[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

[Hotfoot]

I have better things to do tonight, like work on cleaning up my scans at the Archives II of various never built aircraft projects than to skim Stark's recent posting history.

Yes, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good showtrial, right?

Ha.

You could stop the post there for all the useful content you have provided past this point. You're the one currently spearheading the movement to get him removed from the Senate, so why don't you, you know, get off your lazy ass and do the research for the charges you're leveling against him instead of choking the thread with useless rhetoric? So far the only evidence you've provided has HURT your case, and I'm getting rather tired of he said/she said rehashes of the events. The only legitimate point you've made is that he's made some spammy snarky posts, but even that is lost in the quagmire of other senators and mods doing similar acts but not facing penalties for it.

By the by, do try to keep your internet trends straight. 4Chan isn't a synonym for every internet phrase you don't like. There are plenty from here that are even more annoying in my mind (Concession Accepted, Hatfucker, etc.).

I know of one example which was fairly recent because I was involved in that. But I'm still not sure of the rules about using examples that you were personally involved in, and the ethics of that.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of having to provide evidence to your claims. You're in the Senate now, act like it.

As far as the "Removal for Cause", there's no cause that's been stated other than "Some of Stark's posts were mean/spammy and I think that discounts the positive contributions he's made to the board even though I don't want to bother looking it up because it's a gut feeling." So far two mods have brought this matter to the Senate, and Shep, your statements imply that there's even more mods with axes to grind. If this is an attempt at transparency, then why not have a solid case together before moving forward? This is what amazes me. With all the people that don't like Stark or want him removed, you would have thought that by now, someone would have done the legwork of collecting the threads he's ruined, citing specific, damning examples. Instead, there's been a lot of whining about feelings and impressions. It would frankly look better if there were some honesty here, there are people that don't like Stark and think that he's detrimental to the board. If this is a conclusion supported by the mods and supermods and Mike as admin, then just get rid of him and forget this farce. If this is seriously supposed to be a thing, it's easier to deal with concrete examples of wrongdoing than vague allegations.

In short, stop wasting everyone's time and either do what you want to do or establish a proper discussion. I grow tired of this pointless bickering.

[Steve]

I don't think that such a thing quite works in parliamentary process Shep.

That said, I feel it better if we just add "table" to a vote on the motion. This way those don't want this to happen today can vote for the tabling.

Alternatively, we'd have to vote on whether to table the motion first and then, if tabling fails, on whether to expel.

And I see Wilkens posted before me....

[LadyTevar]

We have already moved to annul however there was no date specified for which we should table until. Lacking specifity the vote was held only to annul the vote with notice given that:

Note this vote does not preclude the matter being reconsidered at a later time. If you wish to table the matter please vote to void the initial poll.

So we did vote to table the matter but there was no date specified.

What page was that decided, and was there an actual Vote Poll, or just a few mentions in the discussion thread? I know that in my original motion, I clearly stated Table until Dec 1

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).

IF the motion was accepted, shouldn't there have been a Poll put up so Senators could vote?

[Dalton]

I don't think that such a thing quite works in parliamentary process Shep.

That said, I feel it better if we just add "table" to a vote on the motion. This way those don't want this to happen today can vote for the tabling.

Alternatively, we'd have to vote on whether to table the motion first and then, if tabling fails, on whether to expel.

And I see Wilkens posted before me....

1. The addition of a "Table" option on the vote was already suggested by myself earlier in this thread.

2. Regarding the motion to table, I feel that Tevar is right. The vote to void the removal vote does not automatically constitute a tabling of the matter, in my opinion. I do believe that there should be a vote to table the removal vote until December 1st.

3. Hotfoot is right, in that I do want to see some clear, hard evidence of Stark's misconduct. I'm sure that Mike put the fear of...well, Mike into him, but I am still waiting to see something more solid than subjectivity. Quite frankly, if there are multiple members calling the evidence into question, there should be some better evidence, yes? Please do so.

