[Discussion] Censure of a Senator by the Plebes?

[Coyote]

I have received, via PM, complaints from a SDNetizen regarding the actions and attitudes of a member of the Senate. While the complaint initially started out as a complaint against the way the Senator in question has handled the Warsie issue, I was able to draw out that there is, in fact, a series of complaints that the Citizen feels should be addressed.

The Citizen stated that he feels some sort of Censure by the Senate should be had.

I pointed out to the Citizen in question that the Senate will probably want the following:
Proof that this is not personal (ie, others who may feel the same way);
Proof that there is substance to the complaint;
and
That the Senate in general and the Senator in question may feel that the complaintant's identity be revealed.

I also informed the Citizen that I will not act as an advocate or lawyer on his behalf, but I will (in the interests of fairness, etc) serve to convey his messages of complaint.

If there is, indeed, a number of Citizens who also wish to support the complaint, I really do not want to serve as the messenger for numerous people, and perhaps a thread could be had in OT.

It should also be noted that the Citizen in particular is the bearer of an unflattering title and fears that opinion will be prejudiced against him in this manner, but is prepared to face the winds, as it were.

Do we have a means to redress complaint against a Senator brought by a Plebe, or shall we lay the groundwork for this as well?

If it pleases the Senate I will begin conveying complaints, etc, to see if they are without merit to begin with, as well.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I feel that this is what we have the mods, supermods, and admins for. The plebe in question ought to send a PM detailing their grievances to the moderating staff and/or to the admins.

[Surlethe]

Finding several people who feel the same way does not necessarily mean that the complaint is not a vendetta; in the past, we have had groups of people conspire and take action. If this is what I think it is, then you could almost certainly find a half-dozen plebs who are willing to support censure, but the burden of proof is somewhat higher than simply finding them, I think.

Edit: I agree with GrandMasterTerwynn; this is ultimately a matter for the Administration to deal with.

[Ghost Rider]

Send it to an admin to review it.

Or more specifically send it to either Ozymandias or Admiral Kanos as both Dalton and Cap are busy with real life effects.

[LadyTevar]

Yeah.. throw more at Ozy.. he doesn't have enough to do...

[Ender]

This brings up the question of balance of powers - does the senate stand in judgment over other board leaders. SDN v XaLEV 2006 supports the conclusion that the Senate does not judge other leaders, presumably due to the fact that as leaders we are held to a higher standard and judged by a smaller group. However, that decision was both when the senate was new and regarding the actions of a mod, not a senator.

Typically the administration brings disciplinary actions before the senate. If the decision was that the senate can sit in judgment over other senators was made and if the mods decided the senator is engaging in behavior that could warrant disciplinary action a thread with links to the relevant behavior will be presented here for a decision. But that is the question to be considered, and I propose a new thread discussing it. I propose the Whip make it so.


However, charges are yet to be made, so this is not so much "is this a senate matter" so much as it is a question of can individuals be brought before the senate for discipline without the moderators intervening first. This question has come before the senate before, in Deagen v TGFTP 2006 where by slim majority (8-6) it was decided not to title on the basis that mods were to bring things up first.

For now, it needs to be reported to the mods/admins.

[LadyTevar]

We're actually referencing past deeds now?

What happened to bribes, booze, and p0rn?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Let's not play games here, we all know this is about me. I was trying to handle this quietly, but, no choice in that now. Already last night I asked Wilkens for a three-month inactive status due to health issues. If I feel it's necessary at the end of that period I'll hand in my resignation. Now, this whole thing (the thread) is just those worthless fucks in Testing out to get me, but it IS true that I've been overwrought--I have some very good reasons for it, which I don't care to explain here, but will in private. They are medical in nature, which explains my discomfort with any fuller explanation, but suffice to say the cause isn't going away anytime soon, but a few months away from responsibilities and continued progress as I've already made should be sufficient, and if not, I'll take that responsibility on myself.

Or, there's no reason for this go further--pending Wilkens authorizing the leave of absence I won't be present in the Senate after this post until September 13th.

[Coyote]

And some Plebes themselves think the whole thing is silly:

I'll remain anonymous, unless Duchess asks who it was. Hell, it probably isn't even worth bringing up in the Senate thread anymore but here goes.

I like to goof off in testing occaisionally, not nearly as much as some but depending on how you look at it you might lump me in with that group.

