[Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Moderator: CmdrWilkens

Locked
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 05:43pm

Hotfoot wrote:Why isn't anyone demanding that Yosemite Bear by expelled from the Senate then?
Because he isn't a worthless 4chan spammer. His posts are usually a bit run on and incomprehensible, but he doesn't lard them up with 4chan style spam like "LOL WHO KNEW", "SRZ BUSZNESS", "LOL FATTYNERDS"

He also hasn't constantly attacked the main body of the board as well as it's board staff.

Here's a hint, constantly railing about "LOL FATTYNERDS" on a board where a large proportion are: A.) Nerds B.) Overweight (I really need to lose 40 lbs); is not a career-enhancing move.

WHO KNEW?

Ok Ok Ok. Sorry for that last line. But it was too delicious not to include.

If he does not like being on the lower staff of a board populated by nerds, he can leave for more green pastures more to his liking, like say the official X-Box 360 forums where he can be a worthless cunt to everyone else.
Last edited by MKSheppard on 2009-11-02 05:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Dalton
For Those About to Rock We Salute You
For Those About to Rock We Salute You
Posts: 22605
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:16pm
Location: New York, the Fuck You State
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Dalton » 2009-11-02 05:45pm

Steve wrote:Anyway, even given these circumstances in this thread it's good to see you again, Dalton, hope you're doing well.
Thanks Steve, it's good to be back and making some noise.
Image
Image
To Absent Friends
Dalton | Admin Smash | Knight of the Order of SDN

"y = mx + bro" - Surlethe
"You try THAT shit again, kid, and I will mod you. I will
mod you so hard, you'll wish I were Dalton." - Lagmonster

May the way of the Hero lead to the Triforce.

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Coyote » 2009-11-02 05:48pm

Hotfoot wrote:Hell, I've made some useless posts, and I can be an asshole myself. Might as well call for my expulsion if that's the benchline we're shooting for.
Nearly all of us have made some "zippy one-liners". Stark has made a career of them.
Why isn't anyone demanding that Yosemite Bear by expelled from the Senate then? By my count, he's not made any serious contribution to SDN since its very formation, and Stark's Signal to Noise ratio is certainly better than Bear's. More to the point, I wasn't aware that anything short of directly violating board policy was grounds for dismissal from the Senate.
Then start a [Discussion] about Bear. And we're discussing Stark's violations, which some of us think are worthy of being removed form the Senate, and some of us don't. Hence... the discussion.
]2. He got pissed off at Bean and fgalkin for doing what LOOKED AT THE TIME like it was unilateral mod action, something that Mike himself spoke out about earlier that week.
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.
Might as well kick out Red and myself and anyone else who saw that and got pissed off at it.
But, while being pissed off at it, did you try to disrupt things?
3. He's said the Senate is useless.

Are we giving up on this one? Because I've said that for a while now and I was arguably more inflammatory than Stark. Hell, I lead the charge to utterly disband the Senate because I felt the House of Commons was doing a better job than the Senate was.
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.
So hey, all three arguments I've heard so far involve kicking out more than just Stark, yet we're focusing on him. Is it the trifecta? Because it sure isn't from any actual rules violation that I've seen.
That's what we're discussing.
Being an ass posting snide one-liners in threads isn't grounds for banning here yet as far as I've seen. If so, we should ban fgalkin (Have a nice day).
Got a problem with a Senator or Mod? Bring it up in a [Discussion].
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 05:52pm

It is also important to note that this is merely a Senatorial expulsion vote, not a Ban vote.

All that happens in the worst case for STRAK is that he loses his e-penis (senatorship), and is put on notice to clean up his act, and he's welcome to re-enter the Senate (I'd vote for him) IF he cleaned up his act sufficiently.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Hotfoot
Avatar of Confusion
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-10-12 04:38pm
Location: Peace River: Badlands, Terra Nova Winter 1936
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Hotfoot » 2009-11-02 05:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:Because he isn't a worthless 4chan spammer. His posts are usually a bit run on and incomprehensible, but he doesn't lard them up with 4chan style spam like "LOL WHO KNEW", "SRZ BUSZNESS", "LOL FATTYNERDS"
Ah, so the style of the pointless spam matters. Is there a form? Bear's posts are almost completely pointless spam on average, and on his best day he's not as articulate or capable of forming a worthwhile post about Senate policy or any thread like Stark is.

