1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Senate Floor / Dgame Archive / Impeachment of TORARADICAL / Latest Posts

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:51:12 GMT

I think you're right LC.

It is a shame, but it has meant that I have started the wheels in motion to replace Tor here:

[url]http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2240316-93-1.aspx[/url]

The senate needs to vote on this.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Locus Coeruleus — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:22:47 GMT

I really don't think Tora will be coming back to here Dave... but if there is official protocol to follow... by all means, don't take my word for it.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:38:00 GMT

Does anyone wish to wait longer for Tor to respond? It's been almost 3 days...

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Mr. G — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:17:48 GMT

I will not make any decisions or interpretations while the Court is at half-power.

Also realize that I was the one who re-opened the thread because I disagreed with what TORA was doing (maybe for non-legal reasons, but still).

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:23:19 GMT

I think that a good way to resolve this for future matters would be for the senate to set up an "article of law" to address the matter of unofficial nomination threads. Since it's not addressed in the constitution, this would seem to be the perfect time to use the legislative powers to allow for or disallow for the creation of such threads. Either that or it would be a good time for the court to make a ruling on such threads, stating their reasons for their interpretations.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:14:24 GMT

Wow, that's an excellent drawing, Jerm :) :cool:

I'm going to have to agree with Jerm's points here, Tor went about the whole thing the wrong way.

I don't think the supreme court should be locking down unofficial discussion threads. The only time this would be acceptable would be if someone was trying to usurp an official election.

I would like to counter this. I am willing to see change, as long as the change has good reason and is justified. A lot of the early suggested changes were proposed in a vague manner which only led to a lot of questioning. You also have to realise that the members who have been with the game from the start are going to be a bit wary of newcomers until they have settled into the game a bit.

If there is a good reason for a change then it would be worthy to hold a vote.

You seem to forget that the power of the Supreme Court is to uphold the constitution by ensuring the senate laws are not unconstitutional.

Let me quote maniacalmonkey, from here: [url]http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2237184-90-1.aspx[/url]

[quote][b]maniacalmonkey[/b][hr]I suppose it really boils down to how we want to run things. The Constitution only says what needs to be done, not how it is to be done. The "how" can be filled in in several ways.

Right now we have Supreme Court decisions on several issues of "how", which is essentially just the Court - as arbitrators on the Consitution - saying "if you do it this way, you won't violate the Constitution". Other offices like the Presidency and the Senate establish their own "how" on the items under their responsibility, simply by doing things in a certain way. Again, the Court is only an arbitrator here. For example, there are no real guidelines as to what should be in an executive report: The President writes these up as he pleases, and the Court woud only step in if it feels the Constitution is being violated.

The Senate, however, has the power to cement all sorts of things in Articles of Law. As long as the Constitution isn't violated in the process, the Senate can therefore determine how things should be done by any office. Continuing our example, the Senate could pass a law stipulating the minimal requirements for an executive report.*

The choice, then, is really up to the Senate - to what degree do you want to regulate the way things are done in the government? The Senate can choose to let elected officials do things in their own way, relying on the Court to step in should anything go awry, or it can establish Laws to regulate these issues.

[/quote]

The way I see it is that Tor will be officially "absent" if he does not properly respond to the matters in this thread soon, regardless of whether he has logged in to 1BC or not. My goal is to ensure that all members of the government should be accountable for their decisions. If he cannot be held accountable, then I feel we will need to replace him.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:58:27 GMT

[quote]Thats brilliant. i am humbled. truely. did you draw that. its really good. i have no artistic ability myself and feel kind of embarresd now.[/quote]

[quote]Wow, that *is* good jerm. The pen is mightier than the sword... [/quote]

Well, I must confess, I make my living doing artwork (though many wouldn't call it true art, can't say I blame them) so I do have some training in the area. Thanks for the compliments though. An artists ego is neverending :P

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Zigeuner — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:49:31 GMT

Wow, that *is* good jerm. The pen is mightier than the sword... :D

G, you missed [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2239413-78-1.aspx]the most recent exchange concerning your law.[/url] There are still some questions that remain to be answered... by you! :)