Seriously though, the idea "censuring" Duchess or any other Senator is ridiculous on so many levels i'm not going to bother to go into it. The Senate is a disuccsing forum, an issue was reasonably and legitimately discussed. There's no reason to act all butthurt because someone didn't think Testing was worth keeping around.

[Coyote]

Moar:

Another Pleb Weighing in on the Censure Thing. Quote message
Anonymously of course.

While I do agree that Duchess' suggestions for securing the board were overreaching, the reactions by some of the testing regulars has been idiotic. Honestly, it's one thing to say that her suggestions went too far, it's another to say that because her suggestions were bad, that Warsie's bullshit was completely inconsequential, and that any information indicating that people could actually have been harmed by them is probably false. (or part of some conspiracy to crack down on testing or whatever Rolling Eyes )

[fgalkin]

The testing grots can go fuck themselves. That is my official position on the matter.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Gil Hamilton]

No one should censure the Duchess or anyone else on this. If a Senator is acting unruly and inappropriately, I'm sure the board admins or Wilkens can take care of it.

Closing down testing and random bannings is about as likely to happen as my suggestion of raising a mob and dragging testing tards into the streets of SDnet and giving them a good ole dose of the boot and billy club. It isn't necessary, since it's become abundantly clear that no part of this board is 4chan and such bullshit won't be tolerated.

Marina's ideas in response may have been extreme and aggressive, but keep in mind that if even one of the tales floating around Warsie's "prank" are true, then some very enormously huge shit has gone down and I don't blame her for being angry. The internet is bad enough without turning our little bit of it into a complete cesspool.

In my opinion, Marina shouldn't have to go anywhere over this or have to resign or anything like that. She's always welcome to post here as far as I'm concerned as one of our more intelligent and valued posters, regardless of what some anonymous Testing poster may think. If she wants to take time off due to medical issues, that's fine; she should do what she needs to do. However, even if I disagree with her on a fairly regular fashion, I will state clearly that she shouldn't feel pressured to take a leave of absence over this and is welcome back at any time of her choosing, as far as I'm concerned.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm with fgalkin. So what, a Senator made a proposal to destroy Testing and people started speaking about censure? Especially after the Warsie "prank"? Fuck Testing.

[Broomstick]

Marina can be bombastic and aggressive, that is not new. She holds extreme viewpoints on some subjects, that is not new. There is nothing wrong with the above. Stress and medical issues may have made her more volatile (good lord, I've both passed on certain debate topics and gone flying of the handle a few times myself these past few months, although for different reasons), but she still did nothing wrong - an unpopular or minority viewpoint is not wrong in and of itself. I see no reason for censure, especially since in the course of the various discussions she has already reviewed her stance and conceded that she is on the edge of opinion here.

If Marina is having a medical issue then she needs to do what's best for her, and concentrate on herself and her family before this board. Given her history it's not surprising that she would have an extreme reaction - she's not paranoid, she really has had people out to get her at times - but she is also able to reflect on her reactions and pull back when someone says "Hey, you're over the top there". If she takes a leave of absence I will certainly miss her. It is the very fact we don't agree on many things that makes the verbal wrestling so enjoyable.

Neither is she the only one to find Testing and many of its contributors the garbage dump of SDN and full of juvenile bullshit with a hefty dose of stupid. If the Testingtards have suddenly discovered that other people really do find them contemptible and even disposable well, it is their own behavior that generates such opinions. They are the chavs and white trash of SDN. Discovering that a senator despises them is not sufficient grounds for censure of said senator.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since Wilkens is apparently on vacation yet, I will answer here--thank you--to affirm the fact I am still very much desiring to be inactive on the Senate Rolls for three months; not, however, on the board entirely. I just want the opportunity to not be troubled by the deliberations of the Senate for the course of the summer. I have allowed the emotional fragility of my current state to get the better of me, and I really do think I need a break from the responsibility for a season's span to recover my sense of perspective.

Oh, make no mistake--I said everything I did because I was scared. And perhaps some of the unreflective individuals on this board should also think a bit, and be scared. There is sometimes very good reason to be. I didn't click that link--I couldn't be arsed to go to testing to do so--but I was quite scared for the repercussions to the whole board and I was afraid for Arik, who I account one of my best friends. I was going to meet with him, Amy and I were, toward the end of July--and I fancied him in Leavenworth by that point instead because of what Warsie did.

