PASSED 02.07.06: Shaun for Civitates (Patron: Rhah)

[Søren]

Profile
NO User Notes

Ok, here it is. I believe that this member shows a lot of potential to be a good civitates. I'm hoping that if he passes the vote, it will encourage him to improve his posting (not that there is anything bad about it at the moment). He also seems very enthusiastic about the nomination.
Here's his 100 words;

As a civitate, it is would be my duty to post well, post intelligently, and post in a sensible manner. I would also have to avoid spamming, and avoid taking part in flame wars and personal attacks. I would also be (and feel) privilaged, as I would have the right to vote on matters importance to the site, and have the right to discuss bills and so on in the Curia. I feel i deserve to become a civitate because i believe that I have contributed well to this site over the past 11 months. I do not engage in flame wars or personal attacks, and try my utter best to avoid spamming. I have no usernotes either. I also believe that I post intelligently now, and take part in debates sensibily, and I also attack the argument, not the poster. So that is why i think i deserve to become a civitate. Thank you,
Shaun.

[Spiff]

Seems like a solid candidate, i couldnt find any previous votes for him so i have to wonder why someone with so many posts has not been nominated for civitate before now.. seems a bit odd.

In any case i couldnt find anything particularly wrong with him, he generally posts well and has a few decent threads to his name too

[Fabolous]

Shaun has no user notes? Gah, I swear I warned him for spam back when I was in staff. Must have never done it...

Anyways, since he came back recently, his posts have been better, but still not very... impressive (not to mention his amazingly improved spelling). And given his early posts, generally short and unhelpful (in my mind), I would say certainly not.

[Tom Paine]

He had no usernotes. He now has one:

Free Warning

Sigh.............lefties...........

Justinian: Sorry buddy, but I'm a very serious and brutal person at the moment, and I don't like sarcasm. I'll respond to your post later.

I know this is totally off-topic but my life is really screwed up right now and I feel like beating up someone - prefrably a minority person, whoever they are. Everything's gone wrong, my mind is going crazy, and worst of all The girl, that same girl I was talking about in my thread about her, the Girl that should be Mine is probably........*spits*..........Banging some dirty older man right now. .............I've really gone off the deep end. I feel like going into the other room and beating my stupid old man up just because he's a pathetic, subversive, disgusting person who defends minorities and I hate him.



Yeah. Thanks for that. I almost smashed my own brains out. Not your fault, really.

You know, maybe I should beat up some gay person and post a photo of his bruised body, begging for mercy before me? How'd ya like that? Would I do it? No. Do I want to? Right now, absolutely.

If I had a child who was gay, I would execute him in the name of God, and I and my Girlfriend/Wife would burn an image of Gay Porn and spit on it, and then berate ourselves throughly and beg for God's forgiveness.

Maybe you ain't got the point, which is this: Homosexuality is evil. Gays themselves are ok, but they Must not be allowed to marry. It's not only a sin, but it's dirty, subversive, and downright evil.

And the reason I would execute my own child if he was gay is not because I don't like gays, but simply to perserve my bloodline and not contaminate it.



There, feel free to bash away at me, lefties.

And I'm sorry to sound really nasty, but as of lately I've become really, really, really ****** off about everything, and one thing that makes me even more ****** is when minorities get defended.

Erm, grow up mate
Do you really expect to get a girl with extremist, oldfashioned, bigoted and quite frankly crazy views and opinions?

Care to give a reason why gays are evil? Actually id say Id say that far rightists aka neonazis are far more evil, and will cause far more damage to our world than a small homosexual minority ever will.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...&page=15&pp=20 <=There

[Spiff]

hmm shame he had to go and do that, not that its that bad a troll really but still warn worthy of course.. should it ruin his candidacy.. perhaps

[imb39]

It is upto the CDC to decide if this invalidates his candidacy. It is a free warning.

[Søren]

Ok, firstly :

I HATE vBULLETIN

I wrote an enormous post on this and it all disappeared when I pressed the "list" function.

Now we've got that out of the way :

By no means should it invalidate his candidacy.

Incidentally, I think the punishment was a bit excessive, I would have cautioned, personally.

Erm, grow up mate
Do you really expect to get a girl with extremist, oldfashioned, bigoted and quite frankly crazy views and opinions?

Care to give a reason why gays are evil? Actually id say Id say that far rightists aka neonazis are far more evil, and will cause far more damage to our world than a small homosexual minority ever will.

The bits in red being the only parts which could be considered offending.

However, given that Shauns response was reasonably mild; I would advocate little punishment as what Drak is saying is bordering on incitement to violence; his expressed views might even be construed as criminal in some contexts.

He advocates very serious child abuse:

If I had a child who was gay, I would execute him in the name of God, and I and my Girlfriend/Wife would burn an image of Gay Porn and spit on it, and then berate ourselves throughly and beg for God's forgiveness.

Regardless of the fact that that seems to make little sense given this :

Maybe you ain't got the point, which is this: Homosexuality is evil. Gays themselves are ok, but they Must not be allowed to marry. It's not only a sin, but it's dirty, subversive, and downright evil.

( . . .)