So if this is about signal to noise, Bear fails miserably and Stark is at best an annoyance when he's not posting useful things. That argument fails. Next?
He also hasn't constantly attacked the main body of the board as well as it's board staff.

Here's a hint, constantly railing about "LOL FATTYNERDS" on a board where a large proportion are: A.) Nerds B.) Overweight (I really need to lose 40 lbs); is not a career-enhancing move.

WHO KNEW?
So what you're saying is that someone who is a fat nerd is getting pissed off at someone who uses it as an insult? Is that board policy now? Can anyone be censored for making inappropriate comments about weight? How about eyesight? IQ level? Let's start shaving off the list of insults we can use on SDN folks, Shep's sensitive about his weight.

By the by I could stand to lose a lot more than you, and while those comments were annoying, they don't discount that when he makes a point, he backs it up and quite often he's right. Last I checked we were supposed to look past the insults.
If he does not like being on the lower staff of a board populated by nerds, he can leave for more green pastures more to his liking, like say the official X-Box 360 forums where he can be a worthless cunt to everyone else.
Again, a strawman. But hey, why bother reading a thread for what's already been discussed? That would mean you would be making a worthwhile post.
Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.
Image
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!

User avatar
Bounty
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10767
Joined: 2005-01-20 08:33am
Location: Belgium

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Bounty » 2009-11-02 05:58pm

He stated, openly, he wants to resign, but he won't. Why is that?
He never stated this, and you lying about it won't change that.

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Stark » 2009-11-02 06:00pm

MKSheppard wrote:If he does not like being on the lower staff of a board populated by nerds, he can leave for more green pastures more to his liking, like say the official X-Box 360 forums where he can be a worthless cunt to everyone else.
Is this thread about removing me from the Senate, or about removing me from the board? I think it's pretty self-evident I have no problem with nerds (fat or otherwise); 'fatty nerd' is simply useful shorthand for a group of stereotypical attitudes, especially with regard to videogames. Not all 'fat' 'nerds' are fatty nerds, and some fatty nerds aren't fat or nerds.

Regardless, since the End of Drama it's notable that many posters - myself included - have responded appropriately to the posting standards announced by Bean and Mike last time I had regular access to the forum. I personally didn't think that the idea of 'testing culture' impacting the board was valid, but I think events have shown me wrong in this case.
Coyote wrote: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.
I'm not seeing how anything I said - to Bean or anyone else - is calling for a revolution. The very idea on a web board doesn't even make sense. Indeed, the posts quoted in this thread involve my asking about what was happening; and personally I don't see it as appropriate to PM Mike about the actions of staff when I have no idea what is happening.

Is there some way to determine how many people have misunderstood my statement that 'if <position is meaningless> then I <don't want position>? This statement indicates that I don't know what's happening or who is making decisions, but that in a specific situation I would like to leave the Senate. This isn't an 'ultimatum' or a 'revolution' in any way, but I get the sense many here are reacting extremely negatively to this, even though it has been explained by many.

User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12265
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Surlethe » 2009-11-02 06:04pm

I still can't believe people thought "if <position is meaningless> then I <don't want position>" translated to "I don't like the Senate, so I'm leaving." There may be good reasons for Stark not to be a Senator - indeed, as has been pointed out, no good reasons presented for Stark to be a Senator would do the trick - but the argument that he wanted to leave the Senate so why not just boot him out anyway was a central point in the original case against him, and Shep tried to resurrect it on the first page (I notice that he never actually conceded the point to Bounty). So we have it straight from Stark that he wasn't saying "I'm out"; let's just put the tired canard that he was to rest, shall we?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Stark » 2009-11-02 06:08pm

I'm not clear on the timing, but very shortly after those posts Fgalkin laid it all out, and it was clear that my conception of what had happened was completely wrong and thus the situation was different. Indeed, looking at the forum now I think it's possible to say that Mike and the staff may very well have been right, regardless of how I felt at the time, as much of the 'testing'-style posting has disappeared after they brought the hammer down.
Last edited by Stark on 2009-11-02 06:09pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 06:08pm