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:47:46 GMT

[quote]I'm going to be frank with you guys. Re-opening the thread was merely a gesture to the Senate. TORA was well within his bounds as a Supreme Court Justice to close this thread, as it was unofficial and came before any indication from the Courts that the Princeps Campaign season was open.[/quote]

IMPEACH JUDGE G!!!!.... just kidding. :w00t:

If he hadn't used Article IV.6.-(3) as justification, I'd agree you could come to that conclusion. Let's review once again what that is:

[quote]6. The Supreme Court may, by [b]vote of simple majority[/b]:
.
.
- [b]Inflict upon individual member of the People such punishments[/b] as are necessary and proper for proven infractions against the Articles of Constitution or the Articles of Law, up to and including withdrawal of privileges granted by these Articles of Constitution.[/quote]

If he had just said, look, let's not start this until princeps elections are under way so I'm going to close this thread until such time, that would have been fine, and while I'm sure Bis would have protested, there would not be grounds for impeachment. Instead he specifically stated that closing the thread was a punishment, not for starting the thread, but for speaking in a negative way against the court. And he did so without getting a majority vote from the court, and while you may have been absent, you had not been disbanded from office so therefore, he needed your vote to inflict such "punishment." What do you disagree with in the above paragraph?

Let me state my position again, which I think is similar to the senator I serve as deputy under, Comedy Dave. I don't think TORA should be impeached, even though, I believe, there is a case for his impeachment. If he will come back (been gone for a couple days it seems), I'd be fine with allowing him to do his duties but he should be forewarned of stunts like these in the future. I do not believe he meant to go against the constitution, but once called on it, he should have just swallowed his pride and reopened the thread with a small apology. If he doesn't come back, well, I guess we'll need another SC judge.

[quote]On a more personal note, I must say that this whole Community is slightly resistant to change and semi-radicalism. Not everyone thinks that the current set-up is "good" for everyone. I was of the opinion that the Senate should (and already is) the most powerful entity of the Government. Through my musings on the Princeps and Vice Presidency I had thought I had found a way to give that particular position even more power by allowing him the tie-breaking vote in any situation. Perhaps that was a bad idea, but it would certainly make the position desirable to someone who would be interested in having a lot of responsibility. Perhaps.[/quote]

I understand your point and actually several of your suggestions are now the law of the land... er uh, boards. I believe that this system is very flawed as well. That said, if someone puts forth an idea that I don't think will make it better, I'm not going to support it. Perhaps we could have a thread where we discuss changes that may need to be made and decide upon ammendments after discussion.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Bismarck2990 — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:24:56 GMT

[QUOTE]Re-opening the thread was merely a gesture to the Senate. TORA was well within his bounds as a Supreme Court Justice to close this thread, as it was unofficial and came before any indication from the Courts that the Princeps Campaign season was open.[/QUOTE]

Here's where we disagree.

Nowhere is it indicated that the Supreme Court can control unofficial open discussion regarding the Princep, as it only holds power to run the poll that actually elects the Princep. Arguing that TORA was within his bounds, is basically saying the Supreme Court can regulate unofficial discussion and open such only on its own terms. Being the person I am, when someone else attempts to control my conversations/postings, I'm inclined to react in the way I have.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Mr. G — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:56:12 GMT

I'm going to be frank with you guys. Re-opening the thread was merely a gesture to the Senate. TORA was well within his bounds as a Supreme Court Justice to close this thread, as it was unofficial and came before any indication from the Courts that the Princeps Campaign season was open.

On a more personal note, I must say that this whole Community is slightly resistant to change and semi-radicalism. Not everyone thinks that the current set-up is "good" for everyone. I was of the opinion that the Senate should (and already is) the most powerful entity of the Government. Through my musings on the Princeps and Vice Presidency I had thought I had found a way to give that particular position even more power by allowing him the tie-breaking vote in any situation. Perhaps that was a bad idea, but it would certainly make the position desirable to someone who would be interested in having a lot of responsibility. Perhaps.

