've already departed. IMO, anyhow.

This was started before he privately made his claim of leaving, so I don't think that applies here to begin with.

Further, and more importantly, if he is deserving of a title (or ban, though I don't really see that being pursued) for what he has already done, then his posts should become marked as such.

[Broomstick]

Enough talk - if we're going to do a poll let's do it.

[Connor MacLeod]

I have a question. If he's got a fucking history of rule breaking why the fuck hasn't he been punished before WITHOUT dragging the Senate into this?

More to the point, what the fuck distinguishes this guy form any of the OTHER idiots we have running around the forum, especially the long time ones (Do I even really have to name names?)

I'm starting to feel like I'm supposed to be a fucking moderator by consensus (or bureacracy) and I don't really like it.

Edit: Decided to clarify the matter as "rule breaking" rather than referring it to "this shit" (which is vague.)

Double edit: edited the edit:

[Connor MacLeod]

Enough talk - if we're going to do a poll let's do it.

WHY? He's not here, and if he's not here he's not causing anyone grief. So we have no reason to rush a punishment he may or may not even be coming back to witness?

At the very least we could wait another week and see if any OTHER Senators might voice their opinions.

[Connor MacLeod]

Does he actually have a RECORD of breaking rules, or is this actually the first time? I'm not actually in the mood to have to dig through another huge-ass debate just to decide for myself at this time.

See the link that I posted above. It seems that his record stretches back to when he first joined.

With all due respect, but did you actually READ what I said? I checked most of those debates and some of them were quite lengthy, (The evolution one was TEN pageS) and it would take me quite awhile to dig through all that just to make a decision as to whether he's got a record.

If you go by my impression (about 10-15 minutes of browsing that link) he's an idiot, but nothing I'd see as being overtly rule-breaking (at least no more than we see from OTHER long-time idiots on this board, whom I might point out we DON'T single out and punish, though I know some people would like to try.)

I see this as a "burden of proof" matter - if there are accuasations of rule breaking, I would expect specific citations of it, not just a link to the whole debate and me searching through it myself. As I recall, that sort of behaviour IS frowned on at SD.net (at least it was in the sci fi forums, maybe the nonscifi forums work differently...)

[Broomstick]

Enough talk - if we're going to do a poll let's do it.

WHY? He's not here, and if he's not here he's not causing anyone grief. So we have no reason to rush a punishment he may or may not even be coming back to witness?

At the very least we could wait another week and see if any OTHER Senators might voice their opinions.

Personally, I didn't think this was worth 1 page of discussion, much less 2.

From both this and the prior discussion thread MY opinion is that, for some reason, he has really gotten under the skin of a couple of people but the rest couldn't care less about him. Frankly, the reaction of someone like Marina strikes me as entirely out of proportion to what he has done, as has that of a few others, but again, that's my opinion.

Yeah, he's a lousy debater but to me it doesn't seem to be out of malice, just ineptness. There's nothing I see that, to me, warrants such outrage. Titling or banning him at this point strikes me as giving the finger to the door after the person you're mad at has been gone three days, a sort of "so there!". It won't "teach him a lesson". Likely, he'll never know. It's for the personal satisfaction of those he has, somehow, really angered.

But I don't really care to see this bitching go on for another week. If the vocal contingent is that determined to punish someone who has already left let's get it over with and move on to something else.

I've dug through the threads as much as I'm going to - I agree, for some of these it would be helpful if the egregious sins could be located a little better, say "page three", for instance. I see nothing to provoke the kind of rage I see here, but hey, maybe it's because I wasn't (apparently) personally involved with arguing with him. I remember him from one or two debates/discussions I was in and no, he doesn't contribute much but, again, he just doesn't piss me off the way he does some other people.

[Hotfoot]

Yeah, because people who say "I'm leaving forever" totally do. There's a literal army of dumbasses who say things like, "I'm never shopping here again!" only to be back the next day. I have no reason not to suspect Brianeyci as one of them.

He's narrowly avoided punishment in the past because of strict interpretation of Senate rules, not because he didn't deserve it. If someone wants to title him, so what? The idea that he will never return is, at best, optimistic. I wouldn't ban him just for leaving in a huff, because frankly there's little point. However, should he come back, he should know what his actions prior to his exit have earned him, and maybe if or when he comes back, he might rethink how he does things.

And if he never comes back, oh well.

I would also like to say that it's more than just a few people he's annoyed the shit out of, if my constituents are any indication. He's been royally pissing people off for years now, and this action is as such long overdue. I've avoided bringing it up because I try not to start actions against people who have personally cheesed me off, as I always consider that my experience may be tainted.

