[VOTE] Velthuijsen

[Sea Skimmer]

I voted VI but now I’m thinking abstain

[fgalkin]

Voted.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Voted.

[RedImperator]

Abstain. Sorry Edi, you might be right about Velthuijsen, but there's a conflict of interest when a Senator starts a punishment thread for a user with whom he is currently arguing.

If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time this has happened. I think a good rule of thumb might be, if you're personally involved, start a discussion thread first and see if there's a general consensus that someone should be punished.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Abstain. Sorry Edi, you might be right about Velthuijsen, but there's a conflict of interest when a Senator starts a punishment thread for a user with whom he is currently arguing.

If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time this has happened. I think a good rule of thumb might be, if you're personally involved, start a discussion thread first and see if there's a general consensus that someone should be punished.

If what you just said in my discussion thread is correct, anyway, this poll may be invalidated by the lack of a "no punishment" option.

[Edi]

Abstain. Sorry Edi, you might be right about Velthuijsen, but there's a conflict of interest when a Senator starts a punishment thread for a user with whom he is currently arguing.

If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time this has happened. I think a good rule of thumb might be, if you're personally involved, start a discussion thread first and see if there's a general consensus that someone should be punished.

Yeah, you're right. It has happened before, though this case is perhaps the most controversial of those.

I acknowledge the conflict of interest, so yes, it was bad form. If this poll is to be nullified on that account, no contest on my part. I'll try to be more objective in the future.

Just to be certain that the matter is resolved properly, I got the following from Velthuijsen by PM along with a request to post it in his defense. Let him have his say, then.

This is regarding the poll you set up.
I request you add the following to the poll

Requesting that this poll will be nullified
This poll has been brought by Edi after I refused to prove his strawman. His strawman being that I claimed that the casimir effect scaled up. This is something I have never claimed nor said. What I have said in the thread referred to is that scaling is irrelevant because the object of discussion (the drive sail) only has to be disproven on the "the casimir effect provide propulsion"-premise to scratch it as a drive.

If the poll will not be nullified I have this to say in my defense:

Violating DR 5 : Broken record.
I have continually repeated myself.
However the repeating has been (and will again be as long as that discussion will go on my) my original position. I have not yet been able to get beyond that point in the discussion since people demand that I defend their strawmen instead of my position. I might get somewhere with Ghostrider once I can pin down what he wants evidence for of instead of being vague (which is how this whole storm in a glass of water started, vagueness on my side).
If this is a violation of the broken record debating rule I am guilty. No need to discuss that.

Violating DR 6: not providing evidence.
For my own position I have done so. Gigaliel in this post has been nice enough to do the actual digging. Which I have referred to in this post
I have not tried to prove the strawmen because those are not my position.

Let it not be said that I would compound one error in judgment by then trying to cover it up or trying to deny full analysis.

I still feel that he conducted himself very poorly in that thread and that he was an evasive, dishonest little shit who would not provide clear, concise explanations for his positions until pushed to the wall. I'll leave it to less personally involved people to make their more objective observations on the subject.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I propose a motion to introduce a second poll with Loss of Avatar/Sig privilages, Innocent, and Abstain options and disregard this poll, so that Velthuijsen will either be punished in a minor fashion for what appear to be genuine violations (but in this context don't really seem to warrant any serious punishment), or else declared innocent, rather than simply have this end in a procedural mess.

At this point I confess I'm not sure even a VI could be warranted; there's enough odium associated with it that a simple restriction of some privilages would probably the only supportable punishment. This would give Velthuijsen either a chance to have his name cleared or else for a stern warning to be delivered in the form of some loss of privilages.

I also suggest that someone start a discussion on whether or not first-time DR violations can ever be grounds for a permban. To me that's a second-offense only permban in the context of the Senate (obviously Mike can ban anyone he pleases, but I don't think the Senate should permban someone for a DR unless there's an prior record of conviction and punishment for DR violations on the part of that user).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Addendum: The DR restriction shouldn't apply to DR #7 since it explicitly provides for banning as a punishment.

[Ghost Rider]

Honestly I feel Duchess has a point because honestly he's dragging shit through the ground, relying on others to give his position a point, and when finally pressed he goes "It was always there, but I didn't see fit to destroy my offenders with it.".

If he was so maligned then literally he should've requested to higher ups that posters were engaging in a strawman of his position.

But I would keep the VI up there, as loss of Sig/Avatar would mean nothing to someone who never uses them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Honestly I feel Duchess has a point because honestly he's dragging shit through the ground, relying on others to give his position a point, and when finally pressed he goes "It was always there, but I didn't see fit to destroy my offenders with it.".

If he was so maligned then literally he should've requested to higher ups that posters were engaging in a strawman of his position.

But I would keep the VI up there, as loss of Sig/Avatar would mean nothing to someone who never uses them.

Normally I'd suggest a VI, but I think that a form of chastisement short of titling is the only recourse in a situation where the voting has been, effectively, tainted by this thread. Basically I really think that he deserves some kind of formal punishment but because the way the original vote has been conducted it would be dodgy for us to push through anything severe.

[Ghost Rider]

Honestly I feel Duchess has a point because honestly he's dragging shit through the ground, relying on others to give his position a point, and when finally pressed he goes "It was always there, but I didn't see fit to destroy my offenders with it.".

If he was so maligned then literally he should've requested to higher ups that posters were engaging in a strawman of his position.

But I would keep the VI up there, as loss of Sig/Avatar would mean nothing to someone who never uses them.

Normally I'd suggest a VI, but I think that a form of chastisement short of titling is the only recourse in a situation where the voting has been, effectively, tainted by this thread. Basically I really think that he deserves some kind of formal punishment but because the way the original vote has been conducted it would be dodgy for us to push through anything severe.

I understand. My point was for this particular poster, as well as a few others, loss of sig/avatar priviliges is a empty gesture as they never use it. If not VI, perhaps an alternate form of punishment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, since I don't believe it is appropriate to ban for first-time DR offences, one of my reasons for seeking another vote on punishment is to make it clear to him that if he maintains this behaviour that banning will be an aggressively pursued option for any such future violations. Any sort of punishment would IMO effectively convey that, but it seems that only a very light punishment right now would have any consensus support, if any punishment would, and in general, Senates tend to operate on consensus.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I understand. My point was for this particular poster, as well as a few others, loss of sig/avatar priviliges is a empty gesture as they never use it. If not VI, perhaps an alternate form of punishment.

Well, if you'd like to move for a vote on a VI for the subject in question, I'll second the motion.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I voted though I didn't get a notice, but then, I said , I was going inactive until july, But I do havee computer access on friday and saturday....

[Mr Bean]

Voted, Abstain

[Simplicius]

Voted. I regret that I have not been able to keep up with the forum as of late, but the school year is drawing to a close.