4. I don't think it was necessary to bring up specific members of this body as comparisons to Stark. It's not at all fair to Bear, since he's not on trial here. While I am well aware of the point Hotfoot was trying to make, I will ask that these discussions be kept to the persons involved.

5. I will not be posting any vote threads. I leave it to my fellow Admins and to Mike to do so at their discretion, or to Wilkens when he returns.

[Hotfoot]

4. I don't think it was necessary to bring up specific members of this body as comparisons to Stark. It's not at all fair to Bear, since he's not on trial here. While I am well aware of the point Hotfoot was trying to make, I will ask that these discussions be kept to the persons involved.

Fair enough, I'll keep my crosshairs a bit more focused in future posts.

[Coyote]

I already stated that "yes", "no", "table until later" and "abstain" are the best options. Originally, the Stark discussion was going to be set aside until later so that evidence could be gathered; it was only after this was posted that I went ahead and ran with what was available.

Because I am obviously involved in this, I will not be the one to begin a vote on it. So unless someone else begins, we'll still be here sitting in the gasoline with the matches in 48 hours.

[CmdrWilkens]

Okay so a couple things because I've been prompted to go back and look through things here is how we go:

Lady Tevar posted a motion to table until December 1st at 1:44 pm on November 1st.

Hipper made a motion to proceed to a vote at 2:08 pm on the 1st.

Tiriol seconds Hipper's motion at 2:09 pm on the 1st.

Steve seconds Tevar's motion to table at 5:03 am on the 2nd.


During that time period I made exactly [url=http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3195958]one post at 11:17pm on the 1st:

The motion has been seconded however we clearly do not have unanimous consent. The vote will not be posted until after I get off work on Monday.

This means that I had already seen the motion (Hipper) and second (Tiriol) to proceed to a vote and stated that we would vote no earlier than this evening. I have since, given the volume of discussion and the challenge to Mark to provide evidence behind his claim, decided to post no earlier than Wednesday night and may delay further as the discussion warrants. However I currently hold the motion to vote with higher precedence and it will be considered over a vote to table.


Now that being said in terms of adding "table" to the vote options I'm not going to do it for a couple reasons:
- We don't need to table because there is no rule with statute of limitations OR for automatic recurring votes (aside from my tenure and Coyote's tenure). In other words if the motion is voted down it can be discussed again at any future time provided a [Discussion] thread is posted.
- It creates sufficient confusion (not a lot, just sufficient) in vote choices that I feel some members might be inclined to vote abstain rather than chose between "No" or "Table" which in turn could affect the final vote percentages.

[Coyote]

Well, I have to wait for you, Wilkens. After all, if you're gone, I become Whip and I have to recuse myself from voting! Obviously, that just won't do from my p.o.v.!

[MKSheppard]

Yes, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good showtrial, right?

Example

The original is 13,000 x 9,200 pixels wide and takes up 200 MB of space. I need to clean up and fix some of the errors -- this one was fairly easy; I put it under a large document scanner at the National Archives (it was flat enough to do that); and scanned it in one whole shot.

There are other documents which are actually 14 different scans that I have to stitch together into one seamless image. Let's not get into the hundreds of pages of memos or documentation that I scanned in and have to sort regarding the XF-108; much of which was written on cheap paper with cheap typewriter ribbons, requiring a lot of technical voodoo to bring back. Voodoo that takes time.

So EXCUSE me if I don't have the time to troll for STRAK bullshit.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well, I have to wait for you, Wilkens. After all, if you're gone, I become Whip and I have to recuse myself from voting! Obviously, that just won't do from my p.o.v.!

You are the Whip regardless and you don't have to excuse yourself from voting even if I am not present:
Rule 5.A.II.

When the Chancellor is away for a protracted period, his duties shall devolve to the Whip. This does not, however, include restriction to the Chancellor's voting limitation.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yes, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good showtrial, right?

Example

The original is 1300 x 9200 pixels wide and takes up 200 MB of space. I need to clean up and fix some of the errors -- this one was fairly easy; I put it under a large document scanner at the National Archives (it was flat enough to do that); and scanned it in one whole shot.

