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.