I'll have more to say later, don't you worry. I'm not leaving the bench until at least the next elections.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

swordinthestorm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:27:55 GMT

Thats brilliant. i am humbled. truely. did you draw that. its really good. i have no artistic ability myself and feel kind of embarresd now.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:23:18 GMT

Apology accepted.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v666/jeranim8/toratoon.jpg[/IMG]

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

swordinthestorm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:58:13 GMT

Sorry jerm. i didnt mean to offend you, it is intended as some light hearted political satire, something which i felt was missing from the whole process. May i add i thought you'd like it seeing as your comment inspired me

[quote][b]jerm (7/19/2007)[/b][hr]If the impeachment story line isn't funny, I don't know what is! :P[/quote]

really i didnt mean to offend any off you. i really didnt see the grave implications. But i had an hour to kill in work and only really saw the humour behind it. As for tora giving me candy, that really isnt the case i just thought to try and lighten the mood, not darken it. (plus you try and get a face from Tora's avatar theres like 10 of then on there)

I intend to do more satire seeing as its absent but i shall not bring white hoods into it again. Although some could claim that suppressing the press is suppressing the people. Democracy?

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:50:57 GMT

At least he got Psweet's size correct :P

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Mr. G — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:38:23 GMT

I think it's funny, and I'm just wondering why I wasn't included somewhere. :P

Hats off to swordsy for the political cartoon! Maybe he could work for the Bismarckian Times or something ;)

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Bismarck2990 — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:19:51 GMT

Did TORA give you candy or something, sword? From the looks of it, we're lynching in the cartoon. You're pretty rational If I do say so myself. :satisfied: :rolleyes:

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

psweetman1590 — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:07:42 GMT

Taking things a bit too seriously, aren't we, Jerm?

Assuming it's all in jest, I like it. :)

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:51:41 GMT

Yeah, an offensive picture. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know how inflamatory it is to be portrayed as being in white robes with hoods in the U.S. :unsure:

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:22:51 GMT

That's an interesting picture... :)

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

swordinthestorm — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:48:25 GMT

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:06:39 GMT

Well I'm willing to give Tor another 24 hours to respond in this thread, as by then he will have had over 3 days to respond.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Mr. G — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:06:39 GMT

I feel bad that I wasn't the one who suggested what Dave said... :(

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:03:06 GMT

Well technically the Senate may dismiss a Justice by quorum vote, so we need to hear the arguments for/against such a proposal, and then hold the vote.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

swordinthestorm — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:53:10 GMT

I would like to put my self forward as an advocate for tora, should he not be present to represent himself, if any impeachment proceedings be comenced.

this is so, should he not be present himself, the court may hear at least some form of counter argument. i am sorry if this seems contary to my house's stance on the matter but i feel in any democracy everybody has the right to representation.

i shall state that if tora wishes to represent himself without any aid i will respect those wishes and not lend any aid. I just want him to know that there is this option.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Mr. G — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:02:53 GMT

If the eventual Princeps would like to file suit against TORARADICAL in the Courts for Impeachment, then I would be willing to listen to arguments from both sides and make a decision.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

swordinthestorm — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:58:10 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (7/18/2007)[/b][hr][quote]impeachment "farce"[/quote]

Curious why you feel it's a "farce" when he clearly commited an act which was unconstitutional. Whether it should be pursued is a valid question but I don't see how it's a farce.[/quote]

its a farce because

1)its the princeps place to call a vote for a majority decision from the senate, seeing as the supreme court must organise a princep election (not nomination) you cant impeach tora till this is done.

2) without tora's cooperation you wont get your princep election, so threatening him with impeachment wont encourage him to call one thus holding up the whole game.

[quote][quote]Although i must point out that with one Supreme Court Judge who by a "Simple Majority" can nullify any decision by the senate any such impeachment will be doomed to failure.[/quote]

Well this is not true because he'd need Judge Mr. G to also vote in favor to gain the "simple majority" required to nullify, unless I'm missing something. [/quote]

3) Mr G is absent. this causes rise to a possible new amendment, that each SC have a deputy so we are not left with this nonsense again.

