Vote: Should army CPT be removed as moderator of Points of Reality? [Archive]

thedancingbear

10-14-08, 05:17 PM

The following ten users have jointly moved for impeachment and removal of army CPT as moderator of Points of Reality:

1. DarthYoshi
2. stannard67
3. Kissable Kate
4. TheJuiceBox
5. Odin-X
6. thedancingbear
7. Gavin499
8. aec
9. Harms
10. asmitty

Between them, they have 12,812 posts. Their reasons are given in this thread:

http://www.net-benefits.net/showthread.php?p=206096

I ask that, over the next seven days, all users publicly cast their vote "yes" or "no" for impeachment in this thread, with the understanding that a simple majority is required to impeach. Users must only have ten posts and have been registered for a month as of this posting to be eligible to vote. I've selected the time period because I understand the rules to be ambiguous on this point, and certify that I am doing so in good faith so that the question may be decided with all deliberate speed.

I also ask that a moderator or administrator post notices in Off Case, On Case, and Points of Reality, notifying the site's users that this vote is taking place, so that I don't have to make duplicative threads.

I cast my vote yes, for the reasons I stated in the prior thread.

DarthYoshi

10-14-08, 05:38 PM

Edited to remove my previous observations. In order for this to truly test the method of impeachment and removal from office, transparency is required and so a public vote is probably in order.

I vote yes for the removal of Army CPT from his post as moderator of Points of Reality.

Kissable Kate

10-14-08, 06:06 PM

I vote yes.

Odin-X

10-14-08, 06:50 PM

yes
always with the too short.

patio11

10-14-08, 07:26 PM

I'm abstaining, for the same reasons as I've outlined earlier. (Brief version: I don't want to be used in the moderation-policy-as-interpersonal-argument-by-other-means game, and most especially don't want to reinforce that as a precedent.)

I also ask that a moderator or administrator post notices in Off Case, On Case, and Points of Reality, notifying the site's users that this vote is taking place, so that I don't have to make duplicative threads.

I note that this action is not required by the rules and is not obviously neutral nor obviously in the interest of the site, and accordingly decline to innovate.

Just posting to mention that I am watching the situation and, though it seems sort of redundant, that I will enforce the results of the election if required to.

stannard67

10-14-08, 07:41 PM

I vote yes.

aec

10-14-08, 07:43 PM

Yes, y'all.

syphos

10-14-08, 10:14 PM

A public ballot? Every vote we have had on NB before was done by a single user collecting PMs...

DarthYoshi

10-14-08, 10:20 PM

A public ballot? Every vote we have had on NB before was done by a single user collecting PMs...

This was the concern I initially had, and I would not be opposed to a private vote, especially after Patrick has said he will enforce the outcome of the election. My main concern was, as I said earlier, that more transparency would be better for the sake of testing the method of removing a moderator from office.

I certainly believe Ian has acted in good faith with this thread, but if folks would prefer the vote to be private, then going along with their desires is probably the way to go, assuming we can find a neutral arbiter willing to act as vote-counter. If folks are fine with the vote being public, then we can keep the process going as is.

ETA: I personally am fine with my vote being made public, as I think that for something like impeachment, which is distinctly different from an election, there is a precedent for public balloting in governmental bodies (plus, I imagine most people who have been following this could have guessed which way I would have voted anyways). I'm just saying that if there turns out to be a strong desire to make the vote private, then I am fine with that as well.

syphos

10-14-08, 10:28 PM

I am not opposed to the good faith effort to get votes in; however, complete transparency is likely to deflate turnout (though such private ballots oppresses those who do not know the PM system; Floridians). To achieve some level of transparency, you could have a special account created by Patrick, give the password to 1-2 admins (for example, Tauber has run most of the elections on this site for the past 3ish years and would, in my opinion, be seen as both fair and as a neutral arbiter in the dispute) to verify the final tally.

I do not want to delay action and voting indefinitely, just surprised we had abandoned normal means; whatever that term implies.

syphos

10-14-08, 10:31 PM

ETA: I personally am fine with my vote being made public, as I think that for something like impeachment, which is distinctly different from an election, there is a precedent for public balloting in governmental bodies (plus, I imagine most people who have been following this could have guessed which way I would have voted anyways). I'm just saying that if there turns out to be a strong desire to make the vote private, then I am fine with that as well.

