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


#1

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.


#2

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.


#3

I vote yes.


#4

yes
always with the too short.


#5

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.


#6

I vote yes.


#7

Yes, y’all.


#8

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


#9

[QUOTE=syphos;206120]A public ballot? Every vote we have had on NB before was done by a single user collecting PMs…[/QUOTE]

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.


#10

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.


#11

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.


#12

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.


#13

[QUOTE=syphos;206123]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.
[/QUOTE]

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.


#14

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.


#15

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.


#16

That’s fine. PM the user “elections.”


#17

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


#18

I vote [B]yes[/B] for removal.


#20

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.


#21

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