[Discussion] ArcturusMengsk: Ideological Violence

[Publius]

PR6 clearly states that "anyone whose behaviour would be considered a violation of Canada's hate speech law may be banned." Advocacy of genocide, public incitement of hatred, and wilful promotion of hatred against any "identifiable group" are indictable offenses under the Criminal Code of Canada (s. 318-9), to include "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." One is inclined to suspect that the Abyss is indeed looking back.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'll motion that AM be subjected to disciplinary action, with voting options of a punitive title, temporary ban, permanent ban, or no action.

I consider this a motion on the table. Is there is a second?

[Ender]

While I have no qualms about seeing this guy gone, shouldn't this have been brought up by a mod or admin to have us weigh in with an actual decision rather than us just making a suggestion/demand?

[CmdrWilkens]

While I have no qualms about seeing this guy gone, shouldn't this have been brought up by a mod or admin to have us weigh in with an actual decision rather than us just making a suggestion/demand?

I would disagree. If the Mods/admins feel he merits immediate removal then that is within their purview but for users where there is at least a little bit of question the Senate should review. The point being that it doesn't matter who brings the subject up for review simply that it has been brought up. We don't have any rules regarding who should begin discussions about misbehaving users but I would be extremely loathe to limit such discussions to only those users brought to the Senate by the Mod staff.

That and throughout our history it has almost never been an Admin who opens the discussion.

[The Yosemite Bear]

mind you, speaking as the devil's advocate here. I broke one of the bigger rules a long time ago. Admitting to taking part in a DOS attack against a foreign country, as a form of protest nearly 20 years ago. So my hacker past counts me as a "Terrorist/Subversive" as per the People's Republic of China. (purhaps why I will never visit there), and we have some folks who frequently refer to drug use.

[Patrick Degan]

I'll motion that AM be subjected to disciplinary action, with voting options of a punitive title, temporary ban, permanent ban, or no action.

I consider this a motion on the table. Is there is a second?

I second the motion.

[Darth Wong]

While I have no qualms about seeing this guy gone, shouldn't this have been brought up by a mod or admin to have us weigh in with an actual decision rather than us just making a suggestion/demand?

It was brought up among the mods. Many of them felt that an instant perma-ban was the best way to deal with this. I personally weighed in with the opinion that this guy's statements were so absurd that no one could take them seriously, so it would be better to use mockery than banning. Long story short: since we don't all agree in ModLand, we might as well kick it to the Senate and let you decide.