[quote][quote]So let us leave this nonsense behind us seeing as it only hinders the celtic people's cause and god given right to world domination. Or the Defence of freedom, whatever they call it these days.[/quote]

I think I agree. That said, why does Tora get off scott free on this? Even Bismarck has stated that he would drop this if Tora would just reopen the thread. What he did was clearly unconstitutional. If he just didn't realize this was so, he has clearly been shown why it was now and should just reopen the thread. It's pretty simple.[/quote]

He shouldnt get off scot free but at the moment you've backed time into a corner and now the balls in his court. Unless you want to suggest a slight infringement of the constitution or mr g returns you all must rely on tora to call a princep election.

[quote]Either answer this point or just reopen the flippin thread. This all could be over if he just did so. Swallow your pride man![/quote]

Now that the senate is elected the thread tora deamed unconsitutional is now no longer thus and should be reopened or another thread along similar lines should be opened. And lets leave all this behind before everybody gets pi**ed off and the game is F****d

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:35:05 GMT

[quote]impeachment "farce"[/quote]

Curious why you feel it's a "farce" when he clearly commited an act which was unconstitutional. Whether it should be pursued is a valid question but I don't see how it's a farce.

[quote]Although i must point out that with one Supreme Court Judge who by a "Simple Majority" can nullify any decision by the senate any such impeachment will be doomed to failure.[/quote]

Well this is not true because he'd need Judge Mr. G to also vote in favor to gain the "simple majority" required to nullify, unless I'm missing something.

[quote]So let us leave this nonsense behind us seeing as it only hinders the celtic people's cause and god given right to world domination. Or the Defence of freedom, whatever they call it these days.[/quote]

[quote]I would like Tor to post in this thread and calmly respond to Jerms points/questions, all of which are valid points of discussion. I have yet to hear any valid justification on Tor's part, so I will PM him to ensure he is aware of this request.[/quote]

I agree ;). Actually just this point would suffice:

[quote]You took an action which required the majority vote of the supreme court without such majority. This is the most damning bit of evidence and if nothing else is worthy of impeachment, this would be. If you truely valued the authority of the constitution, you would reopen the thread until Mr. G votes in favor of said punishment. Otherwise, there certainly is grounds for impeachment against you.[/quote]

Either answer this point or just reopen the flippin thread. This all could be over if he just did so. Swallow your pride man!

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

swordinthestorm — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:38:29 GMT

I have a solution. Tor organise a Princep nomination thread or reopen the overly disputed thread. Once nominations are done organise a princep election.

Once the Princep is done then he can decide weather to pursue this impeachment "farce" or to get down to business as is his constitutional right to call.

Although i must point out that with one Supreme Court Judge who by a "Simple Majority" can nullify any decision by the senate any such impeachment will be doomed to failure.

So let us leave this nonsense behind us seeing as it only hinders the celtic people's cause and god given right to world domination. Or the Defence of freedom, whatever they call it these days.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:06:29 GMT

[quote]Isn't that exactly what I did do, CD? [/quote]

Almost, but I don't think you would have said the following to other members of the board:

[quote]And when was this thread declared to be such? Learn to read posts before making such claims.[/quote]

I appreciate this is only a small comment, but there was no indication that you were joking about the "learn to read" comment.

In the same token, there is no indication whether Tor was joking or not in his early posts either.

I think Rabi said long ago that we need to be careful with what we write, as it can easily be taken the wrong way, given that plaintext does not show the tone of the comment.

I would like Tor to post in this thread and calmly respond to Jerms points/questions, all of which are valid points of discussion. I have yet to hear any valid justification on Tor's part, so I will PM him to ensure he is aware of this request.

This game is meant to be fun, not a struggle, which is what I feel it has been the last few days.

All I want to do is get on with the game, as I'm sure most of you do too... :)

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Zigeuner — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:18:00 GMT

Ah, such eloquence, such passion! If only the turn reports looked like this...

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:27:37 GMT

[QUOTE]I can also appreciate that if (say) I was the DGame Justice who had said the thread was unconstititional and quoted part of the constitution, I don't think you would have taken the same tone in response. You probably would have just told me not to be silly and explained why, rather than escalate the confrontation.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that exactly what I did do, CD? The escalation began when I was met with demands to apologize and insulted under threat of the thread being locked. All that, despite the fact I had attempted to explain, in a civil tone, how he was being 'silly' in not one, but two posts (as did psweet as well). It all boils down to what Jerm mentioned, he went rouge and closed the thread (as punishment) which required the whole body of the court to be in agreement.

