[Member] Stark removal vote comments

[CmdrWilkens]

If you have any comments to make place them here.

[Coyote]

Yes, and voted.

[Alyeska]

Voted

[Steve]

Voted.

[Mr Bean]

Voted. Voted for removal due to the quotes in the OP along with the following threads detailing his dislike of the Senate.

It is fascianting that a public forum full of poorly-thought out whining and tongue-wagging is actually more effective than the Senate at everything except that which the Senate has 'special powers' to do. There was no real reason for HoC nominations to be accepted, but they were; there was no real reason to accept pressure on testing, or any other issue moved from the HoC to action. Senators don't even vote on the actual changes that are happening or being discussed. When it was started - largely as part of the 'Senate is stupid' testing lol - I had no expectation anything discussed there would ever go anywhere. Look where we are now.

Frankly, when a totally open forum of every idiot on the board is more useful than the so-called 'elite', that's the biggest full stop you could put on Starglider's post. When people like Ray participate more than most Senators in discussing board issues, that highlights what people have been saying about Senate participation (no offence, Ray).

Actually Ray's a good example of the HoC. He posts a lot here, a lot of his ideas are stupid, but things are discussed and he's a part of all kinds of decisions. He'd never, ever be 'allowed' in the Senate.

EDIT - Shit, look what Hotfoot and Red and I are doing; we're posting HERE, because while we're Senators we're not head-up-ass about it. Where is the engine of change in the forum below the Mod level?

Oh god, no. The last thing I want to see is an annual election campaign.

Why not? It'd make it even easier to see the senators as jokes.

Unless of course I can get some really nice kickbacks from the candidates.

What possible benefit could giving you a kickback possibly give a candidate, aside from the possibility of you shutting the fuck up?

Oh and sorry for killing the Senate discussion, lol. I think it's interesting that only about six people are even participating in that thread, highlighting that most Senators either have no opinion or no idea; clearly very useful individuals. As Red highlighted, it's even a strong showing of newer Senators in the discussion; older Senators perhaps see their position as not worthy of discussion.

Ending the redundant page 3 locking would render Testing essentially mod-free, which would make all the uptight important people able to totally ignore it.

Oh wait, the policy is one of vindictiveness and it won't be changed because 'why change it' is a reasonable argument. I forgot.

As others have said repeatedly, the very inclusion of software changes like the report button seriously reduced the Senate's role at a stroke. That's not due to evil agitators, that's just functionality.

ITT I learnt that anecdotes and choosing four people out of a whole approach to education are a compelling argument.

Can I make a Senate thread? I'm politically concious!

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... &p=3177717


http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3178195
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3177717
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3186666
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3178910
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3178386
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3165141
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... e#p3178846
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... e#p3177717
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... e#p3075808

[Edi]

Voted.

[Thanas]

Voted against.

I know of several members who said that the senate didn't matter as well or that they did not care much about it either. Is that now grounds for removal? If someone wants to remove themselves, they can always do so.


And why wasn't there a discussion post first? I thought the usual procedure was discussion, then vote?

[Bounty]

Votred against for mind-numbingly obvious reasons. Stark was doing what he was voted into the Senate to do and kicking him out because he's critical (or is it because he didn't say it politely?) is ridiculous.

If Stark wants to resign, let him resign; he has the integrity to go through with it. This vote is just petty drama for vindictiveness' sake.

[Simplicius]

Voted against. I fail to see how his conduct is sufficiently egregious to warrant expulsion since this same body voted him in not long ago, and he was hardly a different person then. Furthermore, I have doubts about the procedural legitimacy of this vote since the motion and second as proclaimed do not seem to be present in this forum. If Stark's removal is ultimately the will of higher-ranking authority than it should simply be executed as such. If is meant to be a Senate decision than the should be so in its entirety, and that requires a motion and second as per the rules.

[Thanas]

Also, I reiterate my objection - there was no opportunity for discussion and I quite frankly am not sure I get what is going on here.

[Tiriol]

Voted.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Stark was the same Stark when the Senate voted him in. His behavior is no different now than it was when he was deemed worthy of elevation to this body. Furthermore, I share the same misgivings regarding the procedural integrity of this vote, so my vote will reflect that.

[Surlethe]

I voted against for the reasons Thanas, Simplicius, and GrandMasterTerwynn have given. Bean, you're really stretching for this.

