184fbd No.11681
The Disbandment of the NF/KKK, and the Redistribution of it's Seats
Will the Annihilation of Sabah, and with it the destruction of the RPM as well as Senator Supremo, we are left with the task of redistributing their seats.
Please make proposals on how their seats should be redistributed.
a783b1 No.11692
>>11681This issue will solve itself during the next election cycle. Leave them vacant for the time being, they'll be filled soon enough.
d2eabd No.11696
Under what authority did you act to ban him in the first place?
184fbd No.11698
>>11696He was killed by the HALTER cannon, and he broke the rules.
d2eabd No.11700
>>11698Which rule did he break?
184fbd No.11701
>>11700He went and tried to enforce an action that hadn't passed. I'm confident that counts.
d2eabd No.11702
>>11701No, I don't think roleplaying posts that you don't like count as breaking a rule.
184fbd No.11703
>>11702So everyone that can't pass an action through the senate has the permission to go out and enact it through force? You see the problem here?
d2eabd No.11704
>>11703No I don't, actually. The correct solution is to pass an action saying the person can't do that, then ban them, not ban them immediately for roleplaying in a way you dislike.
184fbd No.11705
>>11704>not ban them immediately for roleplaying in a way you dislike.I didn't ban him for that, I banned him as part of the roleplay. He got vaporized by the HALTER cannon. If I was going to ban him for shitty RP, I would have done so when his army somehow got past an entire fleet, and conquered 3 cities without a single casualty.
d2eabd No.11706
>>11705>I didn't ban him for that, I banned him as part of the roleplayRight, you did it for shits and giggles, not because he broke a rule.
184fbd No.11707
>>11706Now you're taking things out of context. He broke the rules. Instead of banning him outright, we decided to see where the RP would head to. The RP has been brought to a close, so now we ban him. I'm sorry if you hate fun.
a783b1 No.11709
I honestly thought he was banned for god-awful roleplay. Even the invasion I thought was alright, but to survive laser blasts like that is just ridiculous. He could have cut his losses and admitted defeat, saying he'll be back to fix this another way, like Cobra in GI Joe, but he didn't, he instead had his men magically survive. That's the point at which I thought it went from corny to garbage.
Panopticon, I'm going to ask you nicely not to freak out over this. Supremo was never good at roleplay and he doesn't even like the rest of /sen/. If he hadn't shit all over the board with a million different 'update' threads, all with ridiculous numbers and a god-awful story, he wouldn't be banned.
If I were a volunteer, I would ban him for shitposting anyways. There was every reason to remove him from /sen/. Just because you don't particularly like Kane doesn't mean this wasn't a decision that Supremo had every chance to avert. He was explicitly warned that he could face execution like Midman, but his posts kept getting shittier. I don't know why you're defending him.
a783b1 No.11710
>>11709Whoops, forgot my trip.
d8e52a No.11712
>yfw you banned xander's IP, KEK
butthurt much?
little babby got hurt feelings while roleplaying? (awww)
You can't even ban me right
You'll never be able to get rid of truth.
I AM THE TRUTH
184fbd No.11715
>>11712>What is irony?Lose like a man.
1345e6 No.11717
Shitty RP etiquette aside, what warrants the motion of the disbandment of the party?
a783b1 No.11718
>>11717Do you consider yourself a member of the party?
1345e6 No.11723
>>11718I had concerns since the Supremo tried to enact his anti-degeneracy bill. Now I'm just trying to see if the situation is still reparable.
184fbd No.11725
>>11723>>11717You can take over his party, but he will remain permabanned.
184fbd No.11727
>>11725>>11723Also, all posts by him will be deleted.
a783b1 No.11728
>>11723I'd suggest simply starting over with a new party, ideally one with a decent thread outlining your platform.
184fbd No.11729
>>11728That is also a good option. You can retain his parties seats.
1345e6 No.11732
>>11730
Would the dissolution of the party and trying again in the next election be more preferable than me taking over the party?
184fbd No.11733
>>11732You can have his seats. Whether or not you want to create a new party or take over his is up to you.
1345e6 No.11737
>>11733Okay, I'll opt to take over NF/KKK and its 12 seats.
184fbd No.11739
>>11737Welcome to the Senate, and please, don't shitpost.
d2eabd No.11743
>>11707>Now you're taking things out of context. He broke the rules. Again, which rule did he break? You only have the authority to delete posts you suspect of being trolls, not ban their author.
>>11709>Panopticon, I'm going to ask you nicely not to freak out over this. Supremo was never good at roleplay and he doesn't even like the rest of /sen/. If he hadn't shit all over the board with a million different 'update' threads, all with ridiculous numbers and a god-awful story, he wouldn't be banned.Kane has a complete disregard for procedure, and he's only going to get worse if it isn't addressed now.
184fbd No.11744
>>11743>You only have the authority to delete posts you suspect of being trolls, not ban their author.Says who? Where does it stipulate such?
>Kane has a complete disregard for procedure, and he's only going to get worse if it isn't addressed now.How so?
If you think me truly in the wrong, then you can propose legislation to have me punished.
a783b1 No.11745
>>11743I'm rather curious as to how you think it should have been handled.
d2eabd No.11748
>>11744Note the lack of a specific rule that he is supposed to have broken.
>Says who? Where does it stipulate such?It's telling that you aren't aware of this.
http://pastebin.com/Av13B0rh
>How so?Remember the whole "the rules are too hard for me to follow, so I won't bother following them" thing when you admitted to failing to announce edits to posts?
>>11745>I'm rather curious as to how you think it should have been handled.I'd have deleted all but one of Supremo's threads and told him to keep it contained there.
a783b1 No.11749
>>11748You think he would have agreed to that?
d2eabd No.11753
>>11749I'd have told him, not asked. If he persisted I'd have carried on deleting his threads until a motion from the senate passed to ban him. I wouldn't have exceeded my authority by acting unilaterally as Kane did.
a783b1 No.11755
>>11753Can you think of a rule he broke which would have justified you confining him that way?
d2eabd No.11757
>>11755The act I posted above gives volunteers the authority to delete spam and troll posts.
a783b1 No.11759
>>11757Yeah, but if he isn't breaking any rules of the /sen/ate and his threads are all still relevant, it's not really spam, is it?
d2eabd No.11762
>>11758
That's up to the volunteer.
a783b1 No.11764
>>11762So someone who didn't technically break the rules (assuming there aren't really rules for acting in violation of a senate decision) could have their posts deleted on a whim of yours. I'll repeat the question, can you actually think of a single rule Supremo broke?
d2eabd No.11765
>>11764No, I can't. Kane's unilateral ban was a complete abrogation of his duties as volunteer.
a783b1 No.11766
>>11765So you'd delete the posts of a rules-abiding /sen/ator that you agree hasn't actually violated any rules in posting.
184fbd No.11767
>>11748Well if the top 5 parties decide I should be punished, then so be it. I'm not surprised I've never heard of the law, considering it only received 11 votes.
d2eabd No.11768
>>11766The authority to delete posts is given to volunteers, the authority to ban users is not. It's that simple.
>>11767You should probably read up on legislation that affects your duties as volunteer.
a783b1 No.11770
>>11768Alright, so if you were a volunteer, you'd delete legitimate posts but you wouldn't ban people. Good to know.
d2eabd No.11771
>>11770Yes, I'd follow the rules.
a783b1 No.11772
>>11771Honestly, Panopticon, if your version of rules lawyering ruled the day, we'd still be swamped in NF/KKK bullshit. Up at the top of the page would be multiple threads (that he'd laugh at you for trying to delete) all about how you're a filthy commie for censoring him, and because you can't ban him, that's what you'd spend the day doing, deleting his posts. Or, alternatively, you could have just not deleted those posts and just left them up there on the front page so that anyone coming to /sen/ has to wade through all that just to get at even a single piece of well-written legislation.
Maybe Kane wasn't playing by the rules when he banned Supremo. That means the rules ought to be rewritten because Kane did the right thing. No, it's not cool to breech protocol to punish people who breech protocol, it's hypocrisy, but I'd much rather have someone with the common sense to can a shitposter than someone whose hands are too tied by red tape to do what he has to to keep /sen/ free of bullshit, and that's the bottom line.
184fbd No.11773
>>11771>>11770The rules sound pretty asinine when you put it like that. Also, not every rule is valid post rebirth. For example, the seat numbers were changed.
d2eabd No.11777
>>11772A servant who breaks loose from his master is a runaway. For us, our master is law; and consequently any law-breaker must be a runaway.
>>11773Legislation pertaining to the functioning of the senate were retained.
a783b1 No.11778
>>11777Would you like Supremo to be unbanned?
184fbd No.11779
>>11777Wouldn't seat numbers count? If so, then that's not true.
9719f8 No.11784
I don't think this was handled correctly. I do think that the senate is a platform where democracy rules over all. I don't think Supremo acted correctly when he enforced his action contrary to the will of the senate, and I don't think Kane acted correctly banning him without a mandate from the senate.
I would appreciate it if board volunteers consulted the senate before taking action on their own - especially in non-extreme cases.
76233a No.11813
Unban Supremo.
76233a No.11814
cf7639 No.11820
>>11814>>11813He broke the rules, and shitposted. I'll let the senate decide