[FAILED][Dismissal of Curator] Empress Meg

[M D]

As is my right as a member of the CdeC I would like to propose the Dismissal of Empress Meg as Curator. I bear no personal ill will against Meg and before a few hours ago, I would never have even thought about proposing something like this.

I believe that a majority of non-abstaining votes is required for this to pass and the poll may begin immediately.

Spoiler for If you think that because her term ends in 14 days its ok, read this: 

Also, before anyone brings her term ending soon into this, I quote from the last dismissal attempt by TBP,

The fact that her term is about to expire somehow reduces the abuse? A Curator is allowed to do what they like in their last month in office because they will soon be replaced? What an interesting argument that is....

-------

If, in the judgement of the Consilium de Civitates, the Curator has neglected their duties or abused his position, it may dismiss the Curator, arrange new elections.

I believe that the Curator, Empress Meg has abused her position as Curator and the sole local mod (bar her assistant) of the CVRIA and the CdeC Private forums. This is for the following reasons:

1. In terms of X's referral, there was nothing in breach of the TWCC or in fact the ToS bar the actual posts by Graham in the Referral evidence
2. The Defence was in fact posted, but the Curator states it was not *
3. Any member of the CdeC may pass judgement before the defence is posted should they feel fit
4. No one in the CdeC broke the TWCC in their actions within the Referral Thread
5. This seems in a way to conceal the large scale embarrasement that X would garner, should the first Referral Thread be published.
6. In a way it seems like a last action, nothing to lose, as she only has 13 days of her term left.
7. The Curator did not inform, as is required, the CdeC or the CVRIA of her absence which impacted on the ability of the CdeC to work in the Referral, therefore her argument of her being away is invalid. *

* Ishan, Noble Savage, Legio (?) and Meg were sent the Defence and others were sent his request for more time, therefore this clause of the TWCC prevents her from using the excuse she was not here

No matter who carries out the tasks assigned to the Curator, the Curator is the one responsible for seeing that they are done promptly and correctly.

N.B. Meg also has violated the TWCC by not taking an active part in the Referral and it's discussion, she did not alert us to an absence either, so this is inexcusable.

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitates and the Curator must actively participate in discussions and votes.

N.B. II Empress Meg clearly states that anyone may,

"You may bring in posts from that other thread if you wish."

Then why was the first thread closed? This again is inexcusable

N.B. IIIEmpress Meg also has no right, to close the thread, if she used the following reasoning which she posts in the original thread:

"I'm closing this thread. I see nothing but fear and finger pointing. And from Hex members to boot. It's quite a shame really. "

She has no right to close anything because she feels like it.

Private Messages from the Curator - Received Today I also received a PM from the Curator, relating to my 'Conduct' in the thread in question.

You are not the curator or hex and therefore do not moderate the CdeC boards. You are not there to tell other people how to do their job. You are not there to tell people on that board to abstain.

I suggested, as is within my remit that I did not feel that Mega was right to vote when he was so clearly personally involved. I feel pressured by this PM not to make my opinion on the validity of the CdeC in the future and I think this is also an abuse of her power.

Your are not there to recommend disbanding of forum groups. That is also not your job. Your job is to weigh evidence not to ruin everyone's good time simply because you think it is the right thing to say.

This one is again interesting, I am allowed to suggest whatever I want, and this is on-topic and I feel like I am being pressured by the Curator not to give my opinion which again I believe is an abuse of her position. My actions above are also backed up by the TWCC, which allow me to make comments or advisory comments on the Citizenry which Brig as Admin of the Duffers, I am allowed to do. I feel like I am bullied by the Curator to be honest.

he Consilium de Civitates may also function as an advisory body to the staff of TWC in matters concerning the Curia and its Citizens.

[Squid]

Back down or I'll VonC you for not knowing when you can't be objective in a situation. All I see is everyone out for lynch mob and anyone who stands in the mobs way is getting thrown under the tracks.

[M D]

You'll VonC me? For utilising my right as a member of the CdeC? Every part of my argument is true, she has broken the Constitution and has in my view pressured me as a member of the CdeC and abused her power.

Past Precedent:

Dismissal of Fab
Proposed Dismissal of Meg by tbp

Neither of the proposers were VonCed

[Squid]

The cases were different and not brought about because the VonCer felt slighted by the person being VonCed. Read my post again, you are not objective and you are letting it cloud your judgment. That is not acceptable and certainly grounds for a VonC.

[Jom]

Back down or I'll VonC you for not knowing when you can't be objective in a situation. All I see is everyone out for lynch mob and anyone who stands in the mobs way is getting thrown under the tracks.

