5bf2c8 No.11783
Action
Whereas Comrade Kane has acted in contravention to his duties in banning a user without permission from the Senate or in response to a breach of specific rules or legislation, and
Whereas Comrade Kane has admitted to ignoring requirements regarding publication of edits to posts, and
Whereas Comrade Kane has expressed confusion and ignorance over the responsibilities expected of him as a volunteer,
Therefore:
1. Comrade Kane will be removed from his position as volunteer and barred from becoming one again for 2 weeks
2. All bans by Comrade Kane will be revoked
5bf2c8 No.11785
21 votes aye, even if Kane is later given volunteership back there should be some kind of response for an obvious abuse
c31203 No.11792
No, 31 votes
e9d990 No.11807
Fuck you, CoAn, No 22
Knock it off.
c05e7e No.11809
>>11807You mean Panopticon. Thank you, TTH.
3083bb No.11810
3083bb No.11811
>>11810fuck. forgot trip.
c05e7e No.11826
>>11792And thank you, Leninator. I'm glad some people understand the necessity of my actions.
53ce48 No.11834
>>11783No, 10 seats. This is not condoning the actions by any measure, I don't think either party is in the right. I do, however stand by our volunteers, and understand that there is a bit of a shortage.
Also this action is pointless. It would just revoke Kanes volunteership for the recess.
c09df8 No.11838
>>11834No, 12 seats.
Agreed with what you have to say.
1f14bd No.11839
Voting no with seven seats here.
dbc008 No.11841
Nay, 18 votes since there is an existing protocol in place to decide on punishment, said protocol being a vote for only the leaders of the five largest parties in the /sen/ate, meaning the leaders of SPQR (myself, Caesar), PF (is Comrade Chairman still around?), ACP (Weil), NSDAP (Erich), and KP (Kommando).
I'm going to make a thread right now to determine what to do. Until such a time as we determine a proper punishment or decision, whatever decision is made in this thread is not legal by the laws of the /sen/ate.
dbc008 No.11843
91b10d No.11880
>>11783>I'm not surprised I've never heard of this lawSo this screencap is from before the failing to announce edits thing? Then how can that be mentioned in the cap?
5bf2c8 No.11917
>>11834>I do, however stand by our volunteers, and understand that there is a bit of a shortage.One thing at a time, but there are plenty of other active users here.
>Also this action is pointless. It would just revoke Kanes volunteership for the recess.No, it's permanent, it just doesn't bar him permanently (he could be reappointed after 2 weeks).
>>11841>I'm going to make a thread right now to determine what to do. Until such a time as we determine a proper punishment or decision, whatever decision is made in this thread is not legal by the laws of the /sen/ate.Legislation can supersede existing legislation.
5bf2c8 No.11918
>>11880>So this screencap is from before the failing to announce edits thing? No, that was about 2 weeks ago.
dbc008 No.11929
>>11917So in response to ignoring protocol, you're going to completely ignore the same protocol you were citing to me less than 48 hours ago? If you want to supersede protocol, you're going to have to amend this bill to also change the existing protocol regarding punishment of volunteers. For someone who's upset that Kane is out of line, you're sure willing to be out of line to try to punish him.
91b10d No.11932
>>11918Then is that not the same law? I don't get how you can not hear of a law when part of the reason it's been brought up is the last time it was broken…
5bf2c8 No.11948
>>11929>So in response to ignoring protocol, you're going to completely ignore the same protocol you were citing to me less than 48 hours ago? If you want to supersede protocol, you're going to have to amend this bill to also change the existing protocol regarding punishment of volunteers. For someone who's upset that Kane is out of line, you're sure willing to be out of line to try to punish him.It's not ignoring it, it's supplementing it.