There are other documents which are actually 14 different scans that I have to stitch together into one seamless image. Let's not get into the hundreds of pages of memos or documentation that I scanned in and have to sort regarding the XF-108; much of which was written on cheap paper with cheap typewriter ribbons, requiring a lot of technical voodoo to bring back. Voodoo that takes time.

So EXCUSE me if I don't have the time to troll for STRAK bullshit.

Excuse me, but what the fuck does this have to do with this discussion at hand?

[CmdrWilkens]

Hotfoot:

The accusation has been made, no need to belabor the point. The onus is on those who wish to expel Stark to provide the evidence.

Mark:

Take the justification out of this forum. I've got a newborn so I really don't care how busy everybody else is. More importantly it detracts from the purpose of this thread.


If you two want to argue the point further take it elsewhere but for the remainder of this thread stick to points either FOR or AGAINST the motion.

[RedImperator]

Stark, as a Senator, poured gasoline on the fire and egged on troublmakers, and not even for any real goal, but simply for kicks. Was this our fault for allowing Stark in the Senate in the first place? Maybe so-- but if allowing Stark in the Senate in the first place was "our mistake", then it is a mistake that is now caught and we need to "clean up". I thought it would be great to take some of the dissenting opinions and hear what they had to say-- give an iconoclast some voice and who knows, maybe they can help bring in interesting new points of view. But instead, he was just the SDN bomb-throwing anarchist. But it can't be said he wasn't given a chance or a platform; it can't be said his "voice was stifled" or some other quixotic BS. He was given a chance to be an influence and he used it to attempt to undermine the institutions Mike put in place to help run the board. That's not "heroic", that's like asking the failed graduate of the Kamikaze Academy to help fly the plane.

I know I'm late to this party, but is anybody going to provide evidence for this, or are we just going to keep being told this without being shown? Because if Stark actually is this terribly hateful and destructive force who's only out to undermine the noble institutions of SDN, it ought to be piss fucking easy for somebody to actually prove it.

Simply asking Mike what was going on, or asking Bean, was just not in the cards? Was there a speech impediment at work or something? If you have an issue with a Senator or Mod, there are channels. Throwing a hissy fit and calling for some sort of 'revolution' isn't among them.

Multiple people asked what was going on all day. They got no answers. You know what they actually did get? This:

Once again, almost a month now. The Senate gave up it's option to take action when it failed to bring anything to a vote and the issue in the eyes of the admin staff got worse. It would be different if there were a few plans that had been put to a vote and defeated. Or better still approved. Instead we have three pages spread out over a three week plus posting period and even then nothing has been voted on, or even seconded to be voted on.

The Senate can have a say when it says something.

As it turns out, this was a lie. This happened on Mike's initiative. Not that anyone believed Bean anyway--Bean might be the only person in the world who can't successfully lie on the Internet--but what it did look like was Bean acted unilaterally and then tossed out some patronizing bullshit justification about it.

You trying to lay this on Stark is complete nonsense, and sadly typical of how this entire farce has been conducted. The mods made a total cock-up of the entire Testing affair by saying nothing about it for hours--despite crystal clear standing orders from Mike not to take anonymous mod actions. For all the sodden knickers around here about "drama", the way the new Testing policy was rolled out was deliberately calculated to cause maximum drama, to the point that Bean, when asked by numerous people what was going on, lied in order to extend the drama.

This, incidentally, is what Stark was reacting to when he said "...then I want no part of this sham Senate". Which leads us to your next point.

It's not that he said the Senate is useless, it's that he said he didn't want to be a part of it anymore, and really I can't recall that he ever really participated much anyway. He stated, openly, he wants to resign, but he won't. Why is that? So he can stay and screech and bitch and undermine things? You don't like the Senate but you work within the system to lessen it's influence.

This is horseshit, and you should damn well know it's horseshit, because I demolished this argument once already in this thread. Stark made a conditional statement, and those conditions were not met. If you're going to keep making this argument, you could at least do the rest of us the courtesy of responding to points others have already made.