Hotfoot wrote:So if this is about signal to noise, Bear fails miserably and Stark is at best an annoyance when he's not posting useful things. That argument fails. Next?
Except he has never posted a damn useful thing. Or if he has, it's been lost in the tidal wave of useless zippy oneliners larded with 4chan memes.
So what you're saying is that someone who is a fat nerd is getting pissed off at someone who uses it as an insult?
I'm stating the bloody obvious. Insulting the membership of a community as well as many of the important personages in that community is not a career or popularity enhancing move, especially if you make it a tagline or catchphrase that you use repeatedly.

That it's been viewed as a popularity-enhancing move is because of the large percentage of worthless spammers on the board that the moderatoral staff is cracking down on.
By the by I could stand to lose a lot more than you, and while those comments were annoying, they don't discount that when he makes a point, he backs it up and quite often he's right.
Wrong.

Stark is the reason Gaming and Computers is such a festering shitpile, because of the way he ruins many threads with his bluster and bullshit. When someone challenges him; he repeats his statement TWICE AS LOUD with more smarmy comments thrown in for good measure.

No logical thinking is involved.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Hotfoot
Avatar of Confusion
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-10-12 04:38pm
Location: Peace River: Badlands, Terra Nova Winter 1936
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Hotfoot » 2009-11-02 06:11pm

Coyote wrote:Nearly all of us have made some "zippy one-liners". Stark has made a career of them.
I'd ask how you'd define a career, but I doubt I'd get an answer beyond "Well it's a gut feeling really".
Then start a [Discussion] about Bear. And we're discussing Stark's violations, which some of us think are worthy of being removed form the Senate, and some of us don't. Hence... the discussion.
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy you dolt. If this was REALLY about the points being raised, the individuals involved should clearly have other targets to go after well before Stark. What I'm highlighting by my points is that there's clearly another motive in here that is not being said because those who are for this motion know it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny: "I don't like him."

I'm also pointing out that those of you who are grabbing for scraps to bring against Stark had best look over your shoulder because if the rockslide starts there's a lot of people here who had better start looking over their shoulders.
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.
Really? He called for a revolution? Where? I was pissed off too and I let it be known. Fuck, talk about trumping up charges. More to the point, Mike himself said the Senate was supposed to act as a body to keep Moderators from acting unilaterally, so by that mandate from Mike himself, Stark was perfectly within his rights to question this behavior. Given the sudden nature of the event, it's not surprising the tone he took. Other motions in the past have been brought to the Senate under much more dubious notes and with far more hysteria without so much as a whisper of expulsion from the Senate.
But, while being pissed off at it, did you try to disrupt things?
Guess that depends entirely on your definition of disruption, doesn't it? Please define that for me, because I'm sure as hell not understanding it.
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.
The only real difference between Stark and myself is that Stark is more openly an asshole. The board and its rules encourage that sort of behavior, so I'm curious as to why suddenly it's not okay for him. If anything, my method of undermining the Senate is more dangerous, because I'm more effective at stating my points.
That's what we're discussing.
The only times we've removed senators in the past was for inactivity or when they were banned for egregious rules violations. What we're doing now is putting a mechanic into place to vote out people we don't like after we've already voted them in. It's a bad precedent because it means that it can and ultimately will be applied to everyone until all that's left is an echo chamber.
Got a problem with a Senator or Mod? Bring it up in a [Discussion].
Again, missing the point. I'm not the one who called for Stark's dismissal, I'm the one who's saying those that are had best make sure they don't fit any of the requirements used to kick Stark out. It's kind of like when Bush set up all those powers for the Executive Branch, but the GOP shit a brick when a Democrat might use them? Yeah, that.
Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.
Image
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!

User avatar
Hotfoot
Avatar of Confusion
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-10-12 04:38pm
Location: Peace River: Badlands, Terra Nova Winter 1936
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Hotfoot » 2009-11-02 06:15pm

MKSheppard wrote:Except he has never posted a damn useful thing. Or if he has, it's been lost in the tidal wave of useless zippy oneliners larded with 4chan memes.
Yeah, that's right! Never posted a single useful thing! Except those two threads you linked to from his nomination and the seven more you conveniently forgot about and every post since then longer than two lines. NOT A SINGLE THING!
I'm stating the bloody obvious. Insulting the membership of a community as well as many of the important personages in that community is not a career or popularity enhancing move, especially if you make it a tagline or catchphrase that you use repeatedly.