However, the real reason why I'm stubborn to remove this call...

The exact reaon why this thread still stands, is not that I have some personal grudge. It's the fact that despite not one person agreeing with his actions... he's chosen to ignore questions from his fellow players peratining to the act, blame others for his actions, and continue to blatantly abuse his power by not reopening the thread in question. It's been revealed to him that his actions are unconsitutional by his fellow players and he simply doesn't care and refuses to accept it.

That's why this impeachment thread is still here and had there been any indication that he actually cared that the entire player base involved in this thread was against what he did... this would've been withdrawn as of yesterday.

It's the principal of that fact that leaves me stubborn to remove this call for impeachment. I mean, we tell him we don't like what he's done and he assumes some martyr role claiming he's protecting the consitution and we're all 'heedlesly stepping upon it'. That 'we've shown how we don't want to better this place,' and other attempts such as insulting the community for not being able to see the light that he apparently can only see. Oh no, not that we didn't like what he did, it's the power hungry Senate not wanting to share power. What?

Those above mentioned observations from this thread are why I'm stubborn to remove this call for impeachment. I honeslty feel it's in no way healthy, for us to have a judge who simply doesn't care what his fellow players think.

In the end, this is a game. But damn if that behavior isn't considered annoying despite that. :pinch:

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:38:06 GMT

The major thing that he has done which is impeachable is the following:

[quote]Has ignored the two judge system and instilled punishment despite it requiring majority vote.[/quote]

Sure it's true that the other things I find annoying and troubling but not worthy of impeachment. That said, just because he can be impeached doesn't mean he should be impeached. That however is not my call so I'll stay out of it. Personally I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he will admit that he didn't realize that part of the constitution and at least reopens the thread. Still, Biz, I think this is a losing battle and one you should probably drop. If the princep doesn't wish to bring this to a vote, all that energy has gone to waste. Let's just make sure we get a judge in there that can act as a ballancing factor against him and call it good (doesn't have to be me). While it may not have been past events which gave justification for past actions on both accounts, I do believe that they had an effect of fueling the flames and is probably the reason neither of you want to back down.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:33:34 GMT

Feel free to pick me up on any of these points here, this is just my opinion...

[quote]If we're going to have people argue that past issues fueled this impeachment... then why am I not the only one who's stated what he's done is impeachable? [/quote]

I wasn't saying past issues fuelled the impeachment. I'm saying that past issues have fuelled the tension between the two of you, and caused things to escalate so quickly.

I can fully appreciate that if (say) it was me who had started that nomination thread, then I don't believe Tor would have reacted the same way, since he does not have any history with me. Although it may have well ended up in a big debate about what was constitutional and what was not...

I can also appreciate that if (say) I was the DGame Justice who had said the thread was unconstititional and quoted part of the constitution, I don't think you would have taken the same tone in response. You probably would have just told me not to be silly and explained why, rather than escalate the confrontation.

I suppose what I'm saying is I'm trying to be fair here and trying to play devil's advocate to both sides of the argument. I don't believe any of this bad blood is good for anyone, and escalation to asking for impeachment has just flared a number of underlying tensions.

As potential Princep, I wish to continue to defend against any unwarranted or unjustified changes to the power(s) of the office(s), as I hope my posts have shown so far. I also have concerns that the lack of a dedicated second justice may be driving Tor to take things into his own hands for expediency, or for personal reasons (I'm sorry Tor but I think that may be the case).

Biz, you have been a great ally in the Senate, and I would hate to see all of this arguing detract from your work so far in the game. I don't believe you would have reacted in the same way if it was anyone else but Tor.

So in conclusion, rather than pointing fingers or more arguing, I suppose it boils down to what the community wants. Do we want the Senate to potentially remove both Justices and re-hold elections for the 2 spots? Or do we want to just remove Mr G and give Tor a chance to work co-operatively with a new justice.

Tor - I would like to give you one more chance, in the name of fairness, but you will have to start co-operating a bit more with us and actualy giving direct answers to questions, or my concerns could grow to a level where I'll be agreeing with the rest of these guys.

