[Member] Stark removal vote comments

Moderator: CmdrWilkens

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

[Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-21 11:33pm

If you have any comments to make place them here.
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

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: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Coyote » 2009-10-21 11:56pm

Yes, and voted.
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
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17490
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Alyeska » 2009-10-22 12:36am

Voted
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."

User avatar
Steve
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9552
Joined: 2002-07-03 01:09pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Steve » 2009-10-22 12:40am

Voted.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia

American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.

Admin of SFD, Moderator of SDN, Former Spacebattles Super-Mod, Veteran Chatnik

User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22227
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Mr Bean » 2009-10-22 12:59am

Voted. Voted for removal due to the quotes in the OP along with the following threads detailing his dislike of the Senate.

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!
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... &p=3177717


http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3178195
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3177717
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3186666
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3178910
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3178386
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3165141
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... e#p3178846
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... e#p3177717
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... e#p3075808

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton

User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12444
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Edi » 2009-10-22 01:02am

Voted.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Thanas » 2009-10-22 04:05am

Voted against.

I know of several members who said that the senate didn't matter as well or that they did not care much about it either. Is that now grounds for removal? If someone wants to remove themselves, they can always do so.


And why wasn't there a discussion post first? I thought the usual procedure was discussion, then vote?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

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

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Bounty » 2009-10-22 04:09am

Votred against for mind-numbingly obvious reasons. Stark was doing what he was voted into the Senate to do and kicking him out because he's critical (or is it because he didn't say it politely?) is ridiculous.

If Stark wants to resign, let him resign; he has the integrity to go through with it. This vote is just petty drama for vindictiveness' sake.

User avatar
Simplicius
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Simplicius » 2009-10-22 04:41am

Voted against. I fail to see how his conduct is sufficiently egregious to warrant expulsion since this same body voted him in not long ago, and he was hardly a different person then. Furthermore, I have doubts about the procedural legitimacy of this vote since the motion and second as proclaimed do not seem to be present in this forum. If Stark's removal is ultimately the will of higher-ranking authority than it should simply be executed as such. If is meant to be a Senate decision than the should be so in its entirety, and that requires a motion and second as per the rules.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Thanas » 2009-10-22 04:47am

Also, I reiterate my objection - there was no opportunity for discussion and I quite frankly am not sure I get what is going on here.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2024
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Tiriol » 2009-10-22 07:14am

Voted.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6768
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2009-10-22 07:16am

Stark was the same Stark when the Senate voted him in. His behavior is no different now than it was when he was deemed worthy of elevation to this body. Furthermore, I share the same misgivings regarding the procedural integrity of this vote, so my vote will reflect that.

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

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Surlethe » 2009-10-22 07:19am

I voted against for the reasons Thanas, Simplicius, and GrandMasterTerwynn have given. Bean, you're really stretching for this.
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
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Thanas » 2009-10-22 07:48am

I move to declare this vote invalid due to the following reasons:

1. The motion and second are not present. Secret motions and seconds are not allowed in the rules and go in fact against the spirit of this body.
2. There was no discussion. In fact, the only evidence was presented after the vote had already happened.

Do I have a second?

*******************
In other news, this also raises serious doubts about the competence of our chancellor, IMO. I thought there was supposed to be fair discussion in here, not some people just making a vote because they feel like it? That the chancellor just starts a vote without even a mediocrum of discussion on it IMO reflects very badly upon his integrity and professionalism.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Dalton
For Those About to Rock We Salute You
For Those About to Rock We Salute You
Posts: 22583
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:16pm
Location: New York, the Fuck You State
Contact:

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Dalton » 2009-10-22 08:00am

Thanas raises a point here. CmdrWilkens and Mr Bean, I ask that you respond to this.
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: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Coyote » 2009-10-22 08:07am

He could have quit if he wanted to... but didn't. So what was the purpose of sticking around then? To be a gadfly and no more? To mock and ridicule? Sabotage? Someone who openly states a loathing and contempt for your organization but refuses to leave cannot be up to any good.

Is he the same ol' Stark he was before? Yeah. Some of us thought being involved in the process might change his perceptions. But, sometimes you just wake up the morning after and ask yourself, "what was I thinking!?"
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
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Thanas » 2009-10-22 08:11am

Coyote wrote:He could have quit if he wanted to... but didn't. So what was the purpose of sticking around then? To be a gadfly and no more? To mock and ridicule? Sabotage? Someone who openly states a loathing and contempt for your organization but refuses to leave cannot be up to any good.

