[Further Action] La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham [CENSURE]

**Empress Meg** · June 05, 2010, 10:33 AM

As per the CdeC's request.

Devoirs The Empress

**Legio** · June 05, 2010, 10:36 AM

7

**Belisarius** · June 05, 2010, 11:26 AM

Censure, and for me its not a censure but more of some official advice. This should stop Brig from applying for positions he's interested in.

**Leonidas The Lion** · June 05, 2010, 11:57 AM

Censure from me.

**Hesus de bodemloze** · June 05, 2010, 12:17 PM

1, 2, 7

**Augustus Lucifer** · June 05, 2010, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Censure, and for me its not a censure but more of some official advice. This should stop Brig from applying for positions he's interested in.

I think you mean shouldn't, it shouldn't stop him from applying for positions he's interested in.

As I elaborated elaborately through elaboration in the preceding thread, I think that the Censure is a means of getting across the proper methods for a Citizen to pursue inquiries into the behavior of other members. It should not be a black mark, nor should it be with regards to some overarching problem, but simply address that point and in so doing preempt the suggested inclination to continue along these lines.

In other words:

1

**abbews** · June 06, 2010, 03:00 AM

1

**Empress Meg** · June 06, 2010, 07:30 PM

Since this is leaning towards a censure, I would ask that you guys think about what you want to place in it in addition to the general censure I send. If you want to add anything that is.

Devoirs The Empress

**Belisarius** · June 07, 2010, 04:57 AM

Dear Graham

The CdC feels that the actions which resulted in a referral were part of a much larger conflict that was going on off site and as such we would have rather it have been left off site. You are receiving this censure not as a form of punishment but rather as a word of advice to prevent future occurrences. We came to the conclusion that though questionable conduct has been occurring off site, you have also been involved in it, even if your motivations were different or you were mocking them. In the case of the Rape thread we find that the context was obvious given its description and location, so why any reference to it was made out of that context would only serve to imply the worst.

Posting such things could damage a member’s reputation and so we ask that in future you leave other site business off site and not make vague claims that could imply such things as “child Rape”. If you have doubts it would be better to contact an administrator who can investigate privately then launch it publically.

Posting grievances in itself is not a bad thing but when posting such serious allegations it would be wise you back them up with concrete evidence.

**Hesus de bodemloze** · June 07, 2010, 11:20 AM

That should do it.

**Leonidas The Lion** · June 07, 2010, 03:02 PM

sounds good.

**the Black Prince** · June 07, 2010, 03:16 PM

7 and I disassociate myself from the content of the censure text as well.

**Augustus Lucifer** · June 07, 2010, 08:13 PM

In general I think the text is fine, though I personally disagree with this sentence:

We came to the conclusion that though questionable conduct has been occurring off site, you have also been involved in it, even if your motivations were different or you were mocking them.

What happens off-site is irrelevant to this referral, which is about conduct on the site. So whether or not he participated, and whether or not the accusations were hypocritical, is not of consequence since conduct off-site is not under review.

At any rate he'll probably opt for the thread to be public, in which case he can read each Councilor's vote reasoning in the first part of this process.