[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 12:04pm

Proposal: Expel Stark (aka STRAK) from the Senate.

The salient points are:

1) Rather than helping quell recent soap operas on the board, he has actively aided and stoked them. Instead of helping to manage the forum, he's created many of the problems/has been a problem that needed to be managed.

2) He represents utterly shitty debating and discussion practices. His debating method is 95% bullshit/bluster and perhaps 5% real arguments (on a really good day). When someone challenges his assertations, Stark simply repeats his assertations ever louder and more forcefully with smarmy language thrown in for good measure.

3) His massively annoying passive/aggressive posting style combined with his status as a Senator reflects poorly on the board; e.g. that we endorse this kind of asshattery. This would be marginally acceptable (and not as outright annoying) if he actually logically thought out his rationales for insults, rather than simply using the fact that it amuses him as a rationale for an argument about anything.

Let the discussion begin.

Post by **Coyote** » 2009-11-01 12:12pm

For the record, these were some of the points brought up:

Stark wrote: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?

Stark wrote:
J wrote: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.

J wrote: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.

Stark wrote: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.

Stark wrote: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.

Stark wrote: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!

Post by **fgalkin** » 2009-11-01 12:13pm

Point 2 is not as relevant, since the Senate is not SDN's Debate Winners' Club, and it's possible to get in for people who are not great debaters but contribute in other areas.

Point 1, however, is the damning one. Stark HAS been a problem, up until Mike yelled at him, at which point he promptly made an aboutface and quieted down. I am pretty sure, he will return to his own self, as soon as he thinks Mike hast stopped looking at him.

I second Shep's motion to expel Stark.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 12:16pm

fgalkin wrote:Point 2 is not as relevant, since the Senate is not SDN's Debate Winners' Club, and it's possible to get in for people who are not great debaters but contribute in other areas.

I admit I am not a very good debater on general issues; however, in areas where I know my stuff, I can put together an excellent debate; e.g. the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, some background, tactics etc from books I have cribbed notes from.

Stark seems habitually incapable of this; preferring instead scorn, sarcasm, and passive/aggressive smarmy bullshit

"LOL FATTYNERDS".

Post by **Coyote** » 2009-11-01 12:18pm

There were more points brought up as well, here.

Repeated:

A complaint has been brought against Stark under rule 2.C.II.a

Per threads here
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2#p3185402

Stark wrote:Is anyone going to step forward and take responsibility, or do we just stick with the current 'Senate totally useless, mods do what they want without transparency'? Because if the standard is 'Bean thinks it's good enough', I want nothing more to do with this sham Senate.

And here
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3185420

Stark wrote:Are you admitting you just decided to do this? I have no interest in playing shadowboxing with you on unspoken rules. If Mike wants to tool around with the board that's fine, but if the Senate is about discussion until you decide it's not, I don't want to be a Senator anymore.

And what's this 'the forum' business? I just clearly stated that if this is the situation (ie you set invisible standards and decide when discussion is worthless) I don't want to be a Senator. Are you trying to bait me into getting banned? How fascinating.

Stark no longer wishes to be part of the Senate. A motion has been made and seconded that he be removed from the Senate.

I agree; and while he has put on a "reasonable guy" mask for the last week or so, it is certainly an act that will fade in time, and input will again return to "hilarious" one liners about "SRS BZNZ" and so on once it is felt that momentum was lost.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2009-11-01 12:21pm

I vehemently oppose it.

Rather than helping quell recent soap operas on the board, he has actively aided and stoked them.

Says the man who immediately ran off to gloat - gloat! over something so trivial, and something he played no part in! - in Testing.

His debating method is 95% bullshit/bluster and perhaps 5% real arguments (on a really good day).

Nice numbers, even if they smell a bit funny. Yes, he has an abrasive posting style. I thought that was what the board was all about? Coating opinions and points - and you implicitly admit you have them by railing against them - in tough language is the one thing that keeps popping up as the defining characteristic of SDN.

