Disciplinary Case: Gaius Baltar pt. 2 (Dismissed)

[Professor420]

Keep in mind, if anyone perceives the CdeC as partaking in a partisan act or a witch-hunt, ANY citizen is free to bring complaints against any other citizen. If someone has a problem with imb's behaviour of calling GB a homophobe, they are free to bring him up for discipline. Let us not accuse ourselves of double standards when none are shown to exist.

Whatever the circumstances of the statement, do we want him holding the rank of citizen? Do we even want him affiliated with TWC if that were in our realm of responsibility? Is this the type of person we want representing us, someone that behaves irresponsibly and power-tripping every time (this is the third since I've been on the board) there is any sort of opportunity? Someone who devolves into quite personal shoving matches when there is any time of struggle? How many times will we grant him a pass? I do want to see his defense, and unless he takes responsibility and really fully apologizes (doesn't do a "well he started it") I am fully in favour of his complete Ostrakon.

[Tom Paine]

Um... somewhat of a U-turn from your persectives elsewhere, Prof420.

Rahl, and Fab; the other cases during the crisis were warning-based, except GB's which was brought for something deserving of a warning. That's important; all of them were brought automatically. However this is being brought by a citizen, and that is why we are forced to prosecute it; we have no choice in the matter but to go through the motions.

[Lord Rahl]

Discrimination due to sexual orientation is a different issue that most of what we saw during the crisis. I believe that is why this case is still present.

I consider them linked. A personal attack is a personal attack.

Quite. But aren't you in for some trouble for good reason? Its no different than racism. And I'm sure if GB said something to the effect of black people are monkeys we would still be here.

It doesn't matter to me. If someone made fun of my intelligence or my race then I would be offended either way.

Flaming a person posting against you, while deplorable and unacceptable, is one thing that we are accoustomed to dealing with. Actively using your moderator posistion to spout your bigotry is another. And why are you letting other cases influence your vote? What other cases were dropped. I'm not aware of the CDC voting down any other case (and I could be wrong) from the crisis. I would be more than willing to read on other cases from the time of the crisis. Though of course, it was a time of crisis, and alot of hatred was flowing around. We shouldn't forget that when GB is tried, nor if others tried, for actions during this trial.

GB was simply on the other side of the fence on that day. If the people were switched, I believe those who were demoted would have done the same thing. GB was one person who was in power and he saw people making personal attacks against those who he was in power with. It was a power struggle. Nothing else. Both sides wanted the upper hand and both sides attacked each other. Was it in the right for those demoted to be angry? Hell yeah, but that doesn't excuse them from doing what they did. Did GB have a reason to be angry. Yes, but that doesn't excuse him either. Now, the other cases were dropped but not GB's. Since I believe all of the cases are linked I don't see this case being fair. The other cases will effect my decision in this case because I believe they are linked.

Personally, I think GB made an error. A large one. During a series of other errors. Do I think, given the climate, that he should loose his rank? No. But my stance on GB swings violently and is perplexing and incomprehensible even for myself.

To me it seems that many people's stance on GB is that of revenge, of sorts. He insulted homosexuality. If you do that these days then that is a big no no. I think this case is being led against GB mostly because he used "homosexual" in his insult. After he said it many threads were produced which centered upon GB's insult. Is that going too far? I think so. I think it is continuing now.

Keep in mind, if anyone perceives the CdeC as partaking in a partisan act or a witch-hunt, ANY citizen is free to bring complaints against any other citizen. If someone has a problem with imb's behaviour of calling GB a homophobe, they are free to bring him up for discipline. Let us not accuse ourselves of double standards when none are shown to exist.

I will keep that in mind...

Rahl, and Fab; the other cases during the crisis were warning-based, except GB's which was brought for something deserving of a warning. That's important; all of them were brought automatically. However this is being brought by a citizen, and that is why we are forced to prosecute it; we have no choice in the matter but to go through the motions.

*sigh*

I'm sure that if everyone could have and did bring forward complaints personally then we would have half of the CDC wading in cases against them. It seems to me that most people have let the past be the past and put anything said that day behind them. It seems that some haven't. I think that some have chosen not to and they feel they are entitled to some sort of special case because GB said "homosexual". Well, in my opinion, if no one else got special treatment I don't see why the case of GB should.