If I am reading this correctly, the governmental bodies that call for impeachment already had an open ballot system established as normal policy making procedure. The recall of Davis, on the other hand, was a secret ballot. If this was decided purely by admins/mods, then the need for transparency (given their position of power) would make more sense.

While I have an opinion on the issues, I will not be casting a public ballot. However, my involvement in the site is minimal as is and should not be considered a great lost voice in the process.

DarthYoshi

10-14-08, 10:37 PM

If people wanted the vote to be made private, I'd be fine with Alan serving as vote-counter, if he is willing to do so.

I'm not entirely sure we have abandoned "normal means." The site rules specify private voting for elections, and impeachment gets its own distinct (albeit truncated) section. And as far as I can remember (I've been lurking/posting here for about four years, which I know is not the entire life of the site), there has not been an impeachment movement that has made it to a vote. I may be wrong in that recollection, but it seems like there aren't a lot of normal means to set a precedent on for something like this.

DarthYoshi

10-14-08, 10:43 PM

If I am reading this correctly, the governmental bodies that call for impeachment already had an open ballot system established as normal policy making procedure. The recall of Davis, on the other hand, was a secret ballot. If this was decided purely by admins/mods, then the need for transparency (given their position of power) would make more sense.

I wasn't thinking of the Davis removal--IIRC, he was recalled from office, not impeached and subsequently removed.

You're right, it isn't a perfect analogy. But I think that since we as users are empowered to seek the impeachment and removal of moderators from office, then at least in this singular capacity we are more like governmental bodies, even though in this case it is direct rather than representational democracy.

thedancingbear

10-14-08, 11:03 PM

I ask that anyone who wishes to post their vote publicly do so; I ask that anyone who wishes to vote by secret ballot PM their vote to Alan Tauber, who has been a moderator, is a longstanding member of the site, and has my personal trust. When the voting period (which is unchanged) ends, I ask that Alan post a tabulation of "yes" and "no" votes that he received, without identifying user information.

patio11

10-14-08, 11:14 PM

Rather than doing it that way, I'd suggest PMing the user "elections". I can provide Alan with the account credentials if he is amenable to counting the votes. Otherwise, I'll do it myself.

I think the benefits of decoupling the role from the identity of the vote counter are pretty immediately obvious.

thedancingbear

10-14-08, 11:39 PM

That's fine. PM the user "elections."

Alan

10-15-08, 08:00 AM

I'm willing to serve as vote tabulator, and I thank you all for the trust.

ddirgo

10-15-08, 02:03 PM

I vote yes for removal.

TheJuiceBox

10-15-08, 10:01 PM

I vote for impeachment. Ken needs to spend more time worrying about new ways to keep us safe from dangerous A-Rabs and less being a backed up rhetorical garbage disposal.

stannard67

10-16-08, 12:01 AM

I understand that you're upset with his moderator decisions, hence the impeachment. But I don't think that such insults add much dignity to the process. And process is what I've been concerned about from the beginning.

andrewthepirate

10-16-08, 12:17 AM

I sent my vote to "elections" but have chosen to keep my vote anonymous at least until the votes are counted.

TheJuiceBox

10-16-08, 06:10 PM

Stannard:

It's less I'm upset and more that I don't like Ken. I understand your request for a dignified procedure by which impeachment can be carried out, but you need to understand a) I've no patience for procedure, and b) I'm inherently a bad, rude person who's going to make as many personal attacks as possible even though most amount to a pot conversing with a kettle on issues of shade. Every real world impeachment has been rife with vitriol from both sides, so it's only fair our process should model reality. I'm actually suprised I haven't been "impeached" from these boards completely-maybe this is an attempt to get to that point so I do something better with my time than insulting the intellectual trash of a web forum.

But I'll keep things to myself in the future. Sorry.

andrewthepirate

10-16-08, 07:17 PM

b) I'm inherently a bad, rude person who's going to make as many personal attacks as possible even though most amount to a pot conversing with a kettle on issues of shade.