At the time, I had no idea this came down from Mike, and neither did anyone else, because the lot of you decided that privately hurf hurfing about the hornet's nest you damn well knew you were going to stir was more important than, you know, actually being good moderators and announcing a major policy change.

Actually, from what I have been able to read so far of past posts; this was not a sudden spur of the moment thing, where the Moderators, led by that evil tyrannical Mr Bean suddenly said "Let's take out the Testingtards!" and started their reign of terror.

It was the culimination of a very long and slow process that had been building up amongst the moderators for quite a while (like a year or so) -- very much akin to a volcano slowly building up for an eruption; so when Mike gave his approval, the Moderators unleashed the Dogs of War.

At least that's how I understand it from my perusal of threads.

What's this have to do with the price of beer? Are you claiming that it should have been apparent from public threads and statements that this policy was coming? If so, perhaps you could take some time out of your busy schedule and post some links to them. Or are you claiming it was building up in the mod forum? If that's the case, thank you for providing the final piece of evidence that Bean was totally full of shit when he claimed it was Senate inaction which provoked the Testing crackdown.

[LadyTevar]

Stark, as a Senator, poured gasoline on the fire and egged on troublmakers, and not even for any real goal, but simply for kicks. Was this our fault for allowing Stark in the Senate in the first place? Maybe so-- but if allowing Stark in the Senate in the first place was "our mistake", then it is a mistake that is now caught and we need to "clean up". I thought it would be great to take some of the dissenting opinions and hear what they had to say-- give an iconoclast some voice and who knows, maybe they can help bring in interesting new points of view. But instead, he was just the SDN bomb-throwing anarchist. But it can't be said he wasn't given a chance or a platform; it can't be said his "voice was stifled" or some other quixotic BS. He was given a chance to be an influence and he used it to attempt to undermine the institutions Mike put in place to help run the board. That's not "heroic", that's like asking the failed graduate of the Kamikaze Academy to help fly the plane.

I know I'm late to this party, but is anybody going to provide evidence for this, or are we just going to keep being told this without being shown? Because if Stark actually is this terribly hateful and destructive force who's only out to undermine the noble institutions of SDN, it ought to be piss fucking easy for somebody to actually prove it.

I second this. Burden of Proof is on the accuser. Put up or shut up, and no more circular reasoning or strawmen.

[RedImperator]

Almost forgot: I am unequivocally opposed to any tabling or postponement or any other such thing. The "RARGH BLARGH SMASH STRAK" brigade has had two bites at this apple already. It's not my problem if Bean and Shep can't even conduct a proper railroad job.

[Patrick Degan]

After reading through this thread and the several threads which have been linked to this discussion supposedly as evidence for the prosecution which, from my viewing, seem only to undermine the case against him, I too must insist that Stark's accusers actually provide the definitive evidence to support their charges. Until that evidence surfaces, count me as opposed to any vote to remove the senator in question from this body.

[Darth Wong]

I know I'm late to this party, but is anybody going to provide evidence for this, or are we just going to keep being told this without being shown? Because if Stark actually is this terribly hateful and destructive force who's only out to undermine the noble institutions of SDN, it ought to be piss fucking easy for somebody to actually prove it.

I suppose the fact that I had to personally tell him to shut the fuck up with his goddamned passive/aggressive accusations of moderator abuse of power doesn't factor into this at all? That's a goddamned bannable offense, for fuck's sake.

Since when does a Senator have a lesser expectation of behaviour than a normal user, rather than a greater one? Someone give me a fucking answer to this, because the seemingly impossible burden of proof required to push someone out of this body is making me wonder what the fuck kind of standard it actually has.

[Hotfoot]

I suppose the fact that I had to personally tell him to shut the fuck up with his goddamned passive/aggressive accusations of moderator abuse of power doesn't factor into this at all? That's a goddamned bannable offense, for fuck's sake.