[Thanas]

I move to declare this vote invalid due to the following reasons:

1. The motion and second are not present. Secret motions and seconds are not allowed in the rules and go in fact against the spirit of this body.
2. There was no discussion. In fact, the only evidence was presented after the vote had already happened.

Do I have a second?

*******************
In other news, this also raises serious doubts about the competence of our chancellor, IMO. I thought there was supposed to be fair discussion in here, not some people just making a vote because they feel like it? That the chancellor just starts a vote without even a mediocrum of discussion on it IMO reflects very badly upon his integrity and professionalism.

[Dalton]

Thanas raises a point here. CmdrWilkens and Mr Bean, I ask that you respond to this.

[Coyote]

He could have quit if he wanted to... but didn't. So what was the purpose of sticking around then? To be a gadfly and no more? To mock and ridicule? Sabotage? Someone who openly states a loathing and contempt for your organization but refuses to leave cannot be up to any good.

Is he the same ol' Stark he was before? Yeah. Some of us thought being involved in the process might change his perceptions. But, sometimes you just wake up the morning after and ask yourself, "what was I thinking!?"

[Thanas]

He could have quit if he wanted to... but didn't. So what was the purpose of sticking around then? To be a gadfly and no more? To mock and ridicule? Sabotage? Someone who openly states a loathing and contempt for your organization but refuses to leave cannot be up to any good.

Is he the same ol' Stark he was before? Yeah. Some of us thought being involved in the process might change his perceptions. But, sometimes you just wake up the morning after and ask yourself, "what was I thinking!?"

Gee, this almost looks like that would have been a nice topic for a discussion, wouldn't it? Kinda like "OK Stark, this is what you allegedly said, explain yourself?" But you do not just declare a vote without at least giving somebody the opportunity to explain themselves. Even Colfax had that privilege, now a Senator is not supposed to get it?

Has either Wilkens or you, who are supposed to in some way care about the integrity of this body even bothered to ask Stark to defend himself and then posted his explanation?


EDIT: If Bean or any other supermod/admin want him out of the senate, they could just toss hm out. But the minute we go through the senate route the senate rules better be observed and they are not in this case.

[Lagmonster]

This will surprise some, because it's obvious I dislike the guy's attitude. But that just gets on my tits personally and I can't in good conscience vote against him, because I believe that he can contribute, even if his tendency to criticize ideas rather than offer them tends to get in the way.

I say let Stark decide whether he wants to man up to the complaints against him and grow or shrink, or else not care and give up his Senate seat. With the caveat that if he stays, he should be aware that if he says things like "If this is how things are done, I don't want to be a Senator anymore" he'll be held to them.

[Surlethe]

Even if we want to hold Stark to "If X, I don't want to be a Senator anymore", I would hope that X - "if the moderators set invisible standards and decide when discussion is worthless", or "Senate is totally useless, the mods do what they want", from the 'evidence' presented in the vote thread - isn't the case. Two points from those quotes, then. First, Stark is pretty clearly saying that if the administration is simply going to ignore the Senate's advice and feedback and set standards without any consultation or transparency, then he doesn't want to be a member of the Senate any more, which is fine (and I would sympathize with any Senator who felt that way) - but since when has our policy been to ignore the Senate entirely? We just cracked down on summary bannings (i.e., no more of them) and ended the HoC to get the Senate back on track advising the staff; if anything, Stark's comments ought to be interpreted as criticism of the (assumed) manner in which the Senate has not been advising and the staff has not been listening, not that he wants out. Second, you've got to be brainless to interpret "If X then I want to leave" as "I want to leave" without having solid evidence of X; acting as though the two are the same is a tacit admission that X is true, which, in tihs case, is precisely what we do not want!

Finally, even if the points above are wrong (and I stick by them), Thanas is correct: setting up a removal thread in the Senate with no discussion basically shits all over the whole point of the Senate. I'd like to hear Stark's take on this criticism, but I'd not be surprised if this thread just confirmed the conditions he laid down for his own removal and he's decided not to participate just because of it.

[Tiriol]

The way I see it, Stark has already made known his desire not to part of the Senate should certain criteria arise (here in a locked Senate thread) and he is also constantly making it very certain that he considers the Senate to be useless and/or stupid. Why should he, then, to continue being a Senator, if he deems the Senate an useless body?

