The initial Charges are based on a nebulous concept that my decision was based on desire to remove Pike's Curatorship. This is a false premise and the reality here was whether or not other behavior unbecoming a citizen should be factored into the decision and whether or not the harshness of Pike's staff removal was to be factored in. Through my decision making process and in discussing the concept with others I came to two decisions on this.
Since the referral is about unbecoming behavior in order to judge the appropriateness of it I needed to decide if I found Pike's behavior unbecoming. I used several metrics to discuss this and received some response in the threads in question but most of the discussion occurred over steam.
Firstly, Pike's status as a staff member
did subject him to a higher standard of examination. People in power inevitably can make the same mistakes as those without and the outcomes and damages of those mistakes are invariably worse due to their power. I felt that Pike's comments in several threads were unbecoming to the extreme of a curator who I felt should remain impartial and stick to fact based statements if any. While I think it's fine for the curator to have a vote and think everyone should it's telling to me when there's post after post after post trying to push a point not just on me but on every potential person reading the thread.
Secondly, even if I were to cut out Pike's status as an officer I found his behavior still lacking, it's dismissive and attacking and then feins ignorance when cornered. This is a similar cycle of responses that many have encountered and it's not just me. Furthermore Pike regularly brags about his status, his history, his laurels as justification that his opinion is gospel. This is dangerous for a citizen but when I combine it with the first metric it's abhorent.
Thirdly, i was worried that a censure had the unintentional effect of stripping curatorship from someone, while I consider the behavior unbecoming in the extreme I'm not sure that it rises to the level of a VoNC although I was seriously considering it when the referral came up. Hitai's guidance however led me to believe that I should base this decision not on the impact of it but rather on the merits of the decision itself which is what I did.
The last charge they make is that another post (
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15672767) is irrelevant and off-topic. I think that's entirely in the eye of the beholder. I do believe that in order to judge the appropriateness of the decision I had to judge the merits of the claims. I found no reason to build an imaginary wall between considerations when the decision was in regards to someone's behavior which can both include a single action or a preponderance of such actions. I even asked others for their input on it.
I hesitate to look at something from the perspective of an single instance but I also find the idea that a charger must exhaustively comb through every instance to be ridiculous. The purpose of a discussion is that more info which may be considered relevant can be brought to bear and I see no good reason to consider the posts I made irrelevant other than the flavor of preference. In which case, I can appreciate that they did not like my flavor but I do not consider it unbecoming of a citizen.
[2018-XXVI] [Citizen Referral] Elfdude
Originally Posted by Elfdude
behavior for a citizen but censure is a bit much just for that. I think the curator should issue a friendly reminder to the curia at large that opposition in a proposal is not personal and revenge voting is a scummy thing to do.
