[Member] Stark removal vote comments

[Darth Wong]

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.

Don't blame Wilkie. I think it was my fault for not communicating correctly. Mr Bean wanted to simply remove Stark from the Senate. I told him it should go to a vote instead. That was apparently interpreted as authorization to go straight to a vote.

[Thanas]

Alright. My apologies to Wilkens.

I still think we should have had a discussion first, so the motion stands (without the blaming it on Wilkens part). My apologies for that, again.

[Stuart]

Procedural issues aside, I feel seriously uncomfortable about this motion from a moral point of view. It sits ill with me that Stark wasn't given a chance to defend himself or his comments. Whether he could mount an effective defense is another matter of course but he should have been allowed the chance. I'm also very uneasy about expelling people because they say things other people don't like. That's not a good precedent.

Having said all that, the "do this or I'm out" line is employmentally suicidal; any competent management given that ultimatum will reply "sorry to see you go, your paycheck to date and papers will be in the post." My guess is that Stark's attitude and general behavior were as important to this decision as the minutia of what he actually said. It's notable that there is no comparable motion applied to Hotfoot who said much the same things but did so in a reasonable, thoughtful and considered way then discussed the points raised in opposition in a like manner.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, the fact that this vote was handled very poorly should not be interpreted as proof that the proposal itself was completely without merit. Those are separate issues.

[Thanas]

So what, we are just going to go ahead with the vote nevertheless because the proposal might have some merit, without giving him any chance to defend himself against whatever is levelled against him?

That is not fair, neither to Stark nor to the members deciding it.

Furthermore, if we go down that route, procedure does not matter at all anymore if the claim has some merit...which is to be decided by the vote bypassing the procedure.

[Dalton]

I am of the opinion that the vote should be declared invalid until after further deliberations and discussions are held. The proposal is not without merit, but proper procedure has not been followed.

[Darth Wong]

So what, we are just going to go ahead with the vote nevertheless because the proposal might have some merit, without giving him any chance to defend himself against whatever is levelled against him?

When did I say anything remotely like that? I'm just pointing out that the merits of the proposal are not invalidated by the fact that we went about it the wrong way. By all means, go through proper procedure first.

That is not fair, neither to Stark nor to the members deciding it.

Furthermore, if we go down that route, procedure does not matter at all anymore if the claim has some merit...which is to be decided by the vote bypassing the procedure.

So I'm not allowed to express an opinion on this idea at all, for fear that it will be interpreted as an attempt to short-circuit the process? If I wanted to short-circuit this process, I wouldn't be offering my opinion here. I would just do it.

[Thanas]

My apologies, I misread your statement as voicing support for the vote as it is.

[Coyote]

Well, we're discussing it now, so let's unban him (I have to admit that was an unusual turn of events) and invite him to speak. The vote can be nullified in the meantime if there's a chance he'll bring something up that may alter the perspective.

[Simplicius]

If that's a motion, I'll second.

[Imperial Overlord]

The Duchess of Zeon says things that are at least twice as inflammatory and extreme as anything Stark has ever said and no one has disputed her right to be in the Senate. Stark is doing his job as a senator to criticize the direction that the Senate and the Administration are going in when he believes that it is going in the wrong direction.

I second (or third, depending on Simplicius's intent) Thanas's motion.

[NecronLord]

I find this an ambiguous topic. The only thing that keeps me from truly despising Stark is the fact that I only have to deal with him in a form where I can happily skim or skip his words. I would happily support removing Stark from the Senate simply to enforce a standard of membership, and voted against his initial application. While I support the efforts to reform and renew the Senate, and would happily eject him simply on the worthless spam-like quality of much of his meme-littered posting, I find myself persuaded by Thanas' argument. Darth Wong is however, correct; Similarly Imperial Overlord raises an excellent point; my issue personally with Stark is not the contempt he holds the Senate in - he has grounds for doing so, especially given the rampancy of the House of Commons since it has existed - but my own offense at the poor quality of his posts (primarily in OSF).

In summary, this is no way to run the house.

I hereby give my support to Thanas' motion for dismissal of this vote and immediate reinstatement of Stark's posting rights in this forum.

Of course, I would prefer Stark using that opportunity to account for his contemptuous attitude before I or some other formally propose his removal on the grounds that he has all-but indicated a wish to leave in the posts Bean mentioned. He has all but shat on our metaphorical senate upholstery in many posts, after all. I for one would be prepared to vote for his remaining in the Senate if he were to make some effort in a reasonable timeframe (say a week or two) to respond to his critics in a cogent way. Which is to say, in posts not consisting entirely of ‘LOL’ and ‘SERUS BIZNIS’ or some other textual garbage.

[Darth Wong]

The Duchess of Zeon says things that are at least twice as inflammatory and extreme as anything Stark has ever said and no one has disputed her right to be in the Senate.

Actually, DOZ realized herself that she was getting out of line and so she asked me to remove her from the Senate. She is no longer a Senate member even though there was no vote, and that's why: she asked for her own removal. I did it for her quietly, but if she's going to become a subject of dispute, then I'm afraid I must say it publicly, lest people start making up their own theories.

For whatever reason, people have been very reluctant to remove Senate members, even when they were flagrantly trolling. DOZ simplified the situation by recognizing her own misbehaviour and asking to be removed.

Stark is doing his job as a senator to criticize the direction that the Senate and the Administration are going in when he believes that it is going in the wrong direction.

