[Discussion] Censure of a Senator by the Plebes?

[Coyote]

Emeritus status?

[Gil Hamilton]

That's an idea there, Coyote. Emeritus state can be granted for the duration of her sabbatical.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

BRILLIANT. MORE DRAMA. This is exactly what I didn't need.

You people completely misconstrued what I was requesting--I wanted to be put on the inactive rolls like that Innerbrat and Zaia, NOT removed from the Senate. I just wanted to have a leave of absence from being required to vote and getting vote spam like Innerbrat's been afforded. What part of a Sabbatical is so unclear?

And me without alcohol.

Thanks a lot, everybody.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Didn't anyone read Wilkens' General Administrative Note?

Anyone?

Was it completely ignored?

The Inactive list is completely different from one's status as a Senator.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Two messages from Dark Hellion:

I will admit that it was me who started this, and looking back, the use of the word censure was wrong. I have always enjoyed reading your posts, but in the past week or so you had seemingly gone off the deep end, and I was genuinely concerned as I have seen the same thing happen to my younger brother, who is now a conspiracy theorist who is very near ruining his life. I respect you a great deal, however I do not have any personal connection with you and I felt that someone in the Senate who you know and trust sitting you down and telling you to take a small breather. I now feel like an asshole when I learned that you have medical issues that are accompanying this. It was never meant to be a major administrative thing. I didn't even want it to be its own thread, just a sub-discussion of your testing thread, someone telling you to, putting it bluntly, "shit down, shut up and reread what you had wrote."

I enjoy reading your various musing when they come from the erudite woman that you are, not when you are, like you have been in the past couple weeks, screeching like a 16 year old drama queen.

Please accept my apologies, and if you wish you can post that I wish for this issue dropped, as your contrition has already gone far beyond the mild verbal reprimand that I hoped for. I am sorry for any stress I have caused you. I just wanted the old Duchess back, this new Duchess is too hard to handle outside of small doses.

I hope you feel better in three months time.

Sorry,

(Name removed on request.)

Then we get to see the REAL Dark Hellion in response to my mentioning his handle (which he DIDN'T ask me to remove) in this thread:

Fuck off bitch... I offered a sincere apology with my full name, so you would know that I meant no harm and you decide to deride me, call me a shit in the senate thread without presenting my side at all, and then continue your drama queen bullshit. I have behaved like the adult here, taking it to a senator, trying to reign him in when I thought he had gone to far, and apologizing to you when it had gone to far. You seem to want to continue to make this a self-centered fiasco, when I was genuinely concerned. If this is how you wish to behave when another poster is concerned about your behavior (with actual precedent, as you had been having medical problems you didn't inform the general board about, that I noticed within your posting history, and reacted poorly to, and apologized for) then you don't deserve the sympathy. I was concerned, genuine, honest, and polite. You insulted me. Fuck you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It should also be noted, which this little shithead lies about, that I did, in fact, notify the board about my medical problems in a long and extensive thread in ARSE back in March. I mean, it shouldn't have to hard to connect the two, but I'm a very private person so I didn't want to repeat it here. The ass.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And more evidence of DH's vendetta against me.

Which is really what this is, isn't it?

I don't need this right now! But it seems like I'm just going to have to take a breath and deal with the whole length of this process to get things fixed.

[Surlethe]

BRILLIANT. MORE DRAMA. This is exactly what I didn't need.

You people completely misconstrued what I was requesting--I wanted to be put on the inactive rolls like that Innerbrat and Zaia, NOT removed from the Senate. I just wanted to have a leave of absence from being required to vote and getting vote spam like Innerbrat's been afforded. What part of a Sabbatical is so unclear?

And me without alcohol.

Thanks a lot, everybody.

Whoops, that's totally my bad. I apologize for not double-checking what you wanted, and for any additional stress this caused you.

[Broomstick]

Folks, while what Marina is going through is serious, it's not horrifically serious. If I understand correctly, she just wants to back away a little bit because she is having to devote so much energy right now to things going on in her life. If I understand correctly, she wants the board to be an entertainment with no responsibility for a few months.

Yes, she's been emotionally volatile - a "drama queen" if you must - and this new level of emotional volatility is in part probably a side effect of some of her treatment. I suspect it is also because she is going through some incredibly massive changes right now. I, for one, am willing to cut her a little slack for awhile (although it won't stop me from telling her when she's going over the top on things - she needs the feedback) while she adjusts to some of those changes. Of course, this does not, in any way, excuse her from following the rules, formal or informal, around here. Truthfully, until she gets over this rough hump in her life abstaining from Senate duties regarding decision making might be prudent. Certainly, if something comes up where she feels her opinion is vital she will let us know, but Marina has a highly developed sense of duty and if you ask her to vote she will feel compelled to do so in a way other people might not.