[RedImperator]

I have a question. If he's got a fucking history of rule breaking why the fuck hasn't he been punished before WITHOUT dragging the Senate into this?

Because the Senate was created in order to restore a measure of democratic decision-making in the board's functions, including disciplinary ones, as well as make those disciplinary functions transparent. Why do you think we "dragged" the Senate into all those other discussions about people behaving badly?

More to the point, what the fuck distinguishes this guy form any of the OTHER idiots we have running around the forum, especially the long time ones (Do I even really have to name names?)

Feel free. I'm happy to start passing out more VI titles to people who deserve it. We used to pass it out all the time.

I'm starting to feel like I'm supposed to be a fucking moderator by consensus (or bureacracy) and I don't really like it.

Then don't participate in these threads. This is a major reason why the Senate was created, and it's not going to change.

[CmdrWilkens]

General administrative note as previously announced I am going to let this debate wind through the rest of my evening. After I return from getting dragged into watching American Idol The poll goes up unless either a) a Governor/Executor wishes to put one up first or b) There is a motion and gneral consent to dismissing all charges.

Less bureaucratic version: I'm putting up a poll so we can just vote and sotp arguing over whether we should be tlaking about this or not unless there is clear consensus that a poll is unwarranted.

[Connor MacLeod]

Because the Senate was created in order to restore a measure of democratic decision-making in the board's functions, including disciplinary ones, as well as make those disciplinary functions transparent. Why do you think we "dragged" the Senate into all those other discussions about people behaving badly?

Except that, as I've read it (or discussed it with other staff) the Senate is an advisory and supporting body, we don't actually REPLACE the mods or tell them what to do. I find the idea that the mods are somehow incapable of acting without someone telling them what to do quite distrubing, frankly. (Either that, or the Mods simply don't care to do their jobs without involving someone else, which hardly seems any better.) Please correct me if I am somehow mistaken in this observation.

Feel free. I'm happy to start passing out more VI titles to people who deserve it. We used to pass it out all the time.

So basically you think Senators shoudl be tied down to the Senate even MORE now than we are? What next? Should we start instituting monthly quotas for titling? Got a couple dozen rules or something you'd like to institute while you're at it?

Then don't participate in these threads. This is a major reason why the Senate was created, and it's not going to change.

Right. Let's tell people to be LESS involved in the Senate! That way we let fewer people make all the decisions. Didn't we institute Wilken's post PRECISELY to avoid that kind of bullshit?

And how does this mesh with the "democratic" approach you were talking about just a few paragraphs above, pray tell? If you're just going to tell people to be passive (something I'm pretty sure I CAN'T do as a Senator, not without taking a leave of absence) why the fuck do we have the Senate to begin with?

[Connor MacLeod]

From both this and the prior discussion thread MY opinion is that, for some reason, he has really gotten under the skin of a couple of people but the rest couldn't care less about him. Frankly, the reaction of someone like Marina strikes me as entirely out of proportion to what he has done, as has that of a few others, but again, that's my opinion.

I don't object to people being pissed off at him, considering him an idiot, or flaming him, because I'm not defending him. He's been idiotic in the past, ,and he's earned it. I do resent being dragged into this precisely BECAUSe it seems like people seem hell bent on punishing him when he HAS left. If he comes back, THEN fine, we can consider punishing him. But right now it seems damn petty and a fucking waste of my time (and others) I'm all in favor of tabling it until a later date.

Yeah, he's a lousy debater but to me it doesn't seem to be out of malice, just ineptness. There's nothing I see that, to me, warrants such outrage. Titling or banning him at this point strikes me as giving the finger to the door after the person you're mad at has been gone three days, a sort of "so there!". It won't "teach him a lesson". Likely, he'll never know. It's for the personal satisfaction of those he has, somehow, really angered.

I agree with your asssessment of him and this thread. Its the "no malice" bit that bugs me really. Which makes this something of a "Vendetta" to me. There's a SHITLOAD of people I dislike and I'd love to see titled or banned, but its not realistic because not everyone feels the way I do. Nor do I feel that it is right for me to drag everyone else into a decision like this just because I want blood. I was involved in one of those catastrophes once before, TYVM, and it made me more aware of how I let my own opinions colour my decisions.

However, if I'm goign to be EXPECTED to vote on it, I'm going to say my piece. I'd be much happier if I could ignore it, but then its pretty pointless having a Senate if you let a few people decide policy.

But I don't really care to see this bitching go on for another week. If the vocal contingent is that determined to punish someone who has already left let's get it over with and move on to something else.