:hearhear
That's why we love you Kyle.

WWUPhil

10-17-08, 01:46 AM

I vote YES.

As a note to Ken: I appreciate you when you don't do things like this, especially on NB and Yahoo FMLB. I hope you understand the part that people are upset with about your behavior.

Prez

10-17-08, 05:09 PM

I vote yes.

Oh and :wave.

Alan

10-21-08, 07:51 AM

According to Ian's deadline, today is the last day to vote. I will be posting results tonight.

If you still wish to vote, PM the user elections.

Alan

Alan

10-21-08, 08:53 PM

Including the public votes, there are a total of 17 votes cast.

All of them were in favor of impeachment.

As per instructions, I have removed Ken as a moderator from Points of Reality.

TheJuiceBox

10-21-08, 09:24 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

HAHAHAHAHA.

maybe you can be internet buddies with your soldier friends in the guns forum.

army CPT

10-22-08, 04:53 AM

Including the public votes, there are a total of 17 votes cast.

All of them were in favor of impeachment.

As per instructions, I have removed Ken as a moderator from Points of Reality.

No problem. Seeing as how the forum is now devoid of Mods I nominate Stannard and Juicebox to fill the roll they so easily condem :)

TheJuiceBox

10-22-08, 09:17 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stannard, yes-he's nothing but an honest, smart, smart, and intelligent dude.

Me, no. Plus your nomination means nothing, so ha.

JackC

10-22-08, 09:22 PM

I'll take on a mod position if there is an overwhelming need for one.

I have modded forums before, but I never really had a set policy by which I had to abide.

I'd try not to be a tool, but it happens sometimes, as a few have witnessed - but I don't pretend to hide it.

Like I said, though, if there's no overwhelming need for one, I'd just as soon not do it.
PS I have a pretty high threshold of dealing with bullshit.

DarthYoshi

10-23-08, 01:41 PM

Since I said that I would be willing to run against Ken if the impeachment failed, I should also say that I would be willing to fill the remainder of Ken's term, if there is a special election or anything of that sort held.

stannard67

10-23-08, 04:12 PM

I nominate Darth Yoshi to fill Ken's term and will vote to retain him after that term expires.

andrewthepirate

10-23-08, 09:57 PM

I second that nomination.

Arabian Knight

10-27-08, 12:21 AM

I nominate myself for moderator. I promise non-intervention. I will never warn people for swearing, in fact, I will probably be the first one swearing myself.

I will only split threads when they get horribly off-topic and people ask me to, or to annoy Mallen. This would, however, require him to post more than once a year, so I don't think it will happen.

DarthYoshi

10-27-08, 08:37 AM

So that's two folks willing to serve as mod. (I don't want to speak for Jack, but it looks like he wanted to be tapped more as a last resort than anything else.)

ddirgo

10-27-08, 09:15 AM

I will never warn people for swearing, in fact, I will probably be the first one swearing myself.
:yes
There's my RFD. :cuss

ultravires

10-27-08, 09:44 AM

i'll second hajeer

syphos

10-27-08, 11:47 AM

JackC

10-27-08, 12:38 PM

he wanted to be tapped more as a last resort than anything else.)

Story of my life.

boredguy8

11-21-08, 02:24 PM

Including the public votes, there are a total of 17 votes cast.

All of them were in favor of impeachment.

As per instructions, I have removed Ken as a moderator from Points of Reality.

He's still listed as a moderator: I can't ignore him.

skibum

11-21-08, 04:16 PM

andrewthepirate

11-21-08, 04:39 PM

Story of my life.

Life goes by so fast. You only want to do what you think is right. Close your eyes and it's passed. It's the story of my life.

boredguy8

11-21-08, 05:36 PM

That is now fixed. He had been removed as a moderator of PoR, but was still the moderator user group. I just made that adjustment - why do we have to adjust things in like 12 different places? Stupid software.

J

It's still not working for me. It's not the end of the world, but I've used ignore on other people to give my life less stress. Even if I end up reading the post, it helps to know I don't -have- to ;)