I've also always been under the impression that the Senators are supposed to be model posters or at least posters who follow the forum's standards. Stark litters his posts with such delightful remarks and such enlightened attitude that Darth Wong himself has noted it (as evidenced here and here, both from the defunct House of Commons). This attitude infests many of his posts and the various "hilarious" memes ("LOL nerd fatty WHO KNEW?!!!11" or something similar) he employs sometimes not as even PART of the argument, but as the argument itself, are not that becoming of a Senator. I am not wishing for him to be removed from the SDNet itself, but rather from the Senate, since in my humble opinion there is enough evidence that his posting no longer merits the participation in the Senate.

The rules don't state, by the way, that a Senator should make a public motion to expel someone if there are at least two Senators (one who makes the motion and one who seconds it) who agree on it. Presumably they can inform the Chancellor of their intentions who can jump-start to the vote itself. That's what I got from reading Rule 2 C II a.

[Thanas]

Surlethe, Stark sent me a PM saying the same thing you did, but he did not give me permission to post it. And as he has been banned from the forum pending the conclusion of the removal vote, he can't defend himself anyway.

And he sent it before Surlethe made the comment and I got the records to prove it, so anyone who wants to go down the "he is just echoing Surlethe" route can go take a long hike of a short cliff.

[Thanas]

The way I see it, Stark has already made known his desire not to part of the Senate should certain criteria arise (here in a locked Senate thread) and he is also constantly making it very certain that he considers the Senate to be useless and/or stupid. Why should he, then, to continue being a Senator, if he deems the Senate an useless body?

I've also always been under the impression that the Senators are supposed to be model posters or at least posters who follow the forum's standards. Stark litters his posts with such delightful remarks and such enlightened attitude that Darth Wong himself has noted it (as evidenced here and here, both from the defunct House of Commons). This attitude infests many of his posts and the various "hilarious" memes ("LOL nerd fatty WHO KNEW?!!!11" or something similar) he employs sometimes not as even PART of the argument, but as the argument itself, are not that becoming of a Senator. I am not wishing for him to be removed from the SDNet itself, but rather from the Senate, since in my humble opinion there is enough evidence that his posting no longer merits the participation in the Senate.

Another opinion that should have been stated in a discussion thread instead of voting first.

The rules don't state, by the way, that a Senator should make a public motion to expel someone if there are at least two Senators (one who makes the motion and one who seconds it) who agree on it. Presumably they can inform the Chancellor of their intentions who can jump-start to the vote itself. That's what I got from reading Rule 2 C II a.

Quit armchair lawyering, I am a real one and I am not impressed. It has been long standard procedure that votes are discussed before there even is the motion made to have a vote, not a vote being posted first and then no discussion on it. Otherwise we would be using a harsher procedure than we use on ban votes on the removal of senators.

[Beowulf]

LOL, fatty nerds haet strak.

(tl;dr: I don't think Stark should have been voted in in the first place.)

[Frank Hipper]

Thanas raises a point here. CmdrWilkens and Mr Bean, I ask that you respond to this.

Agreed.

[Coyote]

Even if we want to hold Stark to "If X, I don't want to be a Senator anymore", I would hope that X - "if the moderators set invisible standards and decide when discussion is worthless", or "Senate is totally useless, the mods do what they want", from the 'evidence' presented in the vote thread - isn't the case. Two points from those quotes, then. First, Stark is pretty clearly saying that if the administration is simply going to ignore the Senate's advice and feedback and set standards without any consultation or transparency, then he doesn't want to be a member of the Senate any more, which is fine (and I would sympathize with any Senator who felt that way) - but since when has our policy been to ignore the Senate entirely? We just cracked down on summary bannings (i.e., no more of them) and ended the HoC to get the Senate back on track advising the staff; if anything, Stark's comments ought to be interpreted as criticism of the (assumed) manner in which the Senate has not been advising and the staff has not been listening, not that he wants out. Second, you've got to be brainless to interpret "If X then I want to leave" as "I want to leave" without having solid evidence of X; acting as though the two are the same is a tacit admission that X is true, which, in tihs case, is precisely what we do not want!

But the Senate is an advisory body, not a ruling one, and when the sun sets at the end of the day this is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Did Stark not know this when he got in? Is this like going to a foreign country and then complaining about how everything is different?

His "participation" has been little beyond "LOL SRS BZNZ". He made demands about how the Senate should be run and threatened to vacate if those demands weren't met-- a good way to be shown the door. There are no invisible rules involved when you get invited to participate and spend your time just throwing things and making demands. By saying "change this or I'm out" he actually set the parameters for his own removal, not the other way around.