Page 6 of 39

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:51 am
by House of Judah
I had not been planning to do this given current discussions, however recent escalation in abuses has left me no choice but to launch this now.




RESOLVED

Whereas Merizoc has engaged in a pattern of behavior that is beneath the standards of conduct expected of a Senate Administrator, including
  • Treating with contempt requests to explain his actions as a Senate Administrator,
  • Abusing his power as an #NSG_Senate IRC Channel Operator to harass and abuse members of the Senate community,
  • Indiscriminately unbanning users blocked from the #NSG_Senate IRC, many of which had been banned as a result of gross violations of IRC rules,
  • Utilizing his powers as a Senate Administrator implusively and unilaterally without due consideration by his peers,
  • Exceeding his authority and perogerative as one of the users of the NSG Senate Administrators account in order to prevent a community action to remove a clear and present danger to the participants of the Senate RP in accordance with protocols and procedures established by the precedent of the removal from the Senate RP of Dragomere,
  • Attempting to subvert IC election systems by moving voting off site and making vote validation impossible,
And therefore having lost the confidence of the Senate community in his ability to administer with level-headed judgement the Senate roleplay,

And having demonstrated an apathy towards the Senate RP and his responsibilities as a Senate Administrator which serves only to detract from the Senate RP

Is hereby found to be incompetent for the role of Senate Administrator and therefore impeached, stripping him of all powers and responsibilities there of.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:36 am
by Nulla Bellum

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:56 am
by Lamaredia

We're not voting atm, what are you saying nay to?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:16 am
by Van Hool Islands
House of Judah wrote:text

Second.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:24 am
by Vienna Eliot
You need thirty signatures to get the Admins to consider temporary expulsion of a member and a 90% vote to permanently expel someone, per the Drago precedent. So that's more on MV than it is on Merizoc.

Most of these are pretty vague, but there's ten members and I believe that's the number needed to trigger a discussion and/or vote. It should require a supermajority, no doubt, though.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:06 am
by Lamaredia
Vienna Eliot wrote:You need thirty signatures to get the Admins to consider temporary expulsion of a member and a 90% vote to permanently expel someone, per the Drago precedent. So that's more on MV than it is on Merizoc.

Most of these are pretty vague, but there's ten members and I believe that's the number needed to trigger a discussion and/or vote. It should require a supermajority, no doubt, though.

Since the confirmation votes for admin position only requires a simple majority, the same would be logical for the impeachment vote.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:39 am
by Zurkerx
*Admin's Hat On*

Okay, after deliberating for sometime, the official admin statement is completed regarding the situation. As a disclaimer, the "I" represents me, regarding in the first paragraph.

Let's first start off with the warnings situation. A claim has been going around that Merizoc acted alone issuing the warnings. This is not true, for I took in part in the discussion as well and gave the go ahead for him to post the warnings, even though it was a 2/4 decision. MV responded moments after the warnings have been posted, citing the Dragomere petition back several years ago. I realize now that I acted too hastily and should have waited for at least one other admin to respond, and for that, I apologize and take responsibility.

This leads us to the allegations circling around that NWO baited Kam. Despite the fact that many believe this would be considered baiting, we believe this was a response to the comments that Kam and Sarian made prior that they were punished by the mods for. The posts were removed so we understand the confusion. However, from this point on, we will not tolerate such comments from either side and we'll be handing out warnings. If someone is making noise on the topic, ignore them. We will sort it out if need be, and if the NS Mods don't beat us to it.

This leads us to another important part: do not disrespect the NS Mods. Their rulings, posted within this statement, have made it clear that accusations of offsite misconduct against individual players will be considered harassment. If you wish to report an incident, file a GHR. They have made it very clear that the OP account can ban anyone without any reason, and only that account. We will not be tolerating and certainly not facilitating breaking the rules of the site.

Regarding petitions, in the nature of the one Sovcan posted—Posting something like that will likely be considered harassment by the mods, and as stated above, we will not look kindly upon such actions. The Mods will likely take down these petitions before we can even get to them. However, we do recognize the precedent that was set with the Dragomere case, and we want to keep the community's voice constantly at the forefront of our actions. Instead of posting petitions on the forums, we would like said petitions to be sent to us via telegram for us to consider the appropriate course of action. Our main concern is that we keep within the rules of the site so we will work to figure out a way to do that.

In addition, we have received complaints that the admins don't leave their signature when posting with the OP account. This will not happen again, and has been addressed.


*Admin's Hat Off*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:43 am
by Nulla Bellum
Lamaredia wrote:

We're not voting atm, what are you saying nay to?


The latest round of drama. I mean, should I suggest amendments to that, like "the first line should read 'we're sorry we're disrupting the Lobby thread with this pettiness, but..."

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:02 am
by Collatis
Nulla Bellum wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:We’re not voting atm, what are you saying nay to?


The latest round of drama. I mean, should I suggest amendments to that, like “the first line should read ‘we’re sorry we’re disrupting the Lobby thread with this pettiness, but…”

Unfortunately, people as of late seem more interested in pettiness than they do in the Senate. I hope that all of the signatories will put as much effort into making the Senate great again as they have into this petition.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:05 am
by Lamaredia
Collatis wrote:
Nulla Bellum wrote:
The latest round of drama. I mean, should I suggest amendments to that, like “the first line should read ‘we’re sorry we’re disrupting the Lobby thread with this pettiness, but…”

Unfortunately, people as of late seem more interested in pettiness than they do in the Senate. I hope that all of the signatories will put as much effort into making the Senate great again as they have into this petition.