3) His massively annoying passive/aggressive posting style combined with his status as a Senator reflects poorly on the board

No: his criticism of the board rubs you the wrong way, and you want him gone. If posting standards are somehow related to Senate membership, I think think of more than a few people who'd be out the door faster than he'd be.

This is all just a rehash of the stealth ban Bean tried to push through in the wake of the board reshuffle, and it's just as pathetic as that attempt was.

Stark no longer wishes to be part of the Senate. A motion has been made and seconded that he be removed from the Senate.

A motion that was struck down for the vindictive nonsense it was. Also note that he never expressed a desire to leave the Senate, he only outlined the conditions which would force him to resign.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 12:25pm

Bounty wrote:Says the man who immediately ran off to gloat - gloat! over something so trivial, and something he played no part in! - in Testing.

At the time, I was not a senator/moderator; and was allowed to gloat over the final liquidation of Testingstan and the spammy 4chan bullshit it implied. In effect, I was saying what the Moderators were thinking at the time, but could not publically say due to propriety issues.

Now that I am a moderator, I am restricted by rules of propriety over public gloating.

Nice numbers, even if they smell a bit funny. Yes, he has an abrasive posting style. I thought that was what the board was all about? Coating opinions and points

Except you're expected to back up your opinions instead of repeating them in a louder tone of voice with ten times the smarminess.

Screaming as loudly as you can does not convince people of your arguments' legimitacy in real life, why should it on this board?

No: his criticism of the board rubs you the wrong way, and you want him gone.

He openly mocks much of the board membership every chance he gets; he has admitted that he does not want to be in the senate; etc etc.

So we're just fulfilling his desires.

Post by **Coyote** » 2009-11-01 12:31pm

Bounty wrote:
Rather than helping quell recent soap operas on the board, he has actively aided and stoked them.
Says the man who immediately ran off to gloat - gloat! over something so trivial, and something he played no part in! - in Testing.

So you don't like the messenger; does that invalidate the complaints?

His debating method is 95% bullshit/bluster and perhaps 5% real arguments (on a really good day).
Nice numbers, even if they smell a bit funny. Yes, he has an abrasive posting style. I thought that was what the board was all about? Coating opinions and points - and you implicitly admit you have them by railing against them - in tough language is the one thing that keeps popping up as the defining characteristic of SDN.

An "abrasive" posting style? That's only half of it. He has an "abrasive" and "largely content-free" posting style revolving around "LOL FATTYNERDS SRS BZNZ --WHO KNEW?" and bitching about how "worthless" the Senate is and how he hates it. If he wants to be a court jester, fine, he's suited to that, but there doesn't seem to be a position available at this time.

3) His massively annoying passive/aggressive posting style combined with his status as a Senator reflects poorly on the board
No: his criticism of the board rubs you the wrong way, and you want him gone. If posting standards are somehow related to Senate membership, I think think of more than a few people who'd be out the door faster than he'd be.

No, his criticisms and attempts at undermining run counter to this:

If You Hate The Board, Leave. Self-explanatory. There is no good reason why someone who thinks the board is a terrible place should stay and post about how much he hates it. If you think it's that bad, just leave instead of whining about it. That also goes for whining about "prevailing attitudes", "board culture", etc. If you think the majority of us are wrong about some topical issue, make some good arguments to show why we're wrong. Don't just whine that few of us agree with you.

This is all just a rehash of the stealth ban Bean tried to push through in the wake of the board reshuffle, and it's just as pathetic as that attempt was.

You mean when Darth Wong said "bring it to a vote if you think it is worthy" and it was done, and then the vote was rescinded once the procedural error was pointed out about a lack of discussion? Remember, because the procedure was handled wrong doesn't negate the worth of the topic at hand.

Stark no longer wishes to be part of the Senate. A motion has been made and seconded that he be removed from the Senate.
A motion that was struck down for the vindictive nonsense it was. Also note that he never expressed a desire to leave the Senate, he only outlined the conditions which would force him to resign.

