Formal request for the resignation or impeachment of Army CPT as moderator


I have no idea if this will actually go anywhere, but Ken’s behavior in the last 24 hours has disturbed me. Even if he weren’t a moderator, his immature name-calling and condescending attitude would be irritating and offensive, but I also believe legitimate violations of his moderation policy, and that of the site, have taken place.

This first violation occurs with the original “house for sale” threat in Points of Reality, which Ken unilaterally locked, deleted all the posts, and re-posted them under his account without attributing to whom each individual post was written. When pressed, he said it was because he was sick of our “brand of garbage,” which is neither against a publicized net-bens rule or against his publicized moderator policy (which can be found here: This comes perilously close to outright censorship.

The second and third violations come from what I believe to be uneven enforcements of a policy that is not expressly in Ken’s moderation policy, but apparently is now. After calling him out for what I believed to be a misuse of his moderator powers, I received an “infraction” for that post for inappropriate language (I said that joking about gun violence was “kinda fucked up”). I believe the infraction is made public, as there are notations both in the post and in my net-bens profile. There are other instances of curse words being used in Points of Reality which Ken has done nothing about. is a great example–Ken is actually the first respondent, but as far as I can tell, the original poster has no infraction issued (to be clear, I have nothing against cussing in general unless it is directed at a particular person (ie, calling someone an asshole, as opposed to referring to something as “fucked up”), and I am not trying to drag other people unwillingly into this, I am just trying to use an example to make a point).

Again–that previous paragraph has two violations that I believe happened–another use of Ken’s mod power outside of his published platform, and an uneven enforcement of that power. I’m not about to publicly speculate about Ken’s motives in slapping me in particular with an infraction, but needless to say, I am more than a little suspicious.

As I recall on the old site, if someone wanted an impeachment or some other major site change to happen, it required a certain number of votes from people with a certain number of posts (I forget what those numbers were). Consider this the voting of my 852 posts towards the impeachment of Ken as moderator of Points of Reality. If this push for impeachment fails for whatever reason, I will run against Ken during the next moderator election cycle. I still judge at some northern California debate tournaments, so I still have a reason to stay involved in the debate community beyond my own personal interests, and so I am willing to remain engaged in the net-benefits community for the length of a term as moderator.


thank you…run. Don’t be like a few others and do nothing but complain.
Now as to number 1. Yes I errored and then tried to fix it. However the whole reason for the 2nd thread was to attempt to start a conversation on a real topic. But I guess that most do not care that the hopusing market is in shambles and would rather take pot shots at people. No censoership has happened and a new thread was started to once again start a conversation on a real world issue. I can now see that people do not care to talk about real issues but would rather play silly little games. Really the housing issue matters so little that people need to make snide comments??

2.and 3. I keep the language clean and I would expect others to. If I notice it I will warn…that simple. If I were to cures then I would expect the same. Oh and on gun violence. I even messaged you about the context of the quote. The fact that you still didn’t get it is not my fault and the quote in no way advocates gun violence.

Sorry forgot to add…why not run off every person that has any type of conservitive leanings on the site…then this can be a liberal think tank :slight_smile:


Ken’s attitude, both in general and in response to specific questions regarding his moderator practices, speaks for itself. He makes improper decisions as a moderator, and then in response to criticisms of his decisions, he accuses people of political bias.

I believe impeachment is warranted in this instance. I’m happy to start the proceedings myself, or follow along with others in doing so.

This has zero to do with politics. Ken’s charges that conservatives are “chased off” the boards are both empirically denied and irrelevant to his horrible, improper, immature moderator practices.

He should resign now, and if he doesn’t, he should be impeached and removed.



Matt. I am not surprised. I tell you what…you have done this before and I ask you what I asked you before. Why not be like Eric and actually run for a mod spot??? NO ONE wanted this job yet I did what you did not…stepped up to the plate and took it. maybe you should have done the same.


Once you have resigned or are impeached, I will happily support anyone running for a moderator in your place. If nobody else runs, I’ll run.

The fact that you ran unopposed does not excuse your kindergarten-level, inconsistent, vindictive, and capricious decisions.


[QUOTE=stannard67;205962]Once you have resigned or are impeached, I will happily support anyone running for a moderator in your place. If nobody else runs, I’ll run.

The fact that you ran unopposed does not excuse your kindergarten-level, inconsistent, vindictive, and capricious decisions.[/QUOTE]

The Fact that you will not do it yourself speaks volumes Matt. And your slandorous remarks prove even more. I have never been vindictive towards anyone and further more I will not let the voice of one trump others…you seem to try to do that alot (you are the specific reason some people have left NB). SO I take it for what it is Matt and even though I disagree with basically everything you say I still engage you. Not for self rightousness but because you deserve to be heard. I think that you would have no issue with running me from the site just because we disagree so much…

Oh and edit to add. I do make mistakes ( I am human after all)and I will be the first to correct them…or have you forgotten already???