I don't think you should threaten someone into abandoning an proposal, Squid. It's within Major Darling's right to initiate this, regardless of how incorrect you believe his actions to be. I would rather you explained why the Curator should not be VonCed and convince Major Darling to abandon this through reason rather than simply using threats.

I will be voting "no" as I do not believe Meg exceeded her power; I believe she has acted appropriately, except for admonishing members of the CdeC; we can do without that but I hardly think that a VonC is an appropriate response.

[M D]

The cases were different and not brought about because the VonCer felt slighted by the person being VonCed. Read my post again, you are not objective and you are letting it cloud your judgment. That is not acceptable and certainly grounds for a VonC.

No it is not, the Curator has broken the TWCC as if you read above, I have shown. I do not feel slighted at all, the bit at the end I added last as I received it while writing this. The fact is the TWCC has been broken by the Curator.

[Jom]

Also, I believe that this poll should be public in terms of votes cast. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

[M D]

Ah, thats probably an error on my part, I wasnt sure of the procedure.. I think Mods can fix that, can one?

[Squid]

The threat was for the behaviour being exhibited by Major Darling not for making a VonC, I had no problems with the VonC the last time it happened, but then it happened for the right reasons.

[Noble Savage]

Also, I believe that this poll should be public in terms of votes cast. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

I think you are correct .

[M D]

The threat was for the behaviour being exhibited by Major Darling not for making a VonC, I had no problems with the VonC the last time it happened, but then it happened for the right reasons.

Do you not believe the Curator has done wrong/broken the TWCC at all? And how is my behaviour wrong, if I am doing something which is within my right, with evidence...

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Voted no.

By the way, my innopropriate behavior was underscored and outlined as per the Curator's remit.

[Squid]

No it is not, the Curator has broken the TWCC as if you read above, I have shown. I do not feel slighted at all, the bit at the end I added last as I received it while writing this. The fact is the TWCC has been broken by the Curator.

You haven't proven anything, you're mad she snapped at you, and mad the thread was closed and are lashing out.

Lets go through your points:

1: This I have no idea what you are even talking about, unless you are referring to offsite behaviour. Since citizenship is based on behaviour on this site any behaviour offsite is irrelevant to that, unless that offsite behaviour causes onsite behaviour problems. There is no evidence of this that has been presented.

2: Nowhere have I found any evidence either in the PM or in the original or new thread where the Curator claimed the defence was not provided. This is a misrepresentation of facts on your part or at least no facts has been provided to prove this point.

3: Again so what, in the new thread with the defence you could keep the same opinion, again this is irrelevant.

4: Meg never claimed anyone did, the way you present this is that she's claiming people violated the ToS and constitution.

5: If asked I bet X would want both threads made public.

6: What action, she has not done anything to violate the constitution, as I mentioned in the chat thread.

7: The curator is only required to inform CdeC and the Curia if the abscense is for at least 7 days. Given she started the original thread on January 11th 2011 and posted again today on January 14th 2011, this does not rise to the 7 days required by the constitution, which I note you conveniently left out of your OP.

NB I: Not taking part is likely because she is a member of the group and as per her admission was absent for a period.

NB II & NB III: It was closed because she chose to, there's nothing in the constitution that forbids it, as I pointed out in the chat thread. The fact that she is running the case in way you don't like is irrelevant and not something to be VonCed for.

PM from Today: You are pissed she told you what to do and are then you're surprised she's pissed you told her what to do, hmm kettle calling the pot black.

When you actually come up with something worthy of brining a VonC for let us know.

EDIT To PM from Today: It is entirely within the curators role to tell a councilor when a councilor is doing something outside of their remit. The last quote you use is interesting as it proves Megs point in the second quote. You are only allowed to advice staff in regards to citizens and the curia, as social groups are not part of the curia and not a citizens only tool and this particular social group is made up of non-citizens you have no remit to advice staff regarding it.

[Legio]

Voted no.

[Noble Savage]

A stunned no from me too .

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

A stunned no from me too .

Since you used the adjective ..."stunned" why ...stunned????

[Legio]

Post number two isn't clear enough?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Post number two isn't clear enough?

Frankly ...no.

Squid... is reacting to the number of situations immediatley in front of him. Due to the mass volume of situations that arise proritising is a must.

[Squid]

No I was reacting to the behaviour of Major Darling in particular in this case. As my last post before this clearly demonstrates this dismissal is clearly baseless and brought on for other reasons.

EDIT: Even though I didn't post it, it should be obvious that I voted no.

[Noble Savage]

Since you used the adjective ..."stunned" why ...stunned????

The pettiness of of it all. Really. I mean apart from the PMs tone is there really enough to VonC any Curator here ,especially one that has performed their tasks with care and vigilance ?

Unbelievable ,truly.