Except that you yourself indicated that the Senate is supposed to act as a check on moderator abuse. As RedImperator has pointed out, Bean made it look like it was unilateral mod action without official sanction, not an action that you personally signed off on. That makes it look very much like Moderator abuse and it shouldn't shock anyone when it's reacted to in kind. When it was revealed what had actually happened, Stark dropped it. Especially with all the recent comments about your dislike of unilateral mod action and how you would be cracking down, what appeared to be happening looked like a basic disregard for those statements of policy, and without any other action, it looked really bad.

By all rights, discussing board policy is a bannable offense as well, but that's the purpose of the Senate, isn't it?

Since when does a Senator have a lesser expectation of behaviour than a normal user, rather than a greater one? Someone give me a fucking answer to this, because the seemingly impossible burden of proof required to push someone out of this body is making me wonder what the fuck kind of standard it actually has.

What impossible burden of proof? So far all the links that supposedly damn Stark have reinforced that he's contributed quite well here and in the board as a whole. This is like a creationist saying there's an impossible burden of proof when he's been showing quite clearly that the evidence he's been using has been supporting evolution instead of discrediting it, and for the most part, the arguments have been largely that Stark has done more harm than good to the board. I haven't seen that, and neither have several others, certainly not by the threads so far supplied as "proof" of his misbehavior.

If this is about his blowup at Bean, then frankly I'm shocked. How should we react when Moderators imply that they have taken unilateral action when you yourself have come down and told us that the purpose of the Senate is to provide transparency and discussion about the workings of the board? Is it not our duty to call foul when we see what we think is wrongdoing? Is not our purpose to be liaisons between the board and the mods? Especially when the mod in question has told us that through our inaction (a lie, the Senate stopped discussing a subject that had become moot because it was assumed that mod action had been taken as a result of the discussion) he was able to do whatever he wanted (a lie, you signed off on this, which is what I believe you told Stark to shut him up).

But hey, if this is a solid case of Stark breaking a rule that he wasn't supposed to break (because as Senators we are supposed to break some rules, as they were strictly defined), then by all means, just ban him and be done with it. While we're at it, let's define strict guidelines of what the Senate is not allowed to discuss, to prevent further ambiguities.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose the fact that I had to personally tell him to shut the fuck up with his goddamned passive/aggressive accusations of moderator abuse of power doesn't factor into this at all? That's a goddamned bannable offense, for fuck's sake.

Except that you yourself indicated that the Senate is supposed to act as a check on moderator abuse.

Then he can make real accusations in the Senate, instead of making cloying passive/aggressive accusations elsewhere. Real accusations can be discussed and refuted if necessary. The vague needling bullshit was totally unacceptable. Frankly, I came within a hair's breadth of simply banning him at one point. I was so sick of that soap opera that I was ready to burn down that entire "Testing contingent". I had too many demands on my time to be dealing with a group of people trying to turn the forum into a social popularity contest.

As RedImperator has pointed out, Bean made it look like it was unilateral mod action without official sanction, not an action that you personally signed off on. That makes it look very much like Moderator abuse and it shouldn't shock anyone when it's reacted to in kind. When it was revealed what had actually happened, Stark dropped it.

That's not what I'm talking about. Stark went farther than that and made numerous disparaging remarks about general mod behaviour: the kind of accusations which are so vague as to be impossible to refute, and especially convenient when they're in Testing and they eventually get auto-deleted. We can debate what Testing is for, but I can definitely say it was not for people to make weasely accusations about people which won't leave long-term evidence.

You argue that Senators are allowed to break rules. That is NOT true at all. Senators are allowed to do specific things, like discussing specific issues in the Senate and addressing specific accusations about a moderator, if necessary, in the Senate. That does not mean they are allowed to break rules. And I suppose Stark might say that he would say things in Testing that were only half-serious, or half-joking, or whatever, but that's all too often a convenient cloak to behave as if there are no rules.

[Hotfoot]

Then he can make real accusations in the Senate, instead of making cloying passive/aggressive accusations elsewhere. Real accusations can be discussed and refuted if necessary. The vague needling bullshit was totally unacceptable. Frankly, I came within a hair's breadth of simply banning him at one point.