I second (or third, depending on Simplicius's intent) Thanas's motion.

It would have been nice if Stark would actually do so properly, with reasoned arguments in the Senate, instead of making passive/aggressive digs at people all over the place. Nevertheless, I've already agreed that this was handled wrongly.

PS. I don't see Stark's name in the banlist right now anyway.

[fgalkin]

Stark no longer wishes to be part of the Senate. A motion has been made and seconded that he be removed from the Senate. His access has been suspended pending the outcome of this vote. A separate comment thread will be opened so for once I AM going to enforce the no chatter rule. This includes "Voted" posts. If you have comments please go here.

I checked, and Stark is no longer listed as a member of the Senators usergroup. I think he has a good excuse for not defending himself in the Senate.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[AdmiralKanos]

I checked, and Stark is no longer listed as a member of the Senators usergroup.

Oh, I see what happened. Stark was never banned; he was just dropped from the group for the vote. That's why his name didn't show up in the banlist. I got confused because everyone was acting as if he'd been banned. Anyway, I reinstated him.

[Alyeska]

Senate process aside. I vote for the removal of Stark. As others have noted, Stark was voted in and it seems condescending that they now vote him out. I voted against Stark's very entry into the Senate for the same reason I am voting for the removal of Stark. I do not consider him a good candidate as clearly demonstrated by his behavior and actions against the senate repeatedly. He was elected because the Senate felt obligated to vote for someone on the list that the HOC selected. Rather then simply vote against him, he was voted in out of apathy in my opinion.

[Tiriol]

If anything, I think I must bear the brunt of blame here: I had become fed up with Stark's attitude and posts and the recent half-ultimatum about leaving the Senate (I'm not calling it an actual ultimatum, although it was very close to it) and inquired both Wilkens and Mr Bean about the possibility of removing him from the Senate by bringing the case before the Senate itself. Now, I can't be sure did Wilkens and Mr Bean or did they not act because of my inquiries, but certainly I was (at least probably) a contributing factor.

All in all, though, Thanas's criticism about the handling of the case is valid and I wouldn't be adverse of reversing the vote in order to start an actual discussion about removing Stark (or me, for that matter, since I had a hand in this whole ruckus). But that, I think, is up to the Chancellor.

For whatever reason, people have been very reluctant to remove Senate members, even when they were flagrantly trolling. DOZ simplified the situation by recognizing her own misbehaviour and asking to be removed.

I think it is because people don't like to single out others here. Some have known each other for a long time, long before there was any Senate; and some may have other reasons (for example: not wanting to become an open target for everyone who likes the Senator in question). And it may feel like a personal attack to suggest that someone is not up to the Senate standards.

[Stark]

Having said all that, the "do this or I'm out" line is employmentally suicidal; any competent management given that ultimatum will reply "sorry to see you go, your paycheck to date and papers will be in the post."

My intention was never any kind of 'ultimatum'; the position in the Senate is purely an advisory one. It simply appeared at the time that the mods had declared the discussion useless and moved to action directly. In this situation, there didn't seem much point holding an advisory position. It was later revealed that this was certainly not the case, and Mike's decisions regarding this forum are always the final say.

My guess is that Stark's attitude and general behavior were as important to this decision as the minutia of what he actually said. It's notable that there is no comparable motion applied to Hotfoot who said much the same things but did so in a reasonable, thoughtful and considered way then discussed the points raised in opposition in a like manner.

While this is possibly the case, the final authority on the board rests with Mike, and this is something I've always supported. Whatever the circumstances yesterday, I was wrong about what happened.

[CmdrWilkens]

So a couple things:

The Chancellor is granted a pretty wide berth of leeway in interpreting when a matter can come to a vote. The way this developed, as DW mentioned, there was a very strong push to have Stark summarily removed and I stated that I would rather have a vote instead at which point we find ourselves at the junction of last night.

The reason Stark was removed from the list was to disable voting to retain himself. I don't care if folks think that is some sort of lack of faith on my part but I'd prefer not to place a person in a situation where they have all the ability to engage in an anonymous conflict of interest.

So all that said with the board software one can, near as I can tell, change their vote up until the end of the poll which is still 6 days away. Votes do not close unless the 7 days have expired. Now if folks think this merits additional discussion I am open to extending the voting period but holding a complete re-vote is not needed because, again, you can change your vote all the way up until the poll closes. In particular because a removal vote requires a 60% super-majority so the threshold is high enough that discussion and the given time frame should be sufficient in this case.

[Thanas]

My motion still stands and has been seconded or thirded. I remind the chair of that.

[CmdrWilkens]

Since the motion was to invalidate the actions of the chair before I could respond I'd like a second at this point. If someone else does wish to second the motion at this point we will proceed to a vote to invalidate during which time voting on the original motion will be suspended.

[Thanas]

Ah, so blatant procedural misuse can be instantly healed as long as the members are in agreement. Good to know.

[LadyTevar]

Since the motion was to invalidate the actions of the chair before I could respond I'd like a second at this point. If someone else does wish to second the motion at this point we will proceed to a vote to invalidate during which time voting on the original motion will be suspended.

I second Thanas' motion to invalidate the Vote to Remove Stark.

As Admiral Kane stated, there was no reason for this step to be taken at this time.

[LadyTevar]

PS: I have locked the Vote Thread for the time being

[CmdrWilkens]

Motion seconded, we will proceed with a vote to void the initial vote.