That it's been viewed as a popularity-enhancing move is because of the large percentage of worthless spammers on the board that the moderatoral staff is cracking down on.
Okay, since the crackdown, how many times has he posted shit like that? Should be simple to look up, it's only been a few weeks.
Wrong.

Stark is the reason Gaming and Computers is such a festering shitpile, because of the way he ruins many threads with his bluster and bullshit. When someone challenges him; he repeats his statement TWICE AS LOUD with more smarmy comments thrown in for good measure.

No logical thinking is involved.
Care to provide an example of that? I mean, so far the only threads you've linked to support his overall contributions to the boards.
Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.
Image
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 06:16pm

Stark wrote:Is this thread about removing me from the Senate, or about removing me from the board?
I really do like how you've tried to explain your passive aggressive bullshit as "being honest" in a previous post in this thread.

I'm simply stating the facts bluntly.

Your constant one liners, amongst them the "LOL FATTY NERDS" one, have not endeared yourself to the board staff as a whole.

It's a little bit late to be saying "I didn't mean x or y!" after you've been saying it for quite a long time.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944


User avatar
Bounty
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10767
Joined: 2005-01-20 08:33am
Location: Belgium

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Bounty » 2009-11-02 06:19pm

Your constant one liners, amongst them the "LOL FATTY NERDS" one, have not endeared yourself to the board staff as a whole.
Wait - who started this discussion, you as a senator or you as the emissary of the "board staff as a whole"?

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 06:48pm

Hotfoot wrote: Never posted a single useful thing! Except those two threads you linked to from his nomination and the seven more you conveniently forgot about and every post since then longer than two lines. NOT A SINGLE THING!
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.
Okay, since the crackdown, how many times has he posted shit like that? Should be simple to look up, it's only been a few weeks.
Ha.

Let's recount.

1.) Stark is being his typical self.

2.) Testingtard gets repeatedly nuked by the moderators as part of a Mike-approved crackdown on spamminess.

3.) Stark runs to House of Commons and starts shit-stirring in his own typical style, as well as shit stirring in testingstan deliberately, because he is still under the impression that the rules do not apply in Testingstan.

4.) The House of Commons is Nuked.

5.) Mike has to personally come down and follow Stark into Testingstan and smack Stark around before Stark begins to fall into line.

To recap again, it took the nuking of Quebec Testingstan, the nuking of the House of Commons, and a personally delivered smackdown by the board owner himself before Stark stopped behaving like his typical self and began to behave like he should have from the moment he became a senator.

Mike does not have a lot of personal free time lately, and that is why he delegates as he sees fit to the Moderators. He should not have to personally deal with every idiot, like he had to do with Stark.

That's the job of the moderators.

Right now, Stark is behaving like a model citizen and actually speaking in coherent paragraphs without his annoying smarminess, or catchphrases; but that's only because of the threat of the smackdown barrelling down the train tracks towards him.

He can come back to the Senate IF he makes an absolute committment to reform his posting style on this board; and actually follows through on it; rather than going back to his old 4chan ways once he judges everyone has forgotten about him.
Care to provide an example of that?
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.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Stark » 2009-11-02 06:53pm

MKSheppard wrote:Right now, Stark is behaving like a model citizen and actually speaking in coherent paragraphs without his annoying smarminess, or catchphrases; but that's only because of the threat of the smackdown barrelling down the train tracks towards him.
This seems questionable, since I've been too busy to post since the end of drama and even immediately after the event Fgalkin and I were joking about what happened. Believe me, Mike's clear statements about how he feels about 'testing culture' and the understanding that Bean's actions were directly due to that has a far greater impact on posting style than this thread. As far as I can tell in my brief look around, this is true for many other people who let their 'testing posting' bleed into the regular forums.