To be clear, I am objecting to not only you deleting posts, but to locking the thread as well. You seem to only be explaining the former. Even so, I don’t think the bylines of all the posts (ie, the image posts) were restored. I am also objecting to the motives you have publicly expressed, as I do not believe those should be intents of a moderator. Your public expressions, in both word and deed, are not conducive towards free expression. I don’t care if people want to be silly on a thread, even if the thread is dedicated to a serious subject. I am a big believer in humor, parody, and satire in most realms of politics and current events, but even beyond that, I simply think that people have the right to be silly as long as they attach their name to their silliness (ETA: better put, to bastardize Voltaire, I will defend someone’s right to be silly even if I disagree with the supposed silliness). Your righteous indignation about people allegedly goofing around in a serious thread is nothing more than a red herring, it does nothing to excuse the actions you took with your mod powers.

As to #2 and 3, I genuinely don’t care if you keep your language clean or not, my beef is that you unevenly enforce your disapproval of strong language via your mod powers. I have a hard time believing your sincerity, especially in light of the example thread I linked to (again–I have absolutely zero desire for Hajeer to get in any sort of trouble for his words, and I will strenuously object to any sanction placed on him for his post). I have no reason to think you apply your anti-cursing policies uniformly, and even beyond that, you gave no explicit indication you would police cursing in your published platform.

I think that joking about gun violence in general is relatively disturbing within most contexts, but really, for the purposes of this particular thread, it is a side issue at best.

As with Stannard, this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I am not formally calling for your impeachment because of your politics, I am doing so because I have witnessed multiple misuses of your mod powers in the last 24 hours and I believe you should be removed your office for it. I have no desire to chase you away from net-bens because of your politics, but I have every intention of removing you from your office as moderator because of your actions and expressed motivations on several recent threads.


I will vote for the impeachment of Army CPT as moderator. One of my posts (a rather silly one) was deleted from the original housing thread. Just because the moderator doesn’t like some things or thinks they’re silly or trash doesn’t mean the moderator should censor those things. If Army CPT deleted/locked/censored every thread where someone made fun of or mocked his post or discussed something else instead, then there would be few threads left where he has posted. The fact that no one ran against him does not give him the power to do this. “No one else might run for the moderator position” is not a reason not to impeach him.


Moderators may be impeached if at least 10 users whose total post counts add up to at least 5000 posts call for it. Impeachment must achieve a simple majority of votes cast. All voters must have at least 10 posts, and been registered for at least 1 month before the start of balloting.

I call to impeach. With Kate and Eric, that means we need 7 more users.


If my math is correct, we have already easily met the combined 5,000 post threshold between the three of us. So yes, we need 7 more folks.


I vote to institue Stannard as a moderator.


Once we have the requisite ten calls, how does the vote proceed? Anyone know?





I vote to impeach.

The most important thing a moderator has to be is an honest broker. At minimum, this means not using the authority given to you by that position to censor the other side in arguments you’re in. This doesn’t have anything to do with politics, although I will say that the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude about the political opinion of the site’s users is probably a major factor in the misbehavior we’ve witnessed over the past couple of days.

I’ve been a member of this site for a long, long time. Without exception, the incidents I regret most in its history are those where people were entrusted with administrative and moderator responsibility and then misused the power that went with it. Kate’s complaint, for example, might seem like a small one, but it isn’t. Put yourself in her shoes and imagine if you’d like to have your posts–even joking, silly ones–deleted for no reason and without any credible explanation. Deleting people’s posts, “warning” them about their language when they say things that upset you, and so on, are just bullying, plain and simple.

Ken, I think it’s in the best interests of the community if you resign. There are plenty of qualified people who will do the job and this is just causing unnecessary friction. We can hold a special election to fill the post once it’s vacant. In fact, when are the next scheduled elections anyway?


Impeach. And ditto.




I believe that’s eight. We need two more.


While I don’t think the impact in this one specific instance is very great, it sets a dangerous precedent. I know that giant sections of discussion were wiped off a year or two ago when a few people deleted off a [U]ton[/U] of content. (I believe that if you’re the OP and you delete the first post in the thread, it deleted the whole shibang, right?)

Anywho, you can throw my support behind it. I really would hate to see some of those old threads suddenly disappear, and allowing mods to close/delete/re-arrange threads at will creates the conditions necessary for that to keep happening.


i vote to impeach.

alex smith
oncase mod