Repeal of Permanent Title for Darthdavid (discussion)

[Ghost Rider]

Really does it matter? He's not on the moderator radar meaning he's in relative good standing. There's maybe 2-3 members in which the title still sticks because they are still applicable. He wavers again, he likely will get banned or temp banned depending on the severity. If he never wavers, then the idea is moot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, the irrelevance of whether or not he has a title is a quite reasonable response, one supposes, so I'll drop the objection.

[Surlethe]

It said he asked a Senator, not an admin.

He PMed me. I PMed Dalton, and was told that the custom title was permanent*. I passed that back to him. In effect, he contacted an admin via proxy.

* To the limits of recollection; I have since nuked my PMbox, so I can't say exactly what Dalton wrote.

Edit: Ah-hah! I have the messages, if it becomes necessary for them to be posted.

[Ghost Rider]

It said he asked a Senator, not an admin.

He PMed me. I PMed Dalton, and was told that the custom title was permanent*. I passed that back to him. In effect, he contacted an admin via proxy.

* To the limits of recollection; I have since nuked my PMbox, so I can't say exactly what Dalton wrote.

Edit: Ah-hah! I have the messages, if it becomes necessary for them to be posted.

Ah, okay. He could've asked again. Dalton made his choice at the time with the evidence weighed against what he believed as a more permanent censure. To be honest, maybe Mike will change his mind, then again, he may let it stay.

[Edi]

Since this thread has a good bit of general discussion on the removal of titles, I might as well put my input here:

If in doubt about a request, you can ask a moderator via PM for an opinion on how to proceed. In most cases where the mod can't help you, he'll suggest PMing an admin.

With regard to dispatching moderator or administrative duties, even if we seem "scary" to average users, it does not mean we will not make a fair consideration of any requests made to us. I know I do at least. Part of being a mod is that even if you detest someone, you handle possible requests even-handedly. It comes with the job description. I guess some people might prefer to approach someone else, but it doesn't change the fact that any mod should do. Of course, if you know one is more favorably inclined towards you, then approaching that mod is the smartest thing to do.

[fgalkin]

Said poster could...*gasp* ask an admin, and we even have a CC function now!!! So it'll reach one of them.

Instead, people make fucking productions out of this, but never ask the public about name changes or other forms of titling. It's a happy little irony of how people fear to present proof of against said transgressions but when asking "Could I get another name change?!" they have no problem with asking personally.

Maybe we should reintroduce the thought of having the Senate/public arena having long winded jabberings about the deserving of promotional titles and name changes, so people will have to wait four to five weeks for this.

There is precedent for the Senate being the organ for considering negative title removal. As it should be, given that it is the organ responsible for giving out negative titles in the first place.

Ordinary name and title changes are minor administrative problems that are solved by an admin. They require no input from the public or the Senate. Removal of a negative title, however, requires the repeal of either a Senate or a Staff vote that gave them the title.

The situations are clearly different, and so DD did the right thing in requesting a public hearing, as only Mike has the authority to unilaterally overturn a title poll.

Isolder is a grot, who should not have made a thread in the HoC. I think that is what his new title should be, "grot." At least for a week or so.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ghost Rider]

Said poster could...*gasp* ask an admin, and we even have a CC function now!!! So it'll reach one of them.

Instead, people make fucking productions out of this, but never ask the public about name changes or other forms of titling. It's a happy little irony of how people fear to present proof of against said transgressions but when asking "Could I get another name change?!" they have no problem with asking personally.

Maybe we should reintroduce the thought of having the Senate/public arena having long winded jabberings about the deserving of promotional titles and name changes, so people will have to wait four to five weeks for this.

There is precedent for the Senate being the organ for considering negative title removal. As it should be, given that it is the organ responsible for giving out negative titles in the first place.

Ordinary name and title changes are minor administrative problems that are solved by an admin. They require no input from the public or the Senate. Removal of a negative title, however, requires the repeal of either a Senate or a Staff vote that gave them the title.

The situations are clearly different, and so DD did the right thing in requesting a public hearing, as only Mike has the authority to unilaterally overturn a title poll.

Isolder is a grot, who should not have made a thread in the HoC. I think that is what his new title should be, "grot." At least for a week or so.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Somewhere along the line, I'm going to cut and paste my own responses. And for the record? Chitty is not the best given that DEATH was beforehand AND had more drama over essentially the same thing. My point was, and something Sanchez of all people noted but Kureneko did as well, this is nothing more then a request by the person to use the Senate in proxy.

Again, the Senate isn't forcing the Admin to do anything except offering recommendation instead of said poster approaching said Admin and letting said Admin come to that judgement. If you think otherwise...then really you're deluding yourself.

[Surlethe]

On the issue of contacting Senate vs contacting Admins, it seems to me that the Senate, being an advisory but not governing board, ought to be available for making recommendations should an admin seek them. If it's an open-shut case, as Dalton averred last year, then there's no need for the Senate to be consulted. If it's borderline, or the staff would like a second opinion, or if perhaps it's been long enough the case ought to be reopened for discussion, then a Senate thread can be opened. Either way, the user ought to contact an admin, or several. (And, as always, disagreements with staff rulings need to be appealed via PM to other staffers, admins, or Mike himself.)

[Ghost Rider]

On the issue of contacting Senate vs contacting Admins, it seems to me that the Senate, being an advisory but not governing board, ought to be available for making recommendations should an admin seek them. If it's an open-shut case, as Dalton averred last year, then there's no need for the Senate to be consulted. If it's borderline, or the staff would like a second opinion, or if perhaps it's been long enough the case ought to be reopened for discussion, then a Senate thread can be opened. Either way, the user ought to contact an admin, or several. (And, as always, disagreements with staff rulings need to be appealed via PM to other staffers, admins, or Mike himself.)

I will add this, because this is above is a very good point. If said Admin or moderator denies someone, then ask IF no reason was given. If said denial is still happening, and you think the charge is unreasonable then present said case to a Senator you trust to see whether or not said Admin is being unreasonable.

[Hotfoot]

For the record, I remember the titling incident quite well. Darthdavid posted a thread indicating that he was committing suicide, apparently thinking this was appropriate material for an April 1st prank. This was a while ago, and there is a chance he's matured since then, but it was still pretty rank.