[Tom Paine]

Let's see... because on this matter we legally have no choice. We can now vote to dismiss it (as he has just given a defence, as below) but we cannot dismiss any case brought by a citizen (Garb/gig in this case) out of hand.

I note with some trepidation my request for a 24 hour delay has not produced a response.

1. In my original message, I protested the multiple Ostrakon procedures produced the this CDeC. I note your response was that the original Ostrakon was illegal, therefore invalid.

The final conclusion is that, because the previous case was declared void through poor (illegal) procedure

2. As such, individuals who engaged in "illegal" behavior would themselves be subject to disciplinary action. This includes the following members;

Rolanbek *
Gigagaia *
Professor 420 *
the Black Prince *
rez *
Nihil *
Imb39
Garbasardar *

Members of the currently listed CDeC are noted with a "*".

3. In addition, several of the CDeC members engaged in gross, profanitory, and illegal (Denial of Service, SPAM attacks) behavior during the events of January 17-20, 2007. As such, it is apparant that these members cannot be reasonably thought as fit to stand in the CDeC. Unfortunately, this also applies to the staff members who engaged in such behaviors as well.

4. Therefore, I will reserve my defense and the right to maintain my silence concerning the events of January 17-20, 2007, until such time a valid and represenative CDeC can be formed.

I thank you for your time and attention,

Respectfully yours,

GB

[gigagaia]

Most of our warnings were dismissed, and his was brought by a member of the council.

So, i'm not entirely sure what he is trying to say. Give him his time, of course, but remind him that other people's cases are a) not his business and b) of a different nature.

[Tom Paine]

Well... gig, that is his defence. His defence is that we are not competant to try him on this matter.... a defence I am presently inclined to agree with him on.

[Professor420]

First of all, I think I've already addressed his defense earlier.

Keep in mind, if anyone perceives the CdeC as partaking in a partisan act or a witch-hunt, ANY citizen is free to bring complaints against any other citizen. If someone has a problem with imb's behaviour of calling GB a homophobe, they are free to bring him up for discipline. Let us not accuse ourselves of double standards when none are shown to exist.

I PMed GB something to that effect as well.

As such, individuals who engaged in "illegal" behavior would themselves be subject to disciplinary action. This includes the following members;
Rolanbek *
Gigagaia *
Professor 420 *
the Black Prince *
rez *
Nihil *
Imb39
Garbasardar *

IIRC, Rolanbek was the only person GB listed who engaged in any illegal behaviour (evaded the swear filter, though I don't remember). At worst, what the rest of us did would warrant a warn or caution infraction.

What GB is doing is what monarchs (and dictators) have done for ages when tried/convicted in court after they have been deposed (I would be loathe to compare that insignificant pissant GB a monarch but it is only for the basis of analogy). They accuse the court of being illegitimate, and thus any decisions it renders are invalid. I don't know of a single time it has worked, and I would rather that this very poor defense wouldn't change that trend.

Anyway, this is due for a vote soon/tommorrow, no?

[Garbarsardar]

I have seen no "illegal behaviour" from the members listed in GB's reply. Furthermore I have to point out that he does not address the issue at hand which is:

GB flamed homosexuals. Was that a momentary lapse of reason? And can it be dismissed under the "amnesty" clause?

I still think not.

[the Black Prince]

i may wish to bring a second charge of defamation if this continues, and hereby demand GB produce evidence of activity of mine which breached the ToS


incidentally, someone should point out to him that a defence of "other people were breaking the ToS so why shouldn't i?" is not a valid defence.

[Garbarsardar]

i may wish to bring a second charge of defamation if this continues, and hereby demand GB produce evidence of activity of mine which breached the ToS

Is it still legal to have Rudnick's quote on your sig...:hmmm:

[Tom Paine]

Is this the official response from the CDeC?

Feel free to bring them up on charges. They don't need to have had a staff warning. If you feel a double standard is applying to you, I'd gladly volunteer to be put on the chopping block (perhaps you can point out where I behaved in any sort of illegal fashion, btw). Or, you can choose one of the other people you (erroneously) have accused. Don't ***** and whine about unfairness, what you are being prosecuted for is entirely fair. Put someone else on charges and then see if we are so hypocritical.