Like I said, I'd be happy with tabling it to see if he comes back or not. If he does then we can discuss punishing him. (I don't consider his "off-board" farewell to be any different than an "ON board" one.) Hell, if he comes back AFTER saying he was leaving, I'll gladly endorse a temp/permaban of him, especailly if he has a pattern of this.

I've dug through the threads as much as I'm going to - I agree, for some of these it would be helpful if the egregious sins could be located a little better, say "page three", for instance. I see nothing to provoke the kind of rage I see here, but hey, maybe it's because I wasn't (apparently) personally involved with arguing with him. I remember him from one or two debates/discussions I was in and no, he doesn't contribute much but, again, he just doesn't piss me off the way he does some other people.

Frankly, I'd have liked to see a bit more work done to actually PROVE his guilt. As I told Surlethe, we DO believe in burden of proof on these boards, and I think that it at least should apply here as much as elsehwere, and in such a fashion that I'm not expected to DIG and find the supposed evidence.

Edit: clarififcation on the "Vendetta paragraph

[Connor MacLeod]

Yeah, because people who say "I'm leaving forever" totally do. There's a literal army of dumbasses who say things like, "I'm never shopping here again!" only to be back the next day. I have no reason not to suspect Brianeyci as one of them.

He's narrowly avoided punishment in the past because of strict interpretation of Senate rules, not because he didn't deserve it. If someone wants to title him, so what? The idea that he will never return is, at best, optimistic. I wouldn't ban him just for leaving in a huff, because frankly there's little point. However, should he come back, he should know what his actions prior to his exit have earned him, and maybe if or when he comes back, he might rethink how he does things.

And if he never comes back, oh well.

So then wait to see if he comes back, and THEN punish him. Like I said, if he comes back after saying he wants to leave, I'll happily endorse a temp or perma-ban of him.

I would also like to say that it's more than just a few people he's annoyed the shit out of, if my constituents are any indication. He's been royally pissing people off for years now, and this action is as such long overdue. I've avoided bringing it up because I try not to start actions against people who have personally cheesed me off, as I always consider that my experience may be tainted.

Again, how does this make him unique on the board? I'm sure there are LOTS of people I piss off and that piss me off. To be blunt I'd probably bring up a HUGE percentage of the active membership for that if I followed my inclination on the basis of perceived idiocy. LEts face it, we mock and punish stupidity, but we don't always agree on who or what constitutes an idiot or idiocy. And again I've been involved in a "quasi-vendetta" punishment poll before, and it was rightly rejected (even though I didn't feel so at the time.)

[Ghost Rider]

My problem is getting to this. I care nothing for brian, to me...he's yet another in the legion of spamming dumbasses who somehow string letters together.

But to

1. Bring it before the Senate would work....if he's around to take and learn from the punishment. Right now, he's an empty spot. No different if Ein told us "I'm off guys for a year" and we label his account and go hog wild. What exactly is he supposed to learn?

2. This whole "We let the Senate decide!". Sorry, the Senate was meant to help on minor matters, and issues that seemed a bit too close to home in the moderator forum. Not the dumping ground of everything except the people Mike, Dalton, or Ozy decides to ban because they have the power to do so. Have really the moderators gotten that lazy to just summarily dump this onto the Senate because it's easier?

3. "Just ignore it, then." is bullshit here or anywhere on this board when said person has a vote that means something. Abstaining is one thing, but when a Senator wants to voice his opinion, he better goddamn be able to and let the others weigh upon it. If not, we dissolve everything except a select group of admins to make the choices for everyone.

[Surlethe]

Does he actually have a RECORD of breaking rules, or is this actually the first time? I'm not actually in the mood to have to dig through another huge-ass debate just to decide for myself at this time.

See the link that I posted above. It seems that his record stretches back to when he first joined.

With all due respect, but did you actually READ what I said? I checked most of those debates and some of them were quite lengthy, (The evolution one was TEN pageS) and it would take me quite awhile to dig through all that just to make a decision as to whether he's got a record.

Ach, you're right. My mistake; I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Hotfoot]

I don't think a temp or perma ban is appropriate here if he comes back or not. The farthest I'd be willing to go is a title, unless he comes back and has a meltdown.

I don't dislike Brian because he espouses unpopular views, I dislike him because, frankly, he's a shitty debater who continually rings in on subjects he knows nothing about and then attempts to defend his position in a shitty manner, paying no heed to the debating rules of the site. Last I checked, repeated actions in that manner warranted a VI title, so when the subject came up, I'm willing to support it. I don't know how founded the claims of vendetta are here though. If he deserved a title once and has not improved, I fail to see how revisiting that fact is somehow a vendetta.