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Coyote » 2009-11-02 07:08pm

Then instead of chasing tails with Hotfoot and RedImp and Stark and anyone else, why not just go to the vote and be done with it? You'll coast to an easy victory and I'll STFU and everyone can do their funky end-zone dances and next week we can all enjoy "LOL SRS BZNZ" the way we always did.

Hotfoot, I'm not doing this because "I don't like Stark", I'm doing this for the reasons outlined, which Shep summed up a couple posts above mine. I can repeat them ad nauseum, and you can shake your head in bewildered curiosity again because you disagree with the validity, so be it. What we have is a really wordy version of "did not!" "did so!" and I'm not changing my positions. Stark is a disruptive, useless nuisance. If the vote goes to keep Stark, I'll STFU and let it roll. And then, if you wish, you're more than welcome to start a discussion about me and false charges or something.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 07:20pm

In anyway, the motion for starting a vote has been seconded and thirded (and possibly fourthed).

Under current senate rules:

2.C.II.A "Removal for Cause"
In cases where conduct of a Senator has been called into question any member may call motion for a vote to expel. If the motion is seconded a Category A vote will be held. If the measure passes the member will be removed from the Senate and barred from re-entry.
The vote is now eligible to be held. However, only a supermod/admin (aka Executor) or the Chancellor/Whip can start the vote, since it's a class A vote.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 07:23pm

RedImperator wrote: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.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 20453
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by LadyTevar » 2009-11-02 07:24pm

I would like to point out my call to Table this was posted and seconded before the motion was made to take it to a yes/no in/out vote. By the rules, we should be resolving my Motion, before any other motions are considered.

Therefore, the First Vote we have should be on Table the matter or Not. THEN, and only then, should we move on with the other motions, votes, and discussions.

If I am wrong on this, Dalton, Wilkins, please clarify. If I am right, then a Voting Thread needs to be posted -- TABLE the matter until Dec 1, or continue to the discussion.
Image
Librium Arcana, Where Gamers Play!
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by Stark » 2009-11-02 07:28pm

MKSheppard wrote: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.
This doesn't address Red's point, that nobody knew what was going on because those involved deliberately didn't tell anyone for laughs. Laughs they certainly recieved. :) You certainly don't see me complaining about what happened since events were clear.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29569
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by MKSheppard » 2009-11-02 07:32pm

I move that the motion to table the vote be tabled itself.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 20453
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by LadyTevar » 2009-11-02 07:37pm

MKSheppard wrote:I move that the motion to table the vote be tabled itself.
Once again, Shep... IIRC, we have to resolve/vote on the First Motion (to table) before any other motions should be considered. Let's wait until Dalton or Wilkins gets online and we know if I am wrong on this or not.
Image
Librium Arcana, Where Gamers Play!
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Expulsion of Stark from the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-11-02 07:44pm

LadyTevar wrote:I would like to point out my call to Table this was posted and seconded before the motion was made to take it to a yes/no in/out vote. By the rules, we should be resolving my Motion, before any other motions are considered.

Therefore, the First Vote we have should be on Table the matter or Not. THEN, and only then, should we move on with the other motions, votes, and discussions.

If I am wrong on this, Dalton, Wilkins, please clarify. If I am right, then a Voting Thread needs to be posted -- TABLE the matter until Dec 1, or continue to the discussion.
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.


Since that time we have had a motion to remove. I agree with Steve that since I personally have raised question as to Shep's status that his motion should be held however there was a statement of both a second and a third (though the later would normally be excessive) which indicates there are points of order for bringing this to a vote and seconding the motion even if we discount Shep's motion.

Now THAT having been said I am not going to take this to a vote immediately. We WILL have a vote (a valid motion has been made and seconded per the above) but I am inclined to leave the discussion open under the Chancellor's discretion rule (3.F) and in the spirit of rule 3.E.VI (discussion threads).


Now if I missed any motions from earlier in the thread I apologize but from what I've reviewed the motion under debate is whether or not to remove Stark. Debate will remain open for a further 48 hours (until I get back from my trip to Atlanta) and can post and notify BARING an Admin, Coyote, or Mike posting the vote and sending notice to Coyote (or if Coyote is the poster for him to PM everyone) per 3.E.I and 3.E.II


If there were motions I've missed please PM me and we can move to reconsider based on the point of order.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

Locked