The particular quote everyone so far on the "Remove Stark" bandwagon has been from the Senate, from a reaction to what appeared to be Bean's unilateral mod action, and was immediately followed by an implicit threat from Bean to ban Stark. Meanwhile, at the time the House of Commons was a natural extension of the Senate where discussion crossed over at multiple areas, until you decided that should end and it was shut down. Anything he posted in the Senate or House of Commons can be reviewed for impropriety, of course, and any threads from Testing should have likely been saved in Storage as evidence for these very proceedings. Given the level of moderator activity in testing at the time, especially from moderators who are now calling for Stark's removal, it should have been trivial for them to save something.

That's not what I'm talking about. Stark went farther than that and made numerous disparaging remarks about general mod behaviour: the kind of accusations which are so vague as to be impossible to refute, and especially convenient when they're in Testing and they eventually get auto-deleted. We can debate what Testing is for, but I can definitely say it was not for people to make weasely accusations about people which won't leave long-term evidence.

As I have said above, at the time these comments were made numerous mods were busy manually deleting (and moving) threads. I know of at least one thread moved to storage by fgalkin during that time while I still had access to the storage forum. It's clear that evidence was being kept and that if there was anything so flagrantly against the rules of SDN as is being implied, it should have been. It was not auto delete that nuked testing, it was mods. They had a very easy standard of proof they could have met, but they didn't. Stark himself knew his comments in Testing weren't sacrosanct, numerous threads were uplifted even in the mass purge. Anything he said could have been used against him later. But now we'll never know, because the people who were in charge of manually deleting the forums deleted his posts instead of saving them, so now it's a massive game of he said she said.

Is it now policy that if we fuck up and don't collect evidence we can try someone on no actual facts at all? That sounds itself like vague accusations that are impossible to refute.

You argue that Senators are allowed to break rules. That is NOT true at all. Senators are allowed to do specific things, like discussing specific issues in the Senate and addressing specific accusations about a moderator, if necessary, in the Senate. That does not mean they are allowed to break rules. And I suppose Stark might say that he would say things in Testing that were only half-serious, or half-joking, or whatever, but that's all too often a convenient cloak to behave as if there are no rules.

That's fair, but again, it would have been trivial to collect evidence to say he was misbehaving in testing, and if that was the primary point of contention, why haven't we seen it? Again, any posts made there were manually deleted by the mods currently accusing him of these acts, so they are the direct reason we can't see them, not the autodelete.

[RedImperator]

I know I'm late to this party, but is anybody going to provide evidence for this, or are we just going to keep being told this without being shown? Because if Stark actually is this terribly hateful and destructive force who's only out to undermine the noble institutions of SDN, it ought to be piss fucking easy for somebody to actually prove it.

I suppose the fact that I had to personally tell him to shut the fuck up with his goddamned passive/aggressive accusations of moderator abuse of power doesn't factor into this at all? That's a goddamned bannable offense, for fuck's sake.

Since when does a Senator have a lesser expectation of behaviour than a normal user, rather than a greater one?

Stark replies to that in this post. For what it's worth, I don't think Stark, whatever his other faults, is a liar.

Anyway, before he explained his actions, I had already taken that into account. Here are my reasons why I don't think it's enough, even if he was actually being passive-aggressive:

1. Emotions were running high all over the board that day. In that context, I can understand taking out your frustrations passive-aggressively, even if it's the wrong thing to do.
2. It's one offense. Yeah, it could have gotten a noob banned, but there's always been far more slack for established members than for newcomers.
3. When you told him to shut the fuck up, he shut the fuck up.

Given all that, I believe he deserves a second chance.

Someone give me a fucking answer to this, because the seemingly impossible burden of proof required to push someone out of this body is making me wonder what the fuck kind of standard it actually has.

The standard of evidence is that there should be some actual evidence. Mike, that incident between you and him in the HoC is the only thing I've seen in this thread that might warrant expulsion, and prior to your post here, the only person to actually mention it in context was me.