Yet another example; if Drak had expanded on this to specify the minority, as he so often does, it could possibly fall under an incitement to Racial Violence, something made criminal under the Race Relations Act 1976 (Drak is a UK citizen). I believe.

I know this is totally off-topic but my life is really screwed up right now and I feel like beating up someone - prefrably a minority person, whoever they are.

Given all this, I would say that Shaun's post was :

• Very much understandable
• Socially acceptable
• Comparitavly mature in incident of Drak's words

Socially acceptable is probably the most important point. I know for certain that where I live people would be disgusted at suggesting that he would murder young children (of his) if they happened to be gay. In RL he would get far more than Shaun's words. Certianly.

Because of this I would consider it very tenuous as whether Shaun should be punished at all, other than a friendly word of warning from a moderator to be a bit more careful in future.

p.s. I hope none of you are planning on banning Drak, as he is very much in need of "assistance", seeing as he refuses to take it professionally, whatever people can say to him here (constructivly, obviously) can only be a good thing and thus should be encouraged; both for his sake, and for the sake of anybody he happens to meet.

[Fabolous]

Well, to that I would say two thing Val, first, Draks post should not matter at all. I don't care if Drak is insulting blacks, gay, you, and your mother, that doesn't mean you are allowed to flame.

Further "bigoted and quite frankly crazy views" isn't that bad a flame, but a flame none the less, under general staff policy as I have known it (Lol... bigoted is a word that has quite the backstory as many of you know). A nice little free warning isn't too harsh in my mind.

Anyways, I would agree that it doesn't "invalidate his candidacy." He is just a user with a free warning and alot of posts.

Meh, I read through his posts again, I am still against.

[Søren]

Well, to that I would say two thing Val, first, Draks post should not matter at all. I don't care if Drak is insulting blacks, gay, you, and your mother, that doesn't mean you are allowed to flame.

It doesn't mean you are allowed to flame; it does mean that the punishment should be reduced though.

For instance, in most countries with a fair judicial system lesser penalties will be given if the defense proves that the person was acting under extreme provacation (i.e. provacation in which a person considered reasonable by the court may have acted in a similar manner). An example of this would be a murder charge being reduced to voluntary manslaughter. (which is still more serious than voluntary...but even so...)

We should apply similar principles here.

[imb39]

This is not the forum for discussing the merits of a warning etc. We have an appeals procedure and Shaun is happy with tGS' decision.

Moderating is not a science as most of us know - we apply different values depending upon our viewpoints. There is nothing wrong in that, it is human nature.

[Søren]

This is not the forum for discussing the merits of a warning etc.

Actually it is. The CDeC must be free to fully discuss any part of a prospective candidates history.

[imb39]

I phrased it poorly; I meant that the CdC should not be deciding as to whether a warning was justified or not - we have an appeals procedure for that - but whether the said usernote is sufficient to block this process. Otherwise we are entering a murky world where moderation is falling under the sway of the Curia, something that cannot be allowed.

It's a toughie, I'll concede but warnings etc will remain but what the CDC does in response to them is upto the CDC (be it a Civ vote or a referral about a civ's behaviour).

[Søren]

I phrased it poorly; I meant that the CdC should not be deciding as to whether a warning was justified or not - we have an appeals procedure for that - but whether the said usernote is sufficient to block this process. Otherwise we are entering a murky world where moderation is falling under the sway of the Curia, something that cannot be allowed.

It's a toughie, I'll concede but warnings etc will remain but what the CDC does in response to them is upto the CDC (be it a Civ vote or a referral about a civ's behaviour).

I completly understand the staff's general concerns over this. However, I think that in this instance it might be being taken a little too far in regard to what the CDeC is not allowed to do.

You see, it's imperative to whether the CDeC can function or not that they be allowed to discuss the merits of candidates user note history. This is not because it is in their juristiction - the staff are under no obligation to even listen to them about whether the user note should be repealed or not. However, it's not always a matter of repealing -- but rather evaluating how important the warning is; and consequently deciding whether it should affect the candidates chance of civitateship.

Actually, I think the staff would agree with this anyway -- I'm sure that you yourself would be the first to agree that warnings are all individual, of different merits, and cannot be taken just as a blanket warning description.

I'm sure that the CDeC would be willing to co-operate with the staff's views on this matter, though. :original:

[Tom Paine]

Val, my own opinion is that the CdeC has every right to discuss the relevance of a usernote; and that involves in some part whether it was justified. But when it starts questioning the nature of the usernote, not the relevance of it, that's another matter.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

He has substantially improved. Voted yes for seeing him make a great VV contribution especially.

[imb39]

Yes from me.

[Siblesz]

Shaun doesn't offer much. No.

[Tom Paine]

Yes from me, too. One usernote doth not unmake his merit.

On another note... its now a Caution.

[Spiff]

Everyone makes mistakes i suppose, especialy when dealing with people like Drak, i hope he doesnt make it a habbit though. Voted yes

I think its warn worthy though, Shaun has been here for a while and should have known better than that really.

[Kagemusha]

The sheer amount of posts doesnt change my opinion that i dont see him as a good poster.Nope from me.