Meanwhile, we have a long history of titling or banning people who have ostensibly left SDN. Titles and bans are not just designed to be punishments, but serve as warnings to others. Act like this here and there are consequences.

Now, while I disagree with Connor in this matter, I'm not going to tell him to shut up. He's doing his duty here and if the situation were different, I might be arguing on his side. It is not our duty to rubber stamp motions and just ban people. Discussion should be paramount in these proceedings because we should be able to come to the core of the matter.

Right now, the core of this matter is what GR has listed. We as Senators have different opinions. Mine is that he'll be back and when he is, it will be a moot point because "he might have changed". So we wait, and we watch, and we can't just wait for one example of him being retarded, we have to wait for more, only something else might catch our attention. I fail to see how that is appropriate. If he's guilty of the behavior now, and he shows no signs of remorse, why should we let him off easy when he says, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

I mean, really, what kind of precedent do we set when we say, "Hey, just up and don't post for like, a month or so, and we won't touch you"? It's literally Carte Blanche for assholes to abuse the system. Look at our latest chewtoy in the collesium. He's not posted in a long time. Think that's going to stop us from titling and perhaps banning him if he fails to post?

Now I know, the argument is "what does he learn if we title him while he's gone". Maybe nothing. If he never comes back, he'll not have learned a damn thing. But others will learn that behaving in an unacceptable fashion does in fact have consequences here. There is benefit, and the rules and consequences are not just to keep the peons we apply them to in line, but rather to show the rest of the community what we find acceptable and what they should NOT emulate. It has the added bonus that once he comes back (and yes, I'm assuming he will), he will find that we did, in fact, generally disapprove of his previous behavior and should correct it this time around if he expects to stay.

[Mad]

Bring it before the Senate would work....if he's around to take and learn from the punishment. Right now, he's an empty spot. No different if Ein told us "I'm off guys for a year" and we label his account and go hog wild. What exactly is he supposed to learn?

It was brought to the Senate before he said he's leaving. I don't see his claim of leaving as having anything to do with whether or not he (and, by extension, his posts) deserve titling.

That said, I'd like to see more evidence of violations before casting a vote. If no further evidence is given in a couple days, I can say my vote will not be "yes" in the poll thread.

[Coyote]

Okay, I voted an "Abstain", and my reasoning for this is because there is equally as much argument in favor of an outright ban, which I think coulda-shoulda-woulda been an option on the vote. I fear we may have rushed into a vote before things had truly been settled.

[Dalton]

As far as I'm concerned, there's not nearly enough evidence in this thread to warrant a vote. It is clearly stated that evidence for your arguments must be presented. A link to a thread is not enough.

[Connor MacLeod]

There's a number of reasons I'm objecting to this, and not all of them specifically have to do with brian:

1 - the case hasn't been adequately proven. Burden of proof still applies even in the Senate. Its not fair to punish him on the basis of a vague link to some recent/past debates.

2 - I believe there are only a few specific circumstances warranting titling. a.) Malice (as broomstick pointed out) in any form (including trolls, since they cause trouble for fun.), b.) corrective measures (as with Ein and his punishment. I think he's improved since the "Mod Five" incident.) intended to underscore how and why someone fucked up and why they're expected to change.

In some cases you MIGHT employ titles for c.) total inability to change - someone who is so willfully ignorant of what other people say or reality in general that they cannot be reasoned with. This has to be decided by a majority (IE you have to have lots of people telling him the same thing, really.. not just some) and it really only applies in certain cases (IE Macross.) In some cases banning is simply going to be more appropriate for someone who won't change (IE RayCav).

I don't really like the idea of titles for punishment or retirubtion, or just because you're pissed off or dislike someone. as I said, I've got people I'd love to inflict that on (I even admit to enjoying seeing some people punished here.) but that's not really the sort of attitude that made me a Senator either. We tolerate idiots because they're entitled to say what they want, no matter how much it pisses us off or annoys us, just as we're entitled to flame them back or say what we want even if it annoys them. Likewise, there are people (IE volleyball) who will act like morons or if they're dishonest out of genuine belief (especially in News and Politics) and last I checked, that's not a punishable crime (its certianly mockable, however.)

I will make a sort of concession though. If brian DOES come back and he indeed begins the cycle over again, we can come back to the issue of punishment for him, because he basically lied about leaving, and he's instigating behaviour that exhibits willfull ignorance and may need correction.

Perhaps we could go with a "temporary" custom title or some such to emphasize that we consider his behaviour idiotic, when he does it and only removed when he stops doing it. And if it gets worse, we can always escalate (revocation of sig and avatar priveleges, for example.) I will admit that if he comes back, I will have no problem with taking corrective measures against brian. And if some of you want to take pleasure in him getting punished THEN, well do so by all means.