>>11932Nope, Comrade Kane has broken two different laws on the behaviour of volunteers, one for requiring edits and one for only giving him authority to delete posts.
dbc008 No.11953
>>11948It isn't a supplement to anything. That's like me cutting in line in front of you, then I turn around and say "I'm not cutting in front of you, I'm supplementing your place in line." There is an established rule in place for deciding the punishment of volunteers who break rules, and we're currently in talks about it. If you want this law to be effective, you are going to have to amend it to correct the earlier law. If you want me to take this up with ObserverStatus, I will not hesitate to do so after Christmas if it comes to it. Kane was out of line but at least he was doing something productive to help /sen/ stay functioning and fun. Now you're out of line and you know you're out of line because
you cited the law telling you you're out of line. If you don't want to be a hypocrite, amend the law and get your shit together. Or, alternatively, don't, and be a hypocrite of a /sen/ rules lawyer who defends shitposters who bring nothing of value to this board, it's really up to you. The ball is in your court.
5bf2c8 No.11954
>>11953You're grasping at straws, more recent laws supersede old laws by definition.
dbc008 No.11958
>>11954What bothers me is your hypocrisy, not whether or not Kane will be punished, since that's up to /sen/. This could all be fixed so easily; amend the action. The clock has run out on this law anyways by nearly a day, so this particular action is not my concern, but in the future, consider not being a hypocrite.
Just to spare volunteers the trouble, the voting for this has been closed for a day, and it closed when /sen/ was still in session. Here are the results:
Yea: 29
Nay: 100
This action failed by a 77.5% margin.
1a7e85 No.11959
What happened anyway?
a9016f No.11960
>>11959I banned a shitposter. Apparently that is a no no. Panopticon has had a grudge against me for a while now.
5bf2c8 No.11965
>>11958>What bothers me is your hypocrisyThere is no hypocrisy. I have the authority to propose and vote on legislation that alters how /sen/ works, including volunteers, whereas volunteers do not (barring the passage of legislation, which never occurred in this case) have the authority to ban users.
>>11960It was a no no for the same reason Midman fucking up the board was a no no, he didn't have the authority to do what he did, even if he had the power. Whether it was subjectively desirable to do what he did was besides the point, he acted without sanction from /sen/, the raison d'etre of the entire board.
You two simply don't care about procedure. Understandable for Kane, but for someone to take the name of a man who cared deeply for justice and fidelity to the natural order and then laugh at the idea of following rules when it's inconvenient is really bizarre.
a9016f No.11972
>>11965>no difference between a volunteer who banned a shitposter, and a volunteer who gave someone else board-ownership, with the intent to destroy the board.You are the worst kind of politician, Panopticon. The kind that loves red tape, no matter how impractical or wrong it might be.
1a7e85 No.11974
>>11960Isn't this a shitposting board.
>>11965Why was midman banned again?
>>11972He's anal, but he's right.
What the hell are you guys doing here anyway, it's almost Christmas.
a9016f No.11977
>>11974>He's anal, but he's right.
>What the hell are you guys doing here anyway, it's almost Christmas.Still bullshit, though.
Break started yesterday.
>Why was midman banned again?Read my post over again.
Post last edited at
1a7e85 No.11986
>>11977>Still bullshit, though.Wether you like or not he's right. You're a volunteer, you're suppose to follow the rules and enforce it, not break it. And when was shitposting a bannable offense.
>Read my post over again.What post?
Can someone just tell me what happened.
a9016f No.11989
1a7e85 No.11991
>>11989I was talking about midman, but still though, you don't have the right to ban the guy. As a volunteer you should know that.
That is a lot of threads.
a9016f No.11993
>>11991>a volunteer who gave someone else board-ownership, with the intent to destroy the board.That's what MIDMAN did.
1a7e85 No.11994
>>11993>you don't have the right to ban the guy.I was talking about the supremo guy.
A little bit more detail on both incidents if I may ask.
489227 No.11995
>>11994Please see the thread regarding what the leaders of the top five parties decide regarding this; that's going to be the final decision as per the laws of this senate.
Primo, you weren't around for it, but it was garbage on an impressive scale. You can joke about this board being for shitposting, now imagine shitposting so dumb that it doesn't even meet those standards. Kane made the right call, and Panopticon aside, those who were there can attest to that, it's why this action failed abysmally. To compare it to Midman is like saying that pushing an old lady out of the path of a runaway truck is the same as pushing her into it since an old lady is being pushed around in both cases.
f1f09a No.12001
Kane is okay but he just needs to follow producures. He is kinda in terms of d&d I would say chaotic good. :3
1f02cf No.12002
>>12001So what would that make Panopticon? Lawful Evil?
f1f09a No.12003
>>12002Dunno if he is evil or not but he is lawfull as far as I can see.