Putting someone up on charges for, whatever, during the recent events would be like passing out speeding tickets at LeMans.

The challenge stands. You accuse of of being hypocrites, but are being one yourself. As I said, if you feel you have a case, feel free to bring someone (or all of us) up on charges. Until then, you can keep your mouth shut and hope you keep your badge, or put your money where your mouth is.

Can I give the answer no? Well, not according to this thread. We are backed up into a corner now, by your impetuous if not foolish (yes, I dare to use that term) action, Prof. Please... don't, anyone, take executive action. We are a committee, and GB has now put us in a bind. I want to PM him back to say no it isn't, but won't until I have a consensus.

[the Black Prince]

if i may...


Professor420 was not speaking for the CdeC when he contacted you previosly, and all official communication regarding your case is being conducted through Ozymandias, as the duly appointed representative. Whilst Professor was speaking in his personal capacity, the CdeC recognises and accepts the general amnesty imposed by Imb39 following the recent events, to activities that occured on both sides. However, the Prosecutor in bringing the case, and the CdeC in accepting to hear it, have agreed that the actions that form the basis of the charge were not related to your actions or position as a staff member during the event, or as a result of the event, but represent a seperate issue. Additional charges that did relate to recent events were dropped by the Prosecutor before the CdeC accepted the case.

You are not obligied to present a defence, but as this is a private prosecution, you have that option under Syntagma. If you wish to present a defence please PM it to Ozymandias who will deliever it to the CdeC. If you do not wish to present a defence to this Council, we shall move directly to deciding what action, if any, will be taken with regard to the charges that you have been informed of.

Ozymandius, for the Consilium de Civitate

[Tom Paine]

a) I better correct your interchanging of the third and first person (if I'm sending it, I better not refer to myself in 3rd person) and spelling
b) Do we all agree that such an idea (me dealing with him officially) is sensible? if so, as a caveat, can we all agree that I will be the only person from the CdeC to communicate with him as regards his trial and that I ask that all other communication about it be reported to me?
c) I think all we need to say is that no, Prof's is not the official response; the official response is that we are competant to hear it, being officials for the purpose, and that the reason the case is brought is due to a private member making the accusation, and so no vendetta or bias exists on the part of the CdeC. I'll pen a more elaborate version if people agree with me over tBP.

[Professor420]

Ummm... what? This was a personal comment directed at GB, do not blame me that he is trying to construe it for his personal benefit. I fail to see what bind GB has put us in, why this is a big deal, or how this changes absolutely anything.

In fact, given that his window for defense has closed days ago, we shouldn't even be posting anything further he says in this thread.

[Tom Paine]

Since it closed yesterday, and since he did not receive a reply on his petition that the case be dropped, I disagree. I furthermore request that people do not communicate with him alone, because to do such jeapordises these proceedings. I will now PM him communicating that your message was your own opinion and no more.

[gigagaia]

I don't believe Professor stated he was acting on the behest of the CdC in his communication? While I understand the problems of having individual memebrs of the CdC contacting members on trial, I think it fairly obvious that Professor was not acting in an official capacity.

I would remind Gaius Baltar that unless noted, communcations from individuals are not official.

[Tom Paine]

I just did, because I felt it best to assure him of that as soon as possible, though all communications from me to him are of an official nature and I recommend I be the only communicant with him on this affair. Please, others... just stop?

[Sétanta]

I agree with Professor about what Gaius Baltar is doing. He feels like he is the victim, he feels like he is the one who engaged in all the right behavior. The Council of Citizens appears to him to be a body of illegimate criminals, as absurd as that sounds. He broke the rules, amnesty was granted, and still the Citizenry of TWC decided to prosecute him. It is fully within our right.

And an interesting note, the Gaius Baltar of the TV Show Battlestar Galactica acts in the exact same way as TWC's Gaius Baltar. They both feel they are innocent, they both took up the chance to increase their own power and they all commited illegal acts. Then they both claim the body prosecuting them is an illegitimate body.

I personally feel that he should be prosecuted.

[Tom Paine]

He is being prosecuted, and he will send me something as soon as he can access the site once more.

[the Black Prince]

when will that be?