Vindictive nonsense? Again-- procedure was mishandled, but the content is still valid. The motion itself was not struck down; only the vote.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2009-11-01 12:35pm

Bounty wrote:

Nice numbers, even if they smell a bit funny. Yes, he has an abrasive posting style. I thought that was what the board was all about? Coating opinions and points - and you implicitly admit you have them by railing against them - in tough language is the one thing that keeps popping up as the defining characteristic of SDN.

One is supposed to use tough language, as long as the posts are properly supported. Stark does that in lieu of actual arguments. And doing that for subjective opinions? That's just plain retarded.

3) His massively annoying passive/aggressive posting style combined with his status as a Senator reflects poorly on the board
No: his criticism of the board rubs you the wrong way, and you want him gone. If posting standards are somehow related to Senate membership, I think think of more than a few people who'd be out the door faster than he'd be.

If we were banning dissent, it'd be Hotfoot up against the wall, not Stark. Stark's "criticism" never went beyond "hur hur senate sux! Let's create more DRAMA! Lolfattynerdz!." It's annoying, but easily ignored.

Stark is not a "dissident," he's a bored guy out to create drama for lulz. That is why we are removing him from the Senate.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalking

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2009-11-01 12:42pm

An abrasive writing style is not generally a valid complaint in this community. It is not exactly encouraged or required, but nor is it discouraged or prohibited. Let us not be so worried about style that we lose sight of substance.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 12:45pm

There is also Rule #4 regarding User Profiles:

If You Want To Leave, Just Leave. If you keep threatening or promising to leave, we'll eventually get tired of the melodrama and just ban you. If you ask us to ban you or dare us to ban you, we will. If you demand that we erase all your posts, we will laugh at you.

This policy has been enacted many times; most recently (IIRC) with Wayne Poe.

I would imagine Stark threatening to leave the senate et al is grounds for an automatic expulsion under Board Rule #4 for profiles. But since we have to do things all legal like....

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2009-11-01 12:48pm

MKSheppard wrote:There is also Rule #4 regarding User Profiles:

If You Want To Leave, Just Leave. If you keep threatening or promising to leave, we'll eventually get tired of the melodrama and just ban you. If you ask us to ban you or dare us to ban you, we will. If you demand that we erase all your posts, we will laugh at you.
This policy has been enacted many times; most recently (IIRC) with Wayne Poe.

I would imagine Stark threatening to leave the senate et al is grounds for an automatic expulsion under Board Rule #4 for profiles. But since we have to do things all legal like....

Bullshit. he never threatened to leave, he said he wouldn't want to be part of the Senate if it was just Bean being a prick, rather than Wong stating the law. Or are you too dense to understand a conditional sentence? Here's a clue: if the conditions outlined in the statement aren't met, the statement is invalid.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 12:52pm

Bounty wrote:Bullshit. he never threatened to leave, he said he wouldn't want to be part of the Senate if it was just Bean being a prick, rather than Wong stating the law.

Making conditional threats is IIRC also covered under Profile #4.

For example, I could threaten to leave the board unless, for example Elfdart was banned. Such a statement would get me banned superquick, and rightfully so.

Stark basically said "I'm gonna leave the senate unless condition x is met."

So we should oblige his desires.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2009-11-01 12:59pm

He said he was leaving if Wong wasn't calling the shots any more because it looked at the time like Bean was on a power trip. This turned out to be untrue, so he piped down and didn't leave. Tell me precisely where the problem is here.

He never said he'd leave until his pet peeve was met, he'd leave if there was a fundamental change in board policy he disagreed with - something which we are all entitled to mention (by the way, if this ever becomes a My Little Pony fan board, I leave). No amount of cherry-picking is going to change this fact.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 01:10pm

A forum member informed me of this thread:

Original Stark Voting Thread

In it, you can see how not a single reason was posted as to WHY he should be a Senator other than that he was a warm body and was nominated.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 01:11pm

Bounty wrote:He said he was leaving if Wong wasn't calling the shots any more because it looked at the time like Bean was on a power trip.

How can Mike Wong not call the shots? This forum runs on a private server in his basement.