1f02cf No.12004
>>12003Either I would say either Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral. You can use your tripcode, you know.
5bf2c8 No.12005
>>12001He roleplayed a genocide and then proposed invading the victims with a conscript army, not sure where you're getting the good part from
f1f09a No.12006
>>12005I was talking about him not the
roleplaying part.
Seriosly I have just read the fucking sabah invasion thing and ion canon stuff. This is some serious autism. /sen/ was already autistic enough but that was some high tier. tth should stop spreading it. 1f02cf No.12007
>>12006Yeah it was, but it was fun. We should have just banned him to begin with, but I wanted to try to incorporate more RP mechanics into the senate. Making it so bills have consequences is a good step forward. 1a7e85 No.12019
>>11995What I know is Kane broke the rules, and volunteers that break the rules and don't get punished have a tendency to break the rules, if not again, even more.
He broke the rules when he banned midman, he got away with it, and he did it again, this time for a trifling matter.
>>12006No wonder all the right-wingers left, I expected this place to be pol 1.2 when it started>>12007Even if it was as autistic as they said, you shouldn't have banned him 773b28 No.12020
>>12019>You mean this isn't another hugbox?!Top fucking kek
1a7e85 No.12022
>>12020I meant this
shouldn't be another hugbox.
Right now it seems to be one for autistics left-wingers.
773b28 No.12023
>>12022>implying /pol/ isn't a hugboxNo one forced you guys to leave.
773b28 No.12024
>>12022I'm actually very disappointed you guys did leave, instead of putting up a fight.
1a7e85 No.12025
>>12023>implying /leftypol/ and other marxist boards aren't >>12024>instead of putting up a fightFor what?
I'm the only one not too busy for this shit, or at least check it from time to time 773b28 No.12026
>>12025In no way is /leftypol/ a hugbox. Half of the users on /leftypol/ are /pol/ocks arguing against leftism.
The senate has never, and never will be, a hugbox. It seems to me that the right just gave up because it assumed from the beginning that it would be in power, instead of putting any effort into actually gaining power. The only people that have showed any kind of political sense has been the left. You guys have no one to blame but yourselves.
1a7e85 No.12027
>>12026That sudden change to a defensive tone.
/leftypol/ has always been a hugbox, and so what a few trolls post from time to time.
>The senate has never, and never will be, a hugbox.the volunteer just banned someone for shitposting right-wing shit, sounds like /sen/ is putting on its jackboots and red snuggie to me
>powerthis is an RP board, what power are you talking about?
>The only people that has shown any kind of political sense has been the left.[Sarcasm] That has been surely shown many times [/sarcasm]
e0f426 No.12028
>>12026No, you don't understand: He doesn't like it, so it's a hugbox.
1a7e85 No.12029
>>12028>He doesn't like it , so it's a hugbox.Nice job psychologically projecting, comrade.
>mfw I don't even argued that /pol/ isn'tyfw the sole purpose of /leftypol/ is to be a commie hugbox, if it weren't there'd just be /pol/ 773b28 No.12030
>>12027>That sudden change to a defensive tone.It's not a "defensive" tone, it's a "you're an idiot" tone.
>/leftypol/ has always been a hugbox, and so what a few trolls post from time to time.A few trolls? Time to time? Are you completely delusional?
>the volunteer just banned someone for shitposting right-wing shit, sounds like /sen/ is putting on its jackboots and red snuggie to meAgain, are completely delusional? It had nothing to do with it being "right-wing". Shitposting is shitposting.
>this is an RP board, what power are you talking about?The power to pass legislation, obviously.
>[Sarcasm] That has been surely shown many times [/sarcasm]Hasn't it? The RJP jumped ship and joined the left because of the right's ineptitude. Even the fascist party guy thinks the same thing.
e0f426 No.12031
>>12029Nice projection meme, kameraden
1a7e85 No.12032
>>12030>power to pass legislationin a fake senate
>Are you completely delusional?>Again, are you completely delusional?You sound butthurt, here's a napkin to wipe the red out of your filthy mouth.
773b28 No.12033
>>12032>accuses someone of being butthurt while being completely assblasted himself.Ayyyy
>in a fake senateWhy are you even here, then?
1a7e85 No.12034
>>12033>AyyyyAre you completely delusional?
>Why are you even here, then?To make fun of you, that's what.
1a7e85 No.12036
>>12034>>12033Actually I'm here to be devil's advocate, or God's advocare, pretty sure everyone here is under Satan's spell>>12035I only go on here when I'm bored, I barely vote on anything de3a2b No.12037
>>12036>well it's not bad when I do it.Yep, you're a /pol/ock alright.
dbc008 No.12044
Banning Midman was the right thing to do. Banning Supremo was the right thing to do. Punishing him for banning Supremo is kind of like punishing a cop for stopping a school shooting because the cop brought a gun into a "gun-free zone." To strictly follow the rules in these cases would be to utterly shit up /sen/ even worse than any of its regulars could ever hope to do.
1a7e85 No.12045
>>12044It's more like, a little kid whining and then hitting him on the head.
It was fine with midman, but he banned supremo even though he knew that he didn't have the right to.
To me that looks like him thinking he can excercise powers that he isn't allowed to and getting away with it, and he is.
The thing is he's not following the rules, and that's how we get shitty mods.
dbc008 No.12046
>>12045Now this is getting silly. You'd rather have a volunteer sit on the sidelines and watch like some kind of weird legalistic cuckold while /sen/ gets shitposted to hell and back than actually clean the board up? Kane performed a good act when he banned Supremo, period. Supremo was a shit who couldn't roleplay to save his life. It was entertaining at first but he had no idea when to stop, and from the outset, it was understood that it could devolve into shitposting at any minute, it was just a question of when Supremo would push it too far, which he did, and then Kane banned him when his posting quality finally dipped into the territory of being absolute bullshit.
However! Even though myself and Erich agree that Kane did the right thing, the decision regarding his punishment shall be made after the break by a meeting which has already been established. I am suspecting you'll get some kind of justice out of this, though I honestly couldn't think of what would be a proper punishment for doing the right thing.
I'm not arguing for volunteer overreach, because this was overreach only in the most technical sense. If Kane had banned someone just for annoying him by having different opinions, that would be serious overreach, but I don't get why other people have such an issue with /sen/ having
some semblance of standards when it comes to the quality of its roleplaying. In any other game, someone who is being a total shit can ruin it for everyone else. Let's not pretend that Supremo wasn't asking for it,
badly. Plus, he was warned very clearly and repeatedly about his behavior.
5bf2c8 No.12047
>>12046>You'd rather have a volunteer sit on the sidelines and watch like some kind of weird legalistic cuckold while /sen/ gets shitposted to hell He had the authority to delete shitposts.
dbc008 No.12048
>>12047So instead of banning Supremo, he should have been babysitting him? Bullshit.
5bf2c8 No.12049
>>12048You say babysitting, I say following the rules.
1a7e85 No.12050
>>12046>If Kane had banned someone just for annoying him by having different opinionsThat's what he did.
>>11651just because the guy did some pretty damn retarded roleplay doesn't mean you have to ban him
>>12049I don't like you, but you're right 421057 No.12051
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
All I wanted was a week or so to myself to sort through my thoughts, but can I leave this board without people throwing wild accusations about? Apparently not. So, here's what I'm going to say.
Quit your bitching til the 3rd, please.
We're all on break. It's the holidays. Why is this such an offensive thing that you can't just set it aside for a bit. I'm usually a bit of a grinch myself, but god damn. I'm going to make some statements, and I don't want any responses til after the /sen/ate is back in session.
Marcus, thank you for being levelheaded here. Kane may well have to pay the price for overstepping his bounds, even if it is just a technicality, but I'm glad you seem to have a clear grasp on the situation.
Primo, Panopticon, it's an unspoken rule in every RP community that you do not godmod.
Ever.
Just saying. As a veteran RPer of 10+ years in DnD, Pathfinder, and several online RP communities, this is the one universal truth. Breaking it is tantamount to breaking every single other rule. It isn't tolerated. And guess what? Supremo did it. End of story. (He made some other decisions that were pretty borderline as well, but the main thing is that he blatantly ignored the standard rules and etiquette of RP and refused to bow out gracefully when beaten.)
Random /sen/ators, please don't stir up shit during the holidays. It can wait another five days, I'm sure.
And last but not least, let's not make this yet another "/pol/ vs /leftypol/" debate/war. I just explained the reasoning here behind Supremo's ban, it has nothing to do with nazis or commies. We will discuss the particulars thoroughly once the /sen/ate is back in session. Please contain yourselves until then, gentlemen. Oh, and one more thing.
This is a meta issue. We are supposed to keep IC and OOC separate, that is just as important a rule as "don't godmod".
d4418f No.12052
>>12050>>12049So it has come to this, then. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Isn't that right, Panopticon?
1a7e85 No.12053
>>12052Chill out, in all honesty I actually like you, but you have to pay the price for what you did 118d0f No.12054
No, 33 votes.
Stop being butthurt.
118d0f No.12055
d4418f No.12056
>>12053>>12053What price would that be?
80a959 No.12060
d4418f No.12061
>>12060Are you going to start using your tripcode again?
80a959 No.12062
>>12061Nah. I dont feel like to doing so. I dont really need it since I dont currently have voting rights and I am not thinking to get them any time soon.
5bf2c8 No.12064
>>12051>This is a meta issue. We are supposed to keep IC and OOC separate, that is just as important a rule as "don't godmod".This was actually an in-character thread. I didn't post in any of the roleplaying threads Supremo and Kane made because they were stupid.
1a7e85 No.12065
>>12056That's to be decided, but personally I like Panopticon's proposition. You be removed from your position for while, then you be allowed back, I quite like you being a mod, and unban those you banned. d4418f No.12067
>>12065I can tell you right now that Supremo is not going to be unbanned.
421057 No.12073
>>12064>This was actually an in-character thread. I didn't post in any of the roleplaying threads Supremo and Kane made because they were stupid.It started as a meta thread, since it started as an action to deop Kane, which is a meta issue. Anything pertaining directly to the board itself and board management is a meta issue.
5bf2c8 No.12074
1a7e85 No.12075
>>12067Don't be butthurt, just because you don't like him doesn't mean you have to ban him, while we're at it I suggest we give midman's right to participate in the senate back 421057 No.12076
>>12074You can disagree all you like. It doesn't change the epistemological definition of a word. Meta means 'about', and this thread is [an issue] about an issue. QED.
To be a bit more specific, 'meta' here applies to any issues pertaining directly to the board or board maintenance, rather than the IC or "fake" stories, goals, personalities, conversations, etc. that we portray. Kane's volunteership and the discussion of its revocation is, therefore, a 'meta' issue in this sense as well.
Really, I expected you to know all of this, Mr. Lawyerman. 5bf2c8 No.12078
>>12076Internal application of rules is something regular legislatures get up to so we aren't breaking character to discuss it.
aca785 No.12079
>>12075We already did, and he will remain banned because he's a chronic shitposter.
1a7e85 No.12081
>>12079If you don't like what he posted, that's your personal problem, but as a volunteer it's your job to follow the rules, and you don't have the right to ban him, the guy didn't really do anything wrong. aca785 No.12082
>>12081If for some reason the board owner chooses to unban him, then fine, but it's not like I didn't consult with him before banning the guy.
1a7e85 No.12084
>>12082I guess it was without context.
is it perhaps, that you and the boardowner are the same person? aca785 No.12085
>>12084THE GOYIM KNOWSHUT IT DOWNtop kek. No, we are not the same person.
1a7e85 No.12087
>>12085"You will not deceive me rich merchant"testing 7732d7 No.12101
>>11783No, 22 seats.
My holiday trip @/gamergate/ is ruined because of you.
dbc008 No.12117
>>12101No need, this already failed since it started and ended before the official break.