Is he the same ol' Stark he was before? Yeah. Some of us thought being involved in the process might change his perceptions. But, sometimes you just wake up the morning after and ask yourself, "what was I thinking!?"

Gee, this almost looks like that would have been a nice topic for a discussion, wouldn't it? Kinda like "OK Stark, this is what you allegedly said, explain yourself?" But you do not just declare a vote without at least giving somebody the opportunity to explain themselves. Even Colfax had that privilege, now a Senator is not supposed to get it?

Has either Wilkens or you, who are supposed to in some way care about the integrity of this body even bothered to ask Stark to defend himself and then posted his explanation?


EDIT: If Bean or any other supermod/admin want him out of the senate, they could just toss hm out. But the minute we go through the senate route the senate rules better be observed and they are not in this case.
Last edited by Thanas on 2009-10-22 08:16am, edited 1 time in total.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Lagmonster
Master Control Program
Master Control Program
Posts: 7719
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Lagmonster » 2009-10-22 08:16am

This will surprise some, because it's obvious I dislike the guy's attitude. But that just gets on my tits personally and I can't in good conscience vote against him, because I believe that he can contribute, even if his tendency to criticize ideas rather than offer them tends to get in the way.

I say let Stark decide whether he wants to man up to the complaints against him and grow or shrink, or else not care and give up his Senate seat. With the caveat that if he stays, he should be aware that if he says things like "If this is how things are done, I don't want to be a Senator anymore" he'll be held to them.
Note: I'm semi-retired from the board, so if you need something, please be patient.

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

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Surlethe » 2009-10-22 08:29am

Even if we want to hold Stark to "If X, I don't want to be a Senator anymore", I would hope that X - "if the moderators set invisible standards and decide when discussion is worthless", or "Senate is totally useless, the mods do what they want", from the 'evidence' presented in the vote thread - isn't the case. Two points from those quotes, then. First, Stark is pretty clearly saying that if the administration is simply going to ignore the Senate's advice and feedback and set standards without any consultation or transparency, then he doesn't want to be a member of the Senate any more, which is fine (and I would sympathize with any Senator who felt that way) - but since when has our policy been to ignore the Senate entirely? We just cracked down on summary bannings (i.e., no more of them) and ended the HoC to get the Senate back on track advising the staff; if anything, Stark's comments ought to be interpreted as criticism of the (assumed) manner in which the Senate has not been advising and the staff has not been listening, not that he wants out. Second, you've got to be brainless to interpret "If X then I want to leave" as "I want to leave" without having solid evidence of X; acting as though the two are the same is a tacit admission that X is true, which, in tihs case, is precisely what we do not want!

Finally, even if the points above are wrong (and I stick by them), Thanas is correct: setting up a removal thread in the Senate with no discussion basically shits all over the whole point of the Senate. I'd like to hear Stark's take on this criticism, but I'd not be surprised if this thread just confirmed the conditions he laid down for his own removal and he's decided not to participate just because of it.
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
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2024
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Tiriol » 2009-10-22 08:30am

The way I see it, Stark has already made known his desire not to part of the Senate should certain criteria arise (here in a locked Senate thread) and he is also constantly making it very certain that he considers the Senate to be useless and/or stupid. Why should he, then, to continue being a Senator, if he deems the Senate an useless body?

I've also always been under the impression that the Senators are supposed to be model posters or at least posters who follow the forum's standards. Stark litters his posts with such delightful remarks and such enlightened attitude that Darth Wong himself has noted it (as evidenced here and here, both from the defunct House of Commons). This attitude infests many of his posts and the various "hilarious" memes ("LOL nerd fatty WHO KNEW?!!!11" or something similar) he employs sometimes not as even PART of the argument, but as the argument itself, are not that becoming of a Senator. I am not wishing for him to be removed from the SDNet itself, but rather from the Senate, since in my humble opinion there is enough evidence that his posting no longer merits the participation in the Senate.

The rules don't state, by the way, that a Senator should make a public motion to expel someone if there are at least two Senators (one who makes the motion and one who seconds it) who agree on it. Presumably they can inform the Chancellor of their intentions who can jump-start to the vote itself. That's what I got from reading Rule 2 C II a.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Thanas » 2009-10-22 08:33am

Surlethe, Stark sent me a PM saying the same thing you did, but he did not give me permission to post it. And as he has been banned from the forum pending the conclusion of the removal vote, he can't defend himself anyway.

And he sent it before Surlethe made the comment and I got the records to prove it, so anyone who wants to go down the "he is just echoing Surlethe" route can go take a long hike of a short cliff.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Thanas » 2009-10-22 08:36am

Tiriol wrote:The way I see it, Stark has already made known his desire not to part of the Senate should certain criteria arise (here in a locked Senate thread) and he is also constantly making it very certain that he considers the Senate to be useless and/or stupid. Why should he, then, to continue being a Senator, if he deems the Senate an useless body?

I've also always been under the impression that the Senators are supposed to be model posters or at least posters who follow the forum's standards. Stark litters his posts with such delightful remarks and such enlightened attitude that Darth Wong himself has noted it (as evidenced here and here, both from the defunct House of Commons). This attitude infests many of his posts and the various "hilarious" memes ("LOL nerd fatty WHO KNEW?!!!11" or something similar) he employs sometimes not as even PART of the argument, but as the argument itself, are not that becoming of a Senator. I am not wishing for him to be removed from the SDNet itself, but rather from the Senate, since in my humble opinion there is enough evidence that his posting no longer merits the participation in the Senate.
Another opinion that should have been stated in a discussion thread instead of voting first.
The rules don't state, by the way, that a Senator should make a public motion to expel someone if there are at least two Senators (one who makes the motion and one who seconds it) who agree on it. Presumably they can inform the Chancellor of their intentions who can jump-start to the vote itself. That's what I got from reading Rule 2 C II a.
Quit armchair lawyering, I am a real one and I am not impressed. It has been long standard procedure that votes are discussed before there even is the motion made to have a vote, not a vote being posted first and then no discussion on it. Otherwise we would be using a harsher procedure than we use on ban votes on the removal of senators.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10590
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV
Contact:

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Beowulf » 2009-10-22 08:38am

LOL, fatty nerds haet strak.

(tl;dr: I don't think Stark should have been voted in in the first place.)
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan

User avatar
Frank Hipper
Overfiend of the Superego
Posts: 12882
Joined: 2002-10-17 08:48am
Location: Hamilton, Ohio?

Re: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Frank Hipper » 2009-10-22 08:44am

Dalton wrote:Thanas raises a point here. CmdrWilkens and Mr Bean, I ask that you respond to this.
Agreed.
Image
Life is all the eternity you get, use it wisely.

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: [Member] Stark removal vote comments

Post by Coyote » 2009-10-22 08:51am

Surlethe wrote:Even if we want to hold Stark to "If X, I don't want to be a Senator anymore", I would hope that X - "if the moderators set invisible standards and decide when discussion is worthless", or "Senate is totally useless, the mods do what they want", from the 'evidence' presented in the vote thread - isn't the case. Two points from those quotes, then. First, Stark is pretty clearly saying that if the administration is simply going to ignore the Senate's advice and feedback and set standards without any consultation or transparency, then he doesn't want to be a member of the Senate any more, which is fine (and I would sympathize with any Senator who felt that way) - but since when has our policy been to ignore the Senate entirely? We just cracked down on summary bannings (i.e., no more of them) and ended the HoC to get the Senate back on track advising the staff; if anything, Stark's comments ought to be interpreted as criticism of the (assumed) manner in which the Senate has not been advising and the staff has not been listening, not that he wants out. Second, you've got to be brainless to interpret "If X then I want to leave" as "I want to leave" without having solid evidence of X; acting as though the two are the same is a tacit admission that X is true, which, in tihs case, is precisely what we do not want!

But the Senate is an advisory body, not a ruling one, and when the sun sets at the end of the day this is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Did Stark not know this when he got in? Is this like going to a foreign country and then complaining about how everything is different?

His "participation" has been little beyond "LOL SRS BZNZ". He made demands about how the Senate should be run and threatened to vacate if those demands weren't met-- a good way to be shown the door. There are no invisible rules involved when you get invited to participate and spend your time just throwing things and making demands. By saying "change this or I'm out" he actually set the parameters for his own removal, not the other way around.
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!

Locked