I also wish to point out that, although some people think her reaction was excessive, living in the US Marina has legal vulnerabilities the rest of us do not. I do not wish to put words in her mouth or presume to speak for her, but those who are LGBT in the US are much more likely to be abused by the legal system than us "normal" folks, and they truly are, in many ways, second class citizens. What a settled, normal, affluent mainstream person might shrug off as an annoyance could seriously mess up the life of a "marginal" person. This is not a flattering characteristic of the current American society, but it is a genuine one. There are many people here who are young adults who have not experienced some of the unjust characteristics of the world first hand and do not realize how serious some "pranks" can be. It would not surprise me if we went back over the voluminous posts of this week and found that those with the most negative viewpoints were the older members of this board, with the exception of Marina, who, due to her unusual history, has experienced some pretty shitty things If may be so bold, while some members reactions (and not just Marina's) may have been "excessive" the reactions of some others was quite the opposite - inadequate for the potential seriousness of what happened.

As for desires to have the "old duchess back" - folks, both because of her age and because of her medical treatment Marina is changing. This is inevitable and irreversible. We all change over time and there is no going back. A year from now we will have a new Duchess and you will never have the "old duchess" back. It is selfish to demand that someone else fossilize themselves because you like the way they used to be. If you prefer the past individual that is your preference but you can't ask people to stop changing.

[Darth Wong]

Wait, one of the plebes is demanding that a Senator be censured for proposing an idea which the plebe found to be unreasonable? Is this seriously happening? Who the fuck is this?

And another question: why are plebes protected by anonymity when they make these asinine "suggestions?" Senators aren't. Why should plebes be?

[CmdrWilkens]

A couple thoughts as a rainy day here in lovely Galway means that I can actually spend a bit of time browsing about:

1) Inactive vs Active, as Marina poitned out by linking the Administrative Minutiae thread is a matter SOLELY for terms in regards to voting. That is a log kept by ME and only ME (well I believe I sent Dalton and Ozy outdated copies some months back but that's not critical) of the complete roll call of Senators along with their current voting status.

2) If I didn't clarify enough let me clarify again, any Senator requesting inactive status will be placed on it without prejudice or comment by myself for whatever period they so chose. If a Senator misses more than 5 consecutive votes ( a miss entails both not opening your vote spam AND not posting in the vote thread itself, that is doing either of the two actions counts as a vote) then I will do a board-wide posting search for the previous 3 months, if there is no activity then you go on the inactive rolls involuntarily. If you are placed on involuntary leave I will continue to check posting history with every other successive vote. If there is activity you will begin receiving vote spam again.

3) The ONLY times a Senator will be brought forth for suspension of duties and/or emeritus status is if:
A) A full calendar year passes on involuntary inactive status
B) A request is made to be suspended
C) A discussion for censure/suspension is fully realized

Now as a bit of further clarification I will not unilaterally suspend a person mostly because I don't have the actual power to alter accounts as such but also because removal and/or emeritus status shall always be a matter for a public vote. With that, if there is a discussion about suspension of a Senator let me be very clear that I will be watching the procedures like a fucking hawk. If someone wants to bring charge against another senator we will hear it out but such a debate and/or vote WILL conform to the rules WITHOUT ERROR. So simply put if you are thinking of bringing charge against a fellow senator then you better brush up.

Okay with THAT out of the way let me speak to a few other things

4) Plebes and annonymity; since they can't post they obviously must do so through a senator/governor/executor. I think it fair that we entrust whoever receives the message to make their own call as to whther the post should be annonymous

5) Marina and the Testing bit; If anybody thinks marina overstepped her bounds they've probably though the same about me and how I run (or don't run) the Senate. Let me bluntly state that I am in full agreement with dalton's statement. Controversial opinions will NEVER, if I have any say in it, be cause for censure. Controversial actions can be cause for reactions but such was not the case here.

6) Complaints about senators/me/mods/admins/Mike; If you've got a beef with somebody in power its usually best to go openly to them and explain what your beef is. If you fear reprisal (though why anyone would fear reprisal from a senator who has no moderator powers I don't know) then the matter should be brought to an immediate peer or superior. That is if someone has a problem about how the Senate is run then come to me, if you think I'll fuck you over then go to one of the Mods or Admins, if you have a problem with a Mod take it up with them, if you think they will fuck you over then go to a co-mod or an Admin. If you have a problem with an Admin take it up with them or another Admin. If you have a problem with Mike talk to him or leave the fucking board. It really is that simple.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I thought this compost was pretty rediculus myself, so I've been keeping out of the Drama. Besides she's got too many thorns for me to use as a scratching post.