[Edi]

brianeyci is one of those posters who long ago got so bad in his debates and other posts that it was almost impossible to read his bullshit and you just had to skip it because there was nothing worthwhile in there. When he engaged in debates, it was usually faster to first read the responses to him, then go back and skim his posts to check that he wasn't taken out of context. 9 times out of 10 he was just steamrollered fair and square.

Whenever he would wade into a debate or discussion, he'd take it off on tangents and just generally fuck it up and when behavior like that becomes standard, it doesn't take a long while for the mods to develop a ratehr cisceral dislike of such a person. I can speak for a great majority of the moderators when I say that he is considered a worthless twat by the staff and the latest shit in the thread where Red schools him on the subject of education and minorities just happened to be the final straw that broke the camel's back where some of us are concerned.

That is why I support titling him.

Somebody also brought up Axis Kast. The difference between brian and Kast is that while brian manages to fuckup any thread he enters for any length of time, when the discussion turns to something other than politics, Kast is an astute and likable fellow who makes good contributions to the board. In N&P, well, we know his history there, but if you step away from American foreign policy, he is okay. No such redeeming qualities in brian.

[CmdrWilkens]

A general note on why this vote was called, and why it was called when it was called. Some of this goes to what I believe the Senate is here to doand some of it goes for what I see as my role in all of this. For starters Brian's conduct certainly could be called questionable, I don't think anyone would hesitate to say that, and yet it would be hard to pin any truly egregious offense on him (or at least if such is possible I haven't seen evidence for it). Within that bound: where there is questionable conduct but not obvious offense, is the exact place into which the Senate should fall.

Stated more broadly the Moderator's are here not just to keep their given forums on-topic but also to prevent and control the more obvious and egregious breaches of conduct that we see. Nothing in the rules of the Senate, or the rules of the board, has ever been to my knowledge designed to stop that. This means that the moderators can, and should, take the occasional bit of unilateral action (or action amongst the closed circle as it relates to the moderators of an individual forum). that being said there are MANY cases where breach of rules is perhaps not immediately apparent in just one forum, or where the quesiton does arise of whether there is a breach of rules at all. In such cases unilateral action by the Mods creates the idea that "justice" is the matter of personal choices of the mod staff and not the result of any kind of deliberation. The Senate, by being publicly viewable, means that the case for and against any poster is open for all to see and while the votes are not recorded by name it is also plain for all to see how much of a consenus there is behind a given action. brian provides the perfect example of conduct which may or may not be deserving of a title. Had the mods simply conversed amongst themselves, rendered a verdict, and enacted it people could easily claim impropriety no matter how involved the discussion was. This also goes to the Senate's purpose in maintaining and promulgatnig rules of conduct for the board- it creates the public record for everyone to understand not just what the rules are but WHY they are enacted.

Within that framework we have my post as Whip. The obvious and immediate cause for creating the post was that there just wasn't enough involvement in the Seante for any of the verdicts rendered to have nearly the weight they should (when a dozen out of forty members vote it lacks any real import). At the same time I think rather publicly I've made it clear that I would like to operate this group with a much clearer set of rules and guidelines for how buisness is conducted. I understand that most folks in and out of the Seante are not nearly as much junkies for organization as I am but I also think creating a structure whereby everyone can feel that the process has validity lends weight and credence to the pronouncements. I don't think that there is some inherent validity to the voting strucutre, nomination rules, etc that I have worked to generate EXCEPT that by creating a very open and obvious process it means that all matters which should come before the senate get fair consideration. I won't go into the whole sub-argument out of making too much out of administering in only the vaugest sense (as I have no ACTUAL power) this group BUT I do take this role seriously. As such I think my part is mostly to be as neutral as possible in letting the process operate. What we have is a motion on the floor followed by general consensus and then a matter of some debate after Brian left (for how long nobody knows). I called the vote because I felt that this was a mater better left as voted on then moved on. Whether the vote succeds or fails we can let the whole thing be and then if and when he returns react according to his acitons then. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I felt it better to let that opinion be aired out in the form of a vote so that we can move on to other matters such as April nominations. Obviously if folks feel the move was hasty or ill advised that remains their right and if folks think I'm not doing so hot they should definately trade me in.

Actually on that last note I've been deficient in posting my own "Continuation of Office" poll so I will be running that concurrent with the April nominations vote.

[Master of Ossus]

VI him. As I said in the other thread, even if it's just a symbolic gesture I'm fine with that. His arguments are so offensively bad that they have derailed a number of otherwise interesting threads, and to be honest I don't know why he wasn't titled, before.