I wouldn't call legitimate concerns about power abuse and negligence "pettiness", and I am quite surprised that you would call it so. Obviously, we all want the Senate to go back to its glory days, and this is, in our (Signatories) opinion, a first step. An admin who doesn't work for the Senate and its senators will only further degrade the experience.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:24 am
by Nulla Bellum
Lamaredia wrote:
Collatis wrote:Unfortunately, people as of late seem more interested in pettiness than they do in the Senate. I hope that all of the signatories will put as much effort into making the Senate great again as they have into this petition.

I wouldn't call legitimate concerns about power abuse and negligence "pettiness", and I am quite surprised that you would call it so. Obviously, we all want the Senate to go back to its glory days, and this is, in our (Signatories) opinion, a first step. An admin who doesn't work for the Senate and its senators will only further degrade the experience.


Well I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. Damned to watch this spectacle unfold, that is. As a new player, this all seems like grievances with past iterations of the Senate game which probably should have been handled between iterations.

Now it looks like passengers rushing the cockpit. i boarded the flight for Funville. I don't want to see the World Trade Center up close.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:12 am
by The Sarian
how much effort do you think signing a petition takes

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:14 am
by Lamaredia
The Sarian wrote:how much effort do you think signing a petition takes

Apparently, quite a lot.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:27 am
by MERIZoC
As Zurk said above, my b for not signing the posts I made. Honestly forgot about that, will remember in the future. Sorry folks.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:22 pm
by Vienna Eliot
Lamaredia wrote:
Vienna Eliot wrote:You need thirty signatures to get the Admins to consider temporary expulsion of a member and a 90% vote to permanently expel someone, per the Drago precedent. So that's more on MV than it is on Merizoc.

Most of these are pretty vague, but there's ten members and I believe that's the number needed to trigger a discussion and/or vote. It should require a supermajority, no doubt, though.

Since the confirmation votes for admin position only requires a simple majority, the same would be logical for the impeachment vote.

Ordinary societies in the Anglophone world tend to require a greater number to rescind or amend something previously adopted as a matter of protecting the rights of absentees, and because small fluctuations in attendance or the composition of the membership could change something over and over and over again. While we roleplay a legislature, we function as an ordinary society, and because of the reasons stated above, as well as the relative difficulty of becoming an admin — being nominated, being approved by the Admins, and being approved by the whole membership — removing an Admin should require a simple majority. Otherwise they'd never make difficult decisions.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:03 pm
by House of Judah
Then what exactly are parliamentary confidence votes or judicial retention elections?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:11 pm
by The Sarian
Vienna Eliot wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:Since the confirmation votes for admin position only requires a simple majority, the same would be logical for the impeachment vote.

Ordinary societies in the Anglophone world tend to require a greater number to rescind or amend something previously adopted as a matter of protecting the rights of absentees, and because small fluctuations in attendance or the composition of the membership could change something over and over and over again. While we roleplay a legislature, we function as an ordinary society, and because of the reasons stated above, as well as the relative difficulty of becoming an admin — being nominated, being approved by the Admins, and being approved by the whole membership — removing an Admin should require a simple majority. Otherwise they'd never make difficult decisions.

Factually incorrect.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:30 pm
by Maklohi Vai
The admins are undertaking discussion as to the impeachment petition.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:07 pm
by Collatis
Merizoc must be impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:10 pm
by Martune
Collatis wrote:Merizoc must be impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

He did not have sexual relations with that woman.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:13 pm
by Malgrave
Collatis wrote:Merizoc must be impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.


don't steal my scandal

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:48 pm
by Vienna Eliot
House of Judah wrote:Then what exactly are parliamentary confidence votes or judicial retention elections?
The Sarian wrote:
Vienna Eliot wrote:Ordinary societies in the Anglophone world tend to require a greater number to rescind or amend something previously adopted as a matter of protecting the rights of absentees, and because small fluctuations in attendance or the composition of the membership could change something over and over and over again. While we roleplay a legislature, we function as an ordinary society, and because of the reasons stated above, as well as the relative difficulty of becoming an admin — being nominated, being approved by the Admins, and being approved by the whole membership — removing an Admin should require a simple majority. Otherwise they'd never make difficult decisions.

Factually incorrect.

I very clearly specified ordinary societies. This roleplay administers itself as an ordinary society, not a legislature. I quote:
Vienna Eliot wrote:While we roleplay a legislature, we function as an ordinary society

There are big differences between ordinary societies and legislatures. The ones that come to mind are consistency in the number of members, the ability to compel attendance, and the inherent representation of more than one person contained in a single vote cast. Our roleplay is not a legislature and Merizoc is not a head of government.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:42 pm
by House of Judah
Which might be an argument in the case of the parliamentary no confidence, but completely blows past judicial retention votes.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:58 pm
by Vienna Eliot
House of Judah wrote:Which might be an argument in the case of the parliamentary no confidence, but completely blows past judicial retention votes.

I guess it depends on whether you think a conveniently timed slim majority should be able to remove somebody without proving they've done something wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. It sounds like you don't trust that your arguments against Merizoc are true enough to convince more than a simple majority of the membership.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:14 pm
by House of Judah
Considering that Admin Confirmation votes rarely draw a majority of eligible voters in the first place, and has given to disastrous results at times, particularly in the case of Zoc, I'm super not inclined to afford corrupt and incompetent admins protection of super majority requirement or even a simple majority of all voters. Secondly, every single charge is true to the letter which is amply demonstrable to the Senate community.