[Coyote]

Here's something I thought I'd share, culled from a message I sent someone-- this was all my stuff, not the other person's, so no PM violation.


One of the Senators said something I think is true-- we're not a Democracy, we're living under the dictatorship of Mike Wong since it's his board, his rules, etc. Anything else-- letting Mods run forums, having a Senate to dictate policy-- is a favor that is granted. And we should bear in mind it is not done because of some Magna Carta or high-minded ideals of democracy (although they may play in the decision) but really, to make Mike's life easier so he doesn't have to micromanage things here.

Now, if someone petitions a Senator; you have a complaint, etc, all is well there. But not everyone is going to see the complaint the same way; not everyone will see it as legitimate --I hate to sound cold or uncaring, but there is no guarantee that your complaint would be seen as having merit.

So, basically, there's no easy answer to this here, and no easy way to walk away from it without some hurt feelings. Like I posted earlier here, sometimes folks are just going to have to reconcile that from time to time. The culture here defies description. It's a "communist dictatorship wearing the drag of a Republic". The way things are run here is something people will have to reconcile with themselves. If you feel that the advantages of being here outweigh the occasional butthurt, then stick around. If, one day, you feel you're not getting enough advantage to outweigh the bad feelings, then it'd be easier leaving than trying to change things here.

The Senators were not elected by the people, the denizens, to serve or represent them. We were appointed from the top down because it is shown that we have a handle on the way things work around here and know how to deal with things that crop up. Any time one of us advocates for a citizen is, essentially, our being comradely and extending a hand... we're not really obligated to do so. If you want to see this as "Elitism", well, I can't help you with your perception. Sometimes it is-- people become part of an elite unit because they're good at what they do. In this case, they're good at not allowing themselves to get spun up over knee-jerk things-- or, if one of us does go on a tangent (and I've done it too), the rest of us talk that one down and they see the error of their ways and things go on.

I hope this clarifies things. I have a feeling some folks won't like this much at all, but again, there's little I can do about it. We've all been there. Drive on.

[Mad]

And another question: why are plebes protected by anonymity when they make these asinine "suggestions?" Senators aren't. Why should plebes be?

Because it is the current policy:

Also if you want your name attached to a point, then specifically say so in the PM, the default is for Senate members to paste text anonymously.

As to why it is the current policy, that's probably so they can have controversial ideas raised without having to worry about retribution (whether from the Senate or not). A discussion as to whether this policy should be changed is probably appropriate at this point.

The linked policy post also makes it clear that the Senate is not obligated to act on every PM that comes its way.

[RedImperator]

And another question: why are plebes protected by anonymity when they make these asinine "suggestions?" Senators aren't. Why should plebes be?

Because it is the current policy:

Also if you want your name attached to a point, then specifically say so in the PM, the default is for Senate members to paste text anonymously.

As to why it is the current policy, that's probably so they can have controversial ideas raised without having to worry about retribution (whether from the Senate or not). A discussion as to whether this policy should be changed is probably appropriate at this point.

The linked policy post also makes it clear that the Senate is not obligated to act on every PM that comes its way.

I wonder if it's time to have a public "Senate commentary thread". One thing we'd need is a promise not to punish the plebes for anything they post in it, which is probably why there are so many anonymous PM comments to begin with.

[K. A. Pital]

Personally I do not see any needs to change policy because of someone's whining about the Senate, or a specific Senator.

Neither do I see any need in giving the plebes a thread to vent about the Senate or it's policies, because that's what "Senate commentary thread" will really mean.

Especially considering the whining came from Testingites about a supressal policy of Testing - which is in my view a minor pest infection that exists solely for spam or flood vents on SDN and nothing else, with zero contribution.

I'd say the brats who feel "offended" by Marina's proposal just need to fuck off and calm down: the Senate is open to any proposal, and if the proposal is too unreasonable, as a collective body, the Senate will not enact it. But it's a platform to discuss all proposals.

People who are "offended" by a Senator merely voicing a proposal should seriously think just what the bloody fuck is wrong with them and their whining, and there's certainly no need to pay any attention to that, especially as it's causing distress to a Senator. And no need to tamper with board rules for the sake of stupid whiners.

[CmdrWilkens]

For everyone's edification, I consider the question regarding censure to be closed. If there is a matter to be discussed under a different subject (testing moderation/Senate vent thread/etc) please open a new discussion thread on that topic.

If you DO have any other comments regarding either the general idea or the specific applicaiton of censure then yes this is the correct thread but I don't see that cropping up any further.