Finally, I feel this is completely distracting us from the actual process of playing the game and discussing strategy, so I would suggest that we make a decision on this as soon as we have an elected Princep.

And please, let's keep this civil (or we'll have to move this to P+R... :P)

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:29:22 GMT

If we're going to have people argue that past issues fueled this impeachment... then why am I not the only one who's stated what he's done is impeachable? If this was anything of the sort, do you really believe this wouldn't have been shot down from the start? This was abuse of power and the constitution gives me the right to call for this. I'll also list what is actually brought up in this thread since I feel we're losing sight because of the above claim:

Has demanded apologies under threat of my thread being closed.
Has closed said thread after apologies were not made.
Has been insulting not only in the nomination thread but this one as well.
Has ignored the two judge system and instilled punishment despite it requiring majority vote.
Has threatened to 'harshen' said punishment for the creation of this impeachment thread.
Has stated punishment was given because I questioned the court's powers. Which itself is abuse of power.
Has currently refused to give reason for his actions despite direct questions from other players besides myself.
Has made false accusations that have been proven false.
Has misused the Consitution for his own agenda against the quote, "Powerhungry Senate".

Could anyone honestly say that's healthy? Also, if this really is motivated by outside factors as claimed... what have I done to directly instigate the above? In my mind, that's more reason to just remove that kind of pessimistic behavior and allow other's to serve in the court. That's idiotic, self destructive behaviour if it is and obviously I'm not alone in thinking that. Past issues don't justify unprovoked behavior like this.

TORA's position could be filled just as easily as Mr. G's if impeached. As said above, there are people who have made it known they're willing to serve as judge. Not to mention, all of the volunteers seem to have been inspired directly because of the fact TORA exhibits abusive behavior in this position.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Comedy Dave — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:56:52 GMT

I have to agree with Mongoose that it's more the arguments that are the cause for concern, rather than the actual closing of the thread.

I did not feel the informal nomination thread was unconstitutional either, and the argument that ensued was no doubt from past events outside of 1BC.

Let's try and get on with the game shall we? If you guys really cannot get along then we (the mods) may need to consider what action to take.

</mod hat>

Here's what I see needs to happen to get things going

1.) Final senate election will finish tomorrow, so we can have a new senate and elect a princep (probably me, from the sound of it)

2.) Princep to hold a senate vote on Dismissal of Mr G due to absence. I think most here will agree we need a 2nd dedicated justice.

3.) New Judge to be elected, there are a couple of potential candidates who have informally stated they'll run.

4.) Hopefully new judge will help reduce the tension evident from this thread.

5.) Psweet, if you get elected to Senate, but want to stand down, at least wait until we have the princep in place so the senate can function with LC as a stand-in until a new senator can be official voted in.

Does that sound ok?!?!

Tor - I do not think the senate has been "Power hungry". In fact I feel I have been very willing to listen to suggestions. What I haven't had is any reasoning or real justification for a lot of the changes.

But that's for another thread.... ;)

</senator hat>

Now i need to get back to work... :P

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:45:12 GMT

We shouldn't need another election. Wouldn't the runner up win?

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

mongoose201 — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:00:01 GMT

For the record, I hadn't really though that much about the closing of the thread. That seemed like the least of the issues at hand.

I [i]was[/i] more concerned about the continuation of hostilities about issues that don't mean a lot in the great scheme of the game. I don't think the thread was unconstitutional and I also think talks of impeachment because the thread was closed is a little hard to digest. Even if you are trying to argue that you have other reasons, the timing is damning in this case.

In any case, it looks like we may need another election for the open senate seat with psweet's withdrawl, so why don't we forget this horsecrap and get on with the playing of the game, eh?

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

jerm — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:51:02 GMT

[quote]Adding nothing of relevance to the debate ... did anyone else, besides me, see this, or something akin to it, coming? [/quote]

Well I had hoped :D. Now we have something to talk about :w00t:.

RE: Impeachment of TORARADICAL

Tosk — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:44:47 GMT

Adding nothing of relevance to the debate ... did anyone else, besides me, see this, or something akin to it, coming? ;)