Stark made a conditional threat, we should honor his conditional threat, as deterrence against other conditional threats likely to be made in the future.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2009-11-01 01:12pm

That's the vote thread. Wrong link?

we should honor his conditional threat

Honour it by... letting him stay?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 01:14pm

Bounty wrote:Honour it by... letting him stay?

By expelling him from a body that he no longer wishes to be a member of.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 01:14pm

Bounty wrote:That's the vote thread. Wrong link?

Look, I just repost what members send me via PM, okay?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2009-11-01 01:17pm

By expelling him from a body that he no longer wishes to be a member of.

Jesus.

Stark's so-called 'threat' wrote:I just clearly stated that if this is the situation (ie you set invisible standards and decide when discussion is worthless) I don't want to be a Senator. Are you trying to bait me into getting banned? How fascinating.

If Bean comes in here now and admits to setting invisible standards and having the final say about discussions being worthless, Wong be damned, Stark will leave the Senate. Until that time, common sense and the English language disagree with you.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 01:21pm

Bounty wrote:Jesus.

Damn Straight. You don't joke about certain things. This is one of them.

Post by **Coyote** » 2009-11-01 01:25pm

He seems to have a fundamental disagreement about having the Senate involved in board policy at all; the Senate which, I'll remind you, was created by DW as an advisory body and is seen as useful and helpful in not only Mike himself but the Admins all the way down to the minimods. When there was talk about "LOL BAN T3H SENATE" Mike intervened and let it be known that the Senate was supported by him-- to the extent of nuking the HoC.

What's really funny about it at all is that Stark is the one that wants to "steer" the Senate towards all these "reforms" (which few see the merit of), and when we don't go along with it than he has a Bill the Cat style spaz attack about "LOL BAN T3H SENATE". So the drama here is his own creation. He keeps lighting fires, and when we try to put the fires out he says we're being "drama queens" and when we try to ignore the fires and not play into his game then it's "LOL ineffective! BAN!"

Bear something in mind, Bounty: Mike Wong made the staff, made the Senate, and relies on them to help run the board. Mike Wong appointed all these people to their positions. He certainly has the authority and the balls to remove them at any time if he thinks they are usurping "power", running amuck, or being dicks. To say that the Admins or Staff are running around doing things that Mike Wong doesn't want or approve of is ridiculous.

If Stark didn't like what Bean was doing, he should have borne in mind two very important things:
1- Bean is Mike's representative. Attacking Bean is attacking Mike's policy that Bean is enforcing.
2- If there is a legitimate complaint about what Bean is doing, or a rule Mike made, there are channels to go through. Revolution, shit-stirring, and dissent are not among those channels.

Stark fought against Bean, but then he snapped into line when Mike Wong directly called him out. That is not the way of things: Mike has Admins, Staff, Senate etc. precisely so he doesn't have to run around and personally smack the hands of miscreants.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2009-11-01 01:32pm

Stark fought against Bean, but then he snapped into line when Mike Wong directly called him out.

Then why can't that be the end of the matter? Like even Shep admits, Stark is behaving. He made his thoughts known, backed down when the issues he brought up were addressed, and has been quiet since.

I'm just not seeing a coherent argument to get him kicked out of the Senate. All Shep has brought forward boils down to "I don't like his style" and a very flimsy rules violation that doesn't stand up to five seconds of rational scrutiny. You've made a much better argument by addressing his general demeanour, which I think would merit discussion (insofar as its suitability to address grievances), but on its own it does not make a case for dismissal.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2009-11-01 01:35pm

Bounty wrote:Then why can't that be the end of the matter? Like even Shep admits, Stark is behaving.

Only after he got his pee pee smacked hard when Mike went all Colonel Kilgore on Testingstan.

He has shown himself to be incapable of discharging the duties and responsibilities accorded to him as a member of the Senate in a conscitentious manner, instead preferring to start fires which the moderatoral staff has to put out.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2009-11-01 01:44pm

I think that right now emotions are running too high to make this a fair and impartial to Stark.

I move for a Tabling of this discussion, to be taken up in One Month (Dec 1st).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate