No, the issue is that I was discussing the issue as it was presented. That it was presented poorly is not my problem, I shouldn't be expected to provide evidence for others. You see it as circling the wagons, I see it as most people realizing that the proceedings were crap.
"Provide evidence?" No one even disputed
that Stark behaved childishly while discussing board policy! No one even disputed
that Stark attacked mods by snidely bad-mouthing them outside the Senate: a violation of the board rules.
You simply decided that this was not a valid reason to dump someone from the Senate, thus begging the question of what is
a valid reason. This, in turn, led to a discussion of what standards of conduct the Senate should have: an issue which you disliked because you fear it would lead to other Senate members being expelled, which in turn begs the question of why any policy which might weaken Senators' apparent tenure-like status is a bad idea.
But I've outlined my reasons for my position. I've supported it with evidence and explained myself pretty well I think. If that's a "knee-jerk" reaction, then what's yours? You yourself have not provided any evidence, perpetuating the he-said she-said self-evident arguments that have made this entire action a farce. Every time I have asked you to support your points, you decline and instead go on the attack. If we are to have an intelligent discussion, I would appreciate some quid pro quo here.
Are you being a liar here, or an imbecile? No one is even disputing that Stark behaved childishly and did no follow anything near proper procedure for attacking a moderator's actions. The board rules state very clearly that there is one and only one place where you can do that. That is
evidence. What more evidence do you require?
If you insist on acting as if you don't understand the board rules or don't see why they should apply to a Senator, then it seems pretty obvious that you are, as others have charged, disagreeing just for the sake of factionalism. I've already heard the ridiculous argument that Senators are allowed to break rules at will; some people here seem to have some very
bizarre ideas of what a Senator is, and you seem to be at the head of that pack.
What are the rules of this site? Of the senate? That I should take a position I disagree with because the people I'm arguing with are doing a shit job?
In other words, you think a Senator should be a partisan, in addition to your bizarre notions about Senators not having to follow board rules. As I said earlier, it's becoming increasingly clear that there need to be some standards.