This has been the case against Stark so far:

1. Stark doesn't want to be in the Senate/Stark laid down an ultimatum that he would leave the Senate if the mods didn't do X. This was the central pillar of the entire case, and it's a load of shit. Even if you take his post out of context, it's clear he's making a conditional statement--a condition which isn't true. In context, it's clear he believed Bean had acted unilaterally, an impression fostered by Bean himself.

2. Stark is a rebellious troublemaker who hates the Senate and is trying to destroy it from within. Except all the quotes provided were valid criticisms of the Senate at the time, and in fact, Hotfoot made even more radical arguments than he did. The difference is that Hotfoot did it calmly (and was gaining support), while Stark did it with vitriol and insults.

3. Stark is a bad poster who just trolls and insults people and never makes an argument. This simply isn't true; searching for Stark's name and scrolling through his posts shows most of his posts make reasoned arguments. What you can say about Stark is that sometimes his signal-to-insult ratio gets too low, which is fair enough, but that hasn't been the main thrust of the argument and, anyway, where are the links to posts where Stark just trolls and insults? Instead, the pro-expulsion side posted nothing and tried to shift the burden of proof.

I'll be blunt: five pages in, and you're the only person who's made an argument to remove Stark that I had to think very hard about before replying. You seem like, in your post, that's you're frustrated with the Senate for not seeing the problem with Stark; I'd like to suggest the problem is with the crack prosecution team of Shep, Bean, and Coyote who put together such a laughable case.

[Darth Wong]

1. Emotions were running high all over the board that day. In that context, I can understand taking out your frustrations passive-aggressively, even if it's the wrong thing to do.
2. It's one offense. Yeah, it could have gotten a noob banned, but there's always been far more slack for established members than for newcomers.
3. When you told him to shut the fuck up, he shut the fuck up.

1. Emotions were running high all over the board that day in part because of Stark stirring the pot himself.
2. Yes, people can get cut slack. That means they don't get banned. It doesn't mean we continue to say "Hey, this guy is great, he can help make important decisions".
3. That should not have been necessary. A fucking Senator should not be the kind of person who behaves in such a ridiculous fashion that I have to personally thunder at him before he starts acting like an adult.

Given all that, I believe he deserves a second chance.

At being on the board? Sure, absolutely. I'm just not seeing why he should be a Senator. It seems to me that the position of Senator has morphed into some kind of entitlement.

This has been the case against Stark so far:

1. Stark doesn't want to be in the Senate/Stark laid down an ultimatum that he would leave the Senate if the mods didn't do X. This was the central pillar of the entire case, and it's a load of shit. Even if you take his post out of context, it's clear he's making a conditional statement--a condition which isn't true. In context, it's clear he believed Bean had acted unilaterally, an impression fostered by Bean himself.

2. Stark is a rebellious troublemaker who hates the Senate and is trying to destroy it from within. Except all the quotes provided were valid criticisms of the Senate at the time, and in fact, Hotfoot made even more radical arguments than he did. The difference is that Hotfoot did it calmly (and was gaining support), while Stark did it with vitriol and insults.

3. Stark is a bad poster who just trolls and insults people and never makes an argument. This simply isn't true; searching for Stark's name and scrolling through his posts shows most of his posts make reasoned arguments. What you can say about Stark is that sometimes his signal-to-insult ratio gets too low, which is fair enough, but that hasn't been the main thrust of the argument and, anyway, where are the links to posts where Stark just trolls and insults? Instead, the pro-expulsion side posted nothing and tried to shift the burden of proof.

I'll be blunt: five pages in, and you're the only person who's made an argument to remove Stark that I had to think very hard about before replying. You seem like, in your post, that's you're frustrated with the Senate for not seeing the problem with Stark; I'd like to suggest the problem is with the crack prosecution team of Shep, Bean, and Coyote who put together such a laughable case.

I don't particularly care whether Shep, Bean, and Coyote did a good case of arguing their point. The Senate is not supposed to consist of people who act like children and require a smack on the head from an authority figure before they will discuss things like adults.