And when I'm that scared for a close personal friend's future existence, reputation, and welfare, I tend to get pretty damn mad, too. The only reason I feel it necessary to step away for a while is due to the fact that I don't find myself, in my own eyes and own evaluation of myself, to have maintained enough discipline to propose and convince people of the necessity of effective measures. Or in short, I flailed about rather than keep my calm. And I both simultaneously don't find that acceptable behaviour in myself, and suspect this tendency, which I have noticed more frequent in the past months, is one of the rather natural side-effects of the treatment for my medical conditions.

Therefore, I really just want the chance to not have to feel compelled, required, obligated, and etc to involve myself in the affairs of the Senate for a few months, during which I can reevaluate how to discipline myself in response to the sometimes deletrious influences of that treatment. I think in short I let my personal state interfere in my duties, and that is unacceptable, and demands some introspection. It is for that reason that I seek to take a sabbatical from the Senate, and for no other reason. And I certainly proposed it to Wilkens before this thread was posted; it was simply this thread which compelled me to make it public.

I would therefore encourage all of you to continue posting controversial opinions here in the Senate. It is always been a custom of mine to propose ideas, even if they are bad ones, to stimulate debate and hopefully cause people to propose ideas which are good; for that much, I don't regret, and my displeasure with myself is in my own inability to consider the uselessness of my proposals in terms of contributing to any such process in the context of events. That is evidence of a certain hysteria in myself... Which I consider to be unacceptable in how I wish to comport myself.

At any rate, I would certainly also add that this thread amply demonstrates the fact that the Senate should be totally insulated from the board population in terms of censures and other things. The reason for that is precisely so Senators will retain the idea to propose ideas which may be unpopular.. But nonetheless ought be heard and discussed. To lose that ability would be very detrimental to the board at large. There is a reason that, unique among the sections of SD.net, the Senate has expectations of decorum, while the reserve is true elsewhere, and the use of "concession accepted" is explicitly banned.

[Coyote]

I'd be most upset to lose the Duchess, from any current capacity in which she participates on the board.

The array of personalities here virtually ensures that, almost every day, there will be a population of people who are unhappy with the way anything, at any given time, is going. And while folks certainly have a right to file a complaint, I think, they also have to ask themselves if it is not better overall to just reconcile themselves with the fact that not everyone here is going to act in ways that they themselves like.

I'm getting a lot more PM's going one way or the other-- 'Yay, Duchess,' 'Boo, Duchess,' 'Boo, Senate for waah waah waah', etc.

I am willing to play go-between to a point but now I find myself leaning towards letting the truly motivated start a complaint thread in Off Topic if they feel that they really have a gripe and it is legitimate. I find, sometimes, that bitching in the dark is one thing, but when you have to sign your name to it, you think twice about what you really want to say and if there are repercussions to be had, and if it's really worth it.

A lot of this has nothing to do with Marina per se, but in the way the Warsie issue has been handled; the veracity of people saying that folks have suffered as a result, etc. Let's make no mistake, this is the potential for real trouble. Whether "real trouble" has indeed happened or not, is beside the point-- folks got caught playing with matches, and just because the house didn't burn down is insufficient reason to blow it off.

If there are real, legitimate complaints to be had with the way we're dealing with this-- not just personal axes to grind being hitched to this wagon in a spate of opportunism-- then I say post 'em out in the open. I pride myself on being the advocate of the little guy, etc, maybe I'm blowing sunshine up my own ass but I always try to give the benefit of the doubt. But it's getting rediculous.

If it's worth saying, then it better be worth saying out loud and shouldering it. Otherwise, get back to rowing.

[Dalton]

I will reiterate for those plebes who still don't understand: The Senate will never, ever punish people who raise topics for serious discussion. There is absolutely no reason to censure someone for asking a serious question, or even making extreme suggestions, because they stimulate debate. This is why we always have discussion threads first, to discuss the viability of the concern, and if it is shared by enough people, it will go to a vote. If it is the product of only a few dissenters and not the majority opinion, it will remain as a discussion.

There are certainly times to censure Senators, but this is not one of them. If a Senator chooses to start a Vote without a serious discussion beforehand and without approval, well, that's another story.

Let this be a lesson to all the would-be pranksters fooling about in the cesspool of stupidity known as Testing.

[Broomstick]

I don't often get pm'd from the plebes, however... (with permission)

I can't speak for others but I for one appreciate your candor - for too long people have been bottling up how they feel about Testing. And I will definitely agree that asking for a Senator to be punished for offering an unpopular opinion is bullshit.

That said, I think you're being a pompous and overbearing ass. People dick around in one forum and they're trash? Spanky the Dolphin, Utsonomiko, Brother-Captain Gaius, Mr. Coffee, Stark, Zuul, Lonestar... all of those people I listed make good posts in the other areas, and they all have participated in or continue to participate in Testing. Are you saying these people don't make worthwhile contributions in the rest of the board? Are you saying that indulging in a bit of non-destructive juvenile behavior nullifies their contributions?

Well!

I suppose my own feeble contributions to Testing have been entirely overlooked, then?

NO, the act of posting in Testing by itself does not make one a juvenile shithead. Repeatedly posting juvenile shit makes one a juvenile shithead. Those who make valued contributions elsewhere on SDN are just blowing off steam, but we're all aware that there are those who post almost entirely in Testing and nowhere else, and seem to think it's their appointed duty not to allow the general level of discourse in Testing to rise above the bottom of the gutter. THOSE are Testingtards.

I trust that this has served to clarify my position? Good. I'm going back into my doublewide for a stiff drink, then.

(More seriously - my internet connection has been going in and out randomly, and I think we had a brief power failure earlier this morning. If I drop off the forum for a day or two don't be shocked though I hope it doesn't come to that)

[Kuja]

Testingistan or whatever the hell it is this year can bite my shiny metal ass. When you build shit on top of other shit, eventually some fuckhead like Warsie is gonna do something that gets him banned. The Test-tards have nobody to blame for the fallout but each other. And Warsie, naturally.

Moving on to Senate Bill #00697 I am heartily in favor of withdrawing all financial and material support from the Testing forum and watching to see whether or not they end up eating their own dead.

*mumbles to an aide for a moment*

Ah yes, all hail the admin, of course.

*slumps back into his Senate chair, drapes a copy of The Arizona Republic over his head and goes back to sleep*

[SirNitram]

It seems that every little while, Testing goes from merely a benign cyst on the ass of SDN to a boil best lanced. I have with no regrets considered both coming down hard on uses of the forum other than the act of testing actual code, welcome threads, and problems with logging in, as well as the notion of completely shutting down the forum for a period of at least a day, because I am increasingly angered by the casual use of epiphats we do not allow for insults. I am certain someone is reading this and is already whinging that it's 'Just a joke'. Read my text: I don't care.

Censuring Marina or any other Senator is a matter for the head of the Senate and the administrators. SDN is not a democracy at it's core, it is a tyranny ruled by an upper class who generally have better things to do than oppress.

Finally, on the matter of Marina's Senate duties, if Wilkens is unavailiable for whatever reason, I move we release her from her obligations here until she is prepared to return. She requires no additional stress, especially not from this place. I am certain this will be at least seconded.

Marina, I wish you the best for whatever you are going through, and know my IM and PM box are open if you need someone to vent bile at. It is a well-known fact I have replaced much of my weak human flesh with machinery that runs on 100% bile.

[LadyTevar]

Seconded Nitram's notion.

[Surlethe]

The motion has been seconded. May I have permission to begin a poll?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Senators can post threads of lesser importance, so, I don't think you need authorization for this, Surlethe Formally speaking, I'm just asking for a sabbatical of three months duration from all Senate duties. Leaving it open-ended is very kind of you.

[Gil Hamilton]

Far as I'm concerned, Marina, you should take as much time as you need to do what you've got to do. Don't worry about it and come back when you want. This has already become too big a spectacle. Take a break and relax. SD.net is recreation, not a source of stress.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Far as I'm concerned, Marina, you should take as much time as you need to do what you've got to do. Don't worry about it and come back when you want. This has already become too big a spectacle. Take a break and relax. SD.net is recreation, not a source of stress.

Well, this whole fracas combined with my state has left me... Well, I'm on break now but compulsive posting during finals is not healthy even if it didn't hinder me one lick in the end.

It would be really nice if there was some sort of system for Senators to take sabbaticals from Senate duties without leaving the board entirely, which is what I want to do--not a vacation from SD.net, just a sabbatical from my Senate duties for a couple months. The thing gets compulsive for me, and the summer is always overwhelming with idiots due to the Summer Rush To Get Banned, anyway, which is why I'd like to avoid it.