[Thanas]

Is that really what happened, though? I did a search for Stark and his posts in the senate and as far as I can tell, they are no worse than those of the vast majority of senators. Heck, at least he is one of the few who actually care enough to post an opinion in here, something which the vast majority of senators does not.

I'd rather have Stark in the senate than someone who does not participate at all.

[Hotfoot]

I don't particularly care whether Shep, Bean, and Coyote did a good case of arguing their point. The Senate is not supposed to consist of people who act like children and require a smack on the head from an authority figure before they will discuss things like adults.

Doesn't discussing things like adults include providing reasoned, measured, and supported points?

Right now, the only point worth responding to is the one you're making now about having to personally post to calm Stark down. Now, as far as I can remember, and my memory isn't that fantastic these days, Stark calmed down when you clarified that Bean was in fact not acting unilaterally, but that you had given the command. This is something that, in my mind, shouldn't even have been necessary because the action should have been explained from the word go as having your approval. From my perspective, that means that you were cleaning up the mess that Bean had created through his actions, which in retrospect seems now like a deliberate attempt to troll the Senate and stir up a wealth of drama and a host of bad feelings. The attempt to try and goad Stark into banning himself is particularly damning here.

Frankly, I was willing to let this matter die, but this fascination with removing Stark just dredges up the poor behavior that set him off in the first place, and I don't see the point to punish Stark for his behavior if Bean gets to walk in and troll this forum trying to set people off. Yes, that's exactly the impression he gave and if we are supposed to be targets of mod trolling when the mods are supposed to a constructive part to this forum along with the Senators, why should THEY get off lightly for misbehavior if Senators are supposed to be held to a higher standard than a normal poster? Should not the mods themselves be held to even higher standards than we mere Senators, seeing as they have actual power?

The Senate can have a say when it says something.

As Wilkens pointed out later in the thread, if we are discussing something and it changes, we are doing our jobs. There has never been an expectation that a vote is needed for action to be taken. There have been numerous examples of that behavior in the Senate in the past, especially in Ban threads. As I have pointed out previously, there are numerous threads in the Parting Shots forum that never went to Senate vote, because action was taken by mods who had seen that it was clear that it was a hopeless case. Bean coming in and declaring unilaterally that if a vote was not taken, it's not official, and thus completely useless turns all that on it's head, removing the implicit understanding that the Senate is an advisory body in the first place and replaces it with...well chaos.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that Bean's little stunt served no greater purpose than to stir up drama and trouble. Had he simply been honest from the get-go, I doubt there would have been any of these issues worth talking about. Now, had there been a proper arraignment of Stark by putting together a list of links to various damning posts he had made, yes, there would be a much better chance that most of us would simply shrug and toss Stark out on his ass back into the general population. However, that is not what happened. What's happened is even MORE drama, pointless bickering, and nonsense over and over again. The first ban thread was created by bypassing normal Senate Procedure, but done with the air of being done properly. When the truth was revealed, it was unceremoniously dumped into the trash as it should have been. The second time around followed proper procedure, but was so shoddily presented that it has been more an argument for keeping him than canning him. At this point, I have to wonder if the Vendetta rule is being breached in pursuit of this pound of flesh. I mean, Bean provoked the situation and is now attempting to capitalize on it.

Should not Bean himself be under review in this case as well? After all, this is hardly an incident of Stark just randomly going off the deep end, he was provoked by a staff member who has had a long history of dislike for him. He was brought up for punishment by recommendation of that staff member. Last I checked it was poor form at the least to be that involved.

[Surlethe]

There's another argument against Stark's membership in the Senate which I have not yet seen used: why should he be in the Senate? There are accusations from certain quarters (a certain clique? ) that Stark was essentially a "Testing" candidate, only nominated because Testing people in the HoC nominated him, and would not have gotten into the Senate any other way. If this is true, then he should be removed not because of misbehavior but simply because he was wrongly elevated. If this is not true, it shouldn't be